A Review of the Age of Reason (Part 7): The Bible (1)

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

Having covered some of Thomas Paine's painful theological points that he wrote in mainly the first section of his book, we now arrive at the main thesis of The Age of Reason, which is that the Bible is full of contradictions and therefore cannot be the Word of God. If the Bible were full of contradictions, Paine would certainly have a case, but the flaws that he sets forth are only alleged, not real. He made a big fuss, for example, about the two lists of different names regarding the lineage of Jesus. Apparently, he did no research whatsoever on the subject21010not to mention very much reasoning.

He is analogous to the zealous prosecutor who charges a man because his fingerprints are on the gun used to shoot the victim. Amazingly, his fingerprints are not found anywhere else in the house. So, the suspect wiped his fingerprints off of everything at the crime scene except the murder weapon. Isn't that a bit of strategic oversight on his part? And how fortunate for the prosecutor! Likewise, Paine implies that "bishops" or some group of individuals tampered with the Word in later centuries after its original composition.

When the Church Mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testament are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, or dressed them up (20-21).

So, let's see if we understand this scenario. Men arbitrarily put in and took out what they wanted to have in the Bible. They decided to call it the Word of God but were too stupid to notice two different sets of names in Jesus' genealogies! How lucky that a genius like Paine came along to notice it!

Did he really think he is the first person to understand that the names are different? Most people have realized that the one in Matthew was Joseph's forebears, and the one in Luke is that of Mary. Did Paine even seek a solution to the alleged "dilemma," or did he simply consider it superficially? He reads the Bible in order to find discrepancies. Those who read it to see what it says marvel at the consistency and the way totally unrelated verses of Scripture validate each other. One often finds passages in other parts of the Bible that comment on and explain a certain event.

In Genesis 4:1-5, for example, we find that God did not respect Cain and his offering. No reason is given for the reason for that rejection. But elsewhere God comments on the situation (Rom. 10:17; Heb. 11:4; 12:25). By the time the reader puts all of those passages together, he can formulate a conclusion as to the reason God did not accept Cain's offering. It was not what God had asked for, and it did not involve the shedding of blood. Paine would never connect these verses because he only reads for the purpose of criticism. And he brings his biases to the Book when he opens its pages.

He makes assertions concerning Jesus and the Bible that have no foundation whatsoever. He writes, for example, that it is not "improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans" (15). From what texts does this notion originate? Jesus, Who refused to be king and lead the Jews against the Romans when His countrymen would gladly have followed Him (John 6:15), never had such a plan in mind. Peter was ready to fight, but Jesus told him to put away his sword, adding that they who live by the sword perish by the sword (Matt. 26:52). None of Jesus' teachings were about rebellion against Rome; they pertained to being spiritually-minded citizens in the spiritual kingdom that He came to establish.

Another statement that Paine makes concerning Jesus is that, from reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, "the whole time of his being a preacher was not more than eighteen months" (30). The reader may check any reliable source (Bible dictionary, commentary, etc.), and he will see that virtually everyone believes that Jesus preached about three years. For one thing, John mentions three specific Passovers (2:13, 23; 6:4; and 11:55-12:1). These verses show that He labored at least two years. Where the idea of eighteen months came from is anybody's guess.

Another baseless notion that Paine advances about Jesus is that it "does not appear that he had any school education, and the probability is, that he could not write, for his parents were extremely poor, as appears from their not being able to pay for a bed when he was born" (30). One could not hope to find more damaging statements to take away the credibility of the critic. First of all, he is evidently unaware of the fact that Jesus wrote upon the ground with His finger (John 8:6, 8). The Greek word translated "write" does not mean "doodle"; it is the word grapho, and it means "to write." For centuries, commentators have speculated WHAT Jesus wrote; no one has ever doubted THAT He wrote. But even more important is this question: "Had Paine never read that Jesus was in the beginning with God and that He is the Word (John 1:1-3)?" How is it possible to be the Word and not know how to write? Jesus was with the Father when all the languages of the world were created at Babel! Paine has ventured into the realm of the absurd21010a place he seems to have visited often.

Second, could the Lord's parents not afford a room when He was born? Although the Bible certainly does not claim that Jesus' parents were wealthy, neither does it say that He was born in a manger because of their extreme poverty. Is this an assumption that Paine makes? All that the text tells us is: "And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn" (Luke 2:7). Paine should have noticed this verse, since it precedes chapter 3, which contains the genealogy he took such delight in publishing.

Paine's Qualifications as a Bible Expert

Actually, he does not present any qualifications that would impress the reader. His father was a Quaker, and his mother was Anglican. His formal education was not extensive, which is not to be held against him. He proved himself a capable writer with Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Crisis papers. But he does not appear to have any credentials in the realm of religion, either21010not that a degree would have made his criticism more credible. But the reader has the right to ask, in the face of his numerous negative comments concerning the Scriptures, "How much did he really know about the Bible?" He apparently had no formal religious training. How many times did he read it? Did he have regular study habits at some time in his life?

We do not know any of these things because he never disclosed the source of his knowledge. We do not know that he ever read the Bible through even one time, although he does have some knowledge of its contents. We do know that he relied considerably upon the traditions of the time; where else could he have gotten the notion that Adam and Eve ate an apple as the forbidden fruit? Following are some of the statements that he made in that regard. He begins by saying that Satan, in the form of a serpent or snake,

persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind (16).

0damned all mankind by the eating of an apple0. 0because they say that Eve in her longing had eaten an apple (17).

0was passed upon Adam, in case he eat of the apple0 (32).

0the strange story of Eve210and the snake and the apple0 (57).

0from what is called the Mosaic account of the Creation, the story of Eve and the apple, and the counterpart of that story, the death of the Son of God0 (67).

From whence, then, could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his protection [Paine thought there was life on other planets, GWS], should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in our world, because, they say, one man and one woman had eaten an apple? And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer (77)?

Paine seems to have no doubt that Adam and Eve ate an apple21010even though the Bible says no such thing. They were forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:3). This was not an arbitrary command about eating a common piece of fruit. God created the first pair as innocent as young children who are born into this world. He gave them a command not to eat of the tree that would supply them the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed, thus bringing God's wrath upon them.

However, all mankind was not damned as a result of that action on their part (despite what Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin thought and taught on the subject). Children are not born with that knowledge, either, but they begin to understand it as they grow. Each person is condemned because of his own sins, not those of Adam and Eve (Ezek. 18:20). Jesus is the counterpart to what happened in the Garden. He, although innocent of any wrongdoing, offered Himself up for the sins of the first couple, as well as everyone else's sins. All have sinned, but all may also be saved (Rom. 6:23).

The Assassination of Infants

Before going through the Old Testament book by book, Paine explains the reason why he cannot accept the Bible as a revelation from God, period.

There are matters in that book, said to be done by the express command of God, that are as shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice as anything done by Robespierre0or by any other assassin in modern times. When we read in the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, etc., that they (the Israelites) came by stealth upon whole nations of people, who, as history itself shows, had given them no offence; that they put all those nations to the sword; that they spared neither age nor infancy; that they utterly destroyed men, women, and children; that they left not a soul to breathe210expressions that are repeated over and over again in those books, and that, too, with exulting ferocity210are we sure that these things are facts? Are we sure that the Creator of man commissioned that the books that tell us so were written by his authority (100-101)?

Several observations are in order on this jaded analysis. First, without a written revelation of God, Paine has no basis for complaining about the "moral justice" of God. Without an objective basis of morality, which must come from God (Who is outside of and above man), there is no way to determine what ought to outrage us morally. All that we are left with is the standards of man. Evidently, Robespierre and his followers did not violate their own standards. Those who took part in the Spanish Inquisition justified their actions, too, although many were appalled. What frequently occurs is that human beings operate under the premise that "might makes right." Man's standards vary from culture to culture and from age to age.

Second, the point concerning the extermination of the Canaanites does not center around whether or not they offended Israel, the crux of the matter is that they offended God. What Paine fails to acknowledge about what he refers to as "assassinations" is that it was a matter of justice. God had held court, so to speak, and had found the Canaanites guilty of immoralities and ungodliness. They were worthy of punishment. God had given them every opportunity to repent, to change their ways, but they had refused. In fact, the Israelites' deliverance from Egypt was put on hold just to grant them ample opportunity to repent. When God gave the land promise to Abraham, he told him that his descendants would be strangers in another land (Egypt) for 400 years where they would be afflicted. Why? They had to wait (suffering in the meantime) because "the iniquity of the Amorites" was not yet complete (Gen. 15:13-16). God was patient with the people of Canaan, but eventually they had to be put to death as punishment for their wickedness. Paine either did not know these facts, or he considered them irrelevant, but he did not mention these circumstances.

Third, God's use of Israel as His instrument of punishment was no different, in terms of results, than bringing the flood on the world of the ungodly. Noah and his family (eight souls) were the only ones inside the ark. All the rest of the world was destroyed210men, women, teenagers, children, and infants. Paine may as well have complained about the flood as the command that God gave in Deuteronomy 7:1-5. The evil of these societies was so ingrained as to affect even the young. Also, any survivors may have eventually posed a threat in terms of either revenge or the re-introduction of various evils into the land. In fact, when Israel failed to annihilate certain cities, the evil persisted and eventually engulfed Israel itself until they needed to be punished.

Fourth, on one occasion God allowed a youth to die before reaching adulthood because in him there was found "something good toward the Lord God of Israel" (1 Kings 14:13). Although he died physically, he was spiritually safe. Had God allowed him to live, it is likely that he would not have overcome the evil influences his father had established in the kingdom. While the death of infants does not appeal to any of us, the fact is that they are spiritually safe210unless one is a Calvinist and thinks they are born depraved (and are therefore lost). The Canaanite culture was actually depraved210so much so that no one growing into adulthood would escape moral pollution and therefore condemnation.

Fifth, the Divine judgment of God against evil cannot compare with the political motivation of Robespierre or others, who were not authorized by God to do what they did. For Communist regimes or someone like Adolph Hitler, the motivation is to have power and control. For various religions (Catholicism and Muhammadism) it is about the exaltation of one religion over all others. All of those seeking religious supremacy through physical violence do so in error. Either it is the wrong religion (one not authorized by God), or they do not understand the correct method of propagation210through preaching the gospel, not wielding the sword.

Israel was a theocracy, and God used them to punish pagan societies. No nation has this kind of relationship with God today. God has Christians in almost every nation, but under this final covenant with all mankind (Christianity), God uses His army to evangelize instead of to kill. He has appointed a day, however (Acts 17:30-31) when all will stand before Him and be judged by the One Who gave His life for every human being on the face of the earth.

The problem with many Bible critics is that they do not have an overall grasp of the time periods under which men lived or the different covenants that God has made with man. If Paine did understand these things, then he purposely slanted what he wrote in order to malign God. He exalts his own thinking above the reasoning of God and assumes that, because he would have done things differently if he ran the universe, therefore the Bible is wrong and cannot be the Word of God. Perhaps he should have tried answering the questions God asked Job before seeking the role of Deity (Job 38).