Now we have left the evidence of fulfilled prophecy behind, and must go on to look at a very different kind of evidence. This will involve making a study of Jesus Christ Himself.
"Ah," you may say, "but this begs the question. How do we know that there ever was such a person? Whats the use of assuming that the gospels tell the truth about Jesus, and then building conclusions on such a shaky foundation?"
Quite so. Very true. And I have no intention of doing any such thing. All I shall assume is that the gospels are either fact, or fiction, or a mixture of the two. (You wont disagree with that, will you?) Then we shall examine the gospels critically to see which of those three alternatives seems most likely. Fair enough?
But before we begin, it is worth noting that even unbelievers generally recognise that the gospels are not pure fiction. One of the most learned of all unbelievers was Sir James Frazer. His classic history of magic and religion, The Golden Bough, was a landmark in twentieth century scholarship. He wrote:
"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth as a great religious and moral teacher [not, you will notice, as the Son of God] who founded Christianity and was crucified at Jerusalem under the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The testimony of the gospels, confirmed by the hostile evidence of Tacitus (Ann. 15,44) and the younger Pliny (Epist. 10,96) appears amply sufficient to establish these facts to the satisfaction of all unprejudiced enquirers. It is only the details of the life and death of Christ that remain, and will probably always remain, shrouded in the mists of uncertainty. The doubts which have been cast upon the historical reality of Jesus are, in my judgment, unworthy of serious attention. Quite apart from the positive evidence of history and tradition, the origin of a great religious and moral reform is inexplicable without the personal existence of a great reformer."1 (The italics are mine.)
About 500 years ago there lived in Italy one of the greatest geniuses of all time, Leonardo da Vinci. Besides painting some of the worlds greatest pictures, he was a research scientist of the first rank. He is often said to have "invented" the aeroplane, the steamship, and the submarine.
Perhaps "invented" is too strong a word, because he never built any such machines. He did, however, first hatch out the ideas that hundreds of years later led to the development of those modern marvels. So we can give him the benefit of the doubt and say that, in a sense, he did invent them.
His inventions were brilliant, but not impossible. All the background knowledge that he needed was to hand. But there were certain things that he did not invent, because in his day they were uninventable. He could not invent a heart-lung machine, because he did not know about the circulation of the blood; more than a century was to elapse before Harvey discovered that. Nor could Leonardo invent an atom bomb, because he regarded matter as solid stuff; until modern scientists discovered that atoms were not solid lumps after all, but hollow spheres peppered with electric particles, the atom bomb was uninventable.
Now the argument I shall put forward in this chapter is this: the Jesus of whom we read in the gospels was, at the time the gospels were written, uninventable. Consequently the Jesus of the gospels must have been a historical character, not a fictional one.
The first thing to note is that nobody wanted a person like the Jesus of the New Testament. (To avoid repetition I shall not keep saying "the Jesus of the New Testament" but simply "Jesus" - while, for the time being, leaving completely open the question whether He was a historical character or a fictitious one.) Paul summed up the situation when he wrote:
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness."2
Nearly all the Jews had no time for Him. They were bigots, completely set in their religious ways. This man turned all their religious ideas upside down. He was nothing like the conquering king of a Messiah that they wanted. No Jew would have wanted to invent such an improbable, unacceptable kind of Messiah.
Nearly all the Gentiles had no use for Him, either. He was altogether unlike the kind of men they admired. Theirs was a cruel, selfish, lustful world. Human life was cheap. They would leave unwanted babies (girls, usually) to die with as little compunction as we drown unwanted kittens.
Their pleasures were mostly immoral ones: watching gladiators fighting to the death, or worshipping at idolatrous temples which were often only glorified brothels. It is hard to imagine any Gentile inventing a Jesus whose teaching was so full of condemnation for the Gentile way of life.
Into this harsh world came Jesus, teaching things that made men marvel. He preached the necessity of unselfish love, love that stopped at nothing, love that led men to lay down their lives rather than use force against others. He preached it, and He set the example Himself. He refused to defend Himself, or even to let His disciples defend Him.3 Instead, He went meekly to a horrible death.
We are not now concerned with the weighty question of whether Christians today should be pacifists. My personal opinion is in favour of Christian pacifism today, but that is beside the point. At the moment we are not concerned with opinions but with facts. The relevant facts are:
It is not surprising that the originator of these unpopular teachings made few converts at first. In the very early days Christianity was a small sect "everywhere spoken against".6 It was an unpopular minority religion.
True, by the fourth century it had grown great. But only because the standards had been lowered, the fine new teaching had been watered down. Yet even despite this watering down, despite the wickedness that has been done in the name of Christ by millions of unworthy professors of Christianity-despite everything, the teaching of Jesus has met the worlds need.
Where men have truly followed the teaching of the gospels, all that is best in the sad story of mankind has followed. Even unbelievers admit that. Here are the words of a famous American who did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, Theodore Parker:
"Consider what a work his [Christ's] words and deeds have wrought in the world. Remember that the greatest minds, the richest hearts, have set no loftier aim, no truer method than his of perfect love to God and man. Shall we be told that such a man never lived - the whole story is a lie! Suppose that Plato and Newton never lived. But who did their wonders, and thought their thought? It takes a Newton to forge a Newton. What man could have fabricated a Jesus?"7
Besides paying tribute to all that the Christian message has done for mankind, Parker takes up the question with which we began: could anyone have invented Jesus? And although he regarded Jesus as a mere man, he answered with a resounding, "No!"
Another famous writer who was a complete unbeliever, John Stuart Mill, backs him up:
"It is of no use to say that Christ as exhibited in the gospels is not historical, and that we know not how much of what is admirable has been superadded by the tradition of his followers. Who among his disciples or among their proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed in the gospels? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee, still less the early Christian writers."8
So far so good. The idea that any lesser men could have "invented" Jesus begins to look unlikely. But the evidence is not yet conclusive. We must go a little further, and study more closely the character of this Jesus.
To save space, we shall only be able to consider the last twenty-four hours of His life. As we do this, it is important that you bear two things in mind:
We enter the gospel story on the evening before He is crucified. He is in an upstairs room with the twelve apostles, where they are about to have supper. He knows that this will be the last meal of His mortal life, and He intends to make it a memorable one. Two passages summarise one aspect of this meal:
" When Jesus knew that His hour was come . . . having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end."9
"And He said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer ... And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." 10
From these two passages, we can deduce:
Any other man would have wanted to forget about the torture that was coming to him tomorrow. But Jesus was prepared to bring it vividly to mind. Although it was so painful to Himself, He knew that this simple ceremony would benefit His disciples for centuries to come. And so He performed it with eager desire.
A further group of verses shows up another aspect of that meal:
" He poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded... So after He had washed their feet, and had taken His garments, and was set down again, He said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one anothers feet. 12
" And as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one to say unto Him, Lord, is it I?"13
One aspect of His character lies right on the surface here. He was an exceedingly humble man. He was willing to do a very tiring and unpleasant job. But why did He do it? Couldn't they all wash their own feet?
He was not the sort of man to show off. Nor was He doing an unnecessary chore just so that He could give them a lecture about helping one another. There was a very good reason for His action, but it takes a careful student of the gospels to discover it.
We learn the reason from another gospel. Soon after supper the disciples found themselves unable to stay awake.14 Evidently they were all utterly weary with overwork and lack of sleep. So the Masters work upon their tired feet was a real and necessary act of loving kindness.
But there is yet another lesson lying under the surface. It lies behind that chorus of astonishment, "Is it I?" which rose up when He said, "One of you shall betray Me."
Obviously they had not the slightest idea who the traitor was. But Jesus knew. John says so, explicitly.15 A few minutes before, Jesus had washed the feet of Judas. And He must have washed the traitors feet with the same loving care that He bestowed upon the other eleven. Otherwise someone would have noticed, and said, "Have you seen how the Master is looking at Judas? I wonder whats wrong."
But nobody noticed any difference-hence that repeated question, "Is it I?"
What superhuman love, if these records really are true and Jesus really did behave like that!
But what superhuman artistry if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were four deceivers, weaving together the most elaborately hidden pen portrait in the history of fiction!
Supper is over. Judas Iscariot has gone off alone to earn his blood money. Jesus and the faithful eleven go out into the darkness of the Garden of Gethsemane. In one part of the garden the disciples drop to the earth exhausted, and sleep.
In another part, Jesus begins His last great struggle against His mortal body.
"He kneeled down, and prayed, saying Father if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And being in an agony He prayed more earnestly, and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."16
This does not read like fiction. No gospel writer would want to invent an incident like that. Inventors of propaganda might have told a tale about Jesus facing death with unruffled calm. But the gospel writers were not inventors of propaganda. They record how the Son of God admitted that one side of Him would have liked to escape crucifixion. They portray Him as fighting a terrific battle to overcome His human desire-a battle so great that He was in agony, while the sweat poured off Him like blood.
How easily this story could have been (yes, and has been) misinterpreted by the immature as something unworthy of the Son of God. But the apostles wrote it just the same. They wrote with the candour of men who have nothing to hide, who are only concerned to record the plain, unvarnished facts.
No sooner has Jesus won His battle than lights appear, coming through the olive trees towards His little band. They hear the clink of steel, and the tramp of many men. Unless something is done quickly there will be twelve arrests instead of one, and eleven extra crosses on Calvary tomorrow.
The next act of Jesus always reminds me of Captain Oates of the Antarctic, who said goodbye to his friends and walked off into the blizzard to die, hoping that through his sacrifice they might survive. "It was the act of a brave man and an English gentleman," wrote Captain Scott in his diary.
When Scotts diary was found, he and his fellows were all dead. Yet everybody takes it for granted that Scott was telling the truth. His account bears all the marks of a true record. And similarly Johns gospel reads like sober fact, not glamourised fiction.
"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them. As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked He them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way."17
But what lies behind that strange statement in the middle of the passage, "they went backward and fell to the ground"? The reader inevitably wonders what made a strong force of armed men do that. If John had been writing fiction, would he have left that question unanswered? Surely not. By stating the fact, and leaving us to draw our own conclusions, John shows that he is no embroiderer of fancy tales
As so often happens, another book of the Bible supplies the probable explanation for us. When Christs first martyr, Stephen, was in a somewhat similar position, his executioners "saw his face as it had been the face of an angel".18 If the face of Jesus similarly shone with angelic glory for a moment, it is not surprising that His enemies staggered backwards in terror.
So the innocent man was led away, to be sentenced on a trumped-up charge with the aid of bribed witnesses. Yet He would not argue in His own defence.19 When He spoke it was for the sake of others.
He even showed a measure of sympathy for Pilate, to whom He said: "Thou couldest have no power at all against Me, except it were given thee from above. Therefore he that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin."20
With the rough heavy cross upon His shoulder, He struggled along the road to Calvary. Even then, His thoughts were upon others rather than Himself.
"And there followed Him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented Him. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, "Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck.""21
It was to be thirty-odd years before the Roman armies came to destroy Jerusalem. But to Jesus, that dreadful day to come was even more tragic than His own immediate plight.
Even while He hung on the cross, in His final awful pain, He could still help others.
He cried with a loud voice, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"22 Though at first sight this looks like weakness or despair it was nothing of the kind. Those words are actually the first line of Psalm 22, which, as we saw in Chapter 4 is a wonderfully detailed prophecy of the events on that dreadful day. By reciting this title-line of a well-known Jewish hymn, Jesus was as good as saying, "Look everybody! See how Messianic prophecy is being fulfilled today. See, and believe!"
He prayed for His executioners to be forgiven, because they did not understand the enormity of their offence.23
He arranged for a faithful disciple to take care of His heartbroken mother.24
He comforted the dying thief who had come to believe in Him at the eleventh hour.25
When there was nothing else left for Him to do, He gave a shout of triumph-"It is finished!"26 Then, with quiet dignity, He died:
"He said, Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit. And having said thus, He gave up the ghost."27
We have not been able to look at more than a fraction of the gospel records of the crucifixion. But what we have seen is a picture of a man like no other man, a man that no first-century legend-spinner could possibly have invented. No wonder that the centurion who watched it all said, "Truly, this man was the Son of God!"28
We have disposed of one possibility. The gospels are not pure fiction. But there is that other possibility, that they might be a mixture of fact and fiction. Could the gospel writers have described an "ordinary" good man, and then added all sorts of imaginary sayings and events, just as a modern writer might write a novel about Napoleon or Julius Caesar?
This suggestion also runs against the facts. Here are four solid reasons for believing that the gospels are all fact, not a mixture of fact and fiction.
They are not afraid to mention things that, to a casual reader, may seem unfavourable to their cause. They report some surprising acts and sayings of Jesus which, at first glance, seem to show Him in an unfavourable light. We have to study these passages very closely, often by comparing one gospel with another, before we can see that Jesus did in fact have good reason for everything He said and did. (We have seen several examples of this already in this chapter.)
Again, they are not at all like four dishonest witnesses determined to present a united front. Each tells his story from his own point of view, regardless of what the others have said. Sometimes it even looks as if they contradict each other. Only when you study the records closely can you see that there is real harmony behind the apparent contradictions, as Chapter 19 shows.
All these things are the marks of honest men, telling a true story.
But no two have ever reached exactly the same conclusion. They have been attempting the impossible. It cant be done. The gospels do not read like a patchwork album. They read like a consistent, unified record. (If you should think that modern scholars have shown that the gospels are in fact a patchwork album, please reserve your judgment until you have read Part Two of this book.)
Our character study showed that the Jesus of the gospels had a character far above that of any other man. Take away all the passages that indicate a superhuman character for Jesus, and there is very little left. The four gospels are absolutely consistent in their message that Jesus was a uniquely righteous person; consequently, it makes sense to accept that He was.
Once you grant this, everything else in the gospels follows naturally. Despite His quiet humility He had a serene confidence that He was sinless, that He was Messiah, that He was Son of God. All this ties up with His perfect character; it is what we might have expected.
So are the stories of His miracles. The very presence of the Son of God on earth was itself a miracle. Nothing could be more natural than that He should work some miracles for the good of mankind while He was here.
If you have an old, worn-out Bible to spare, try this little experiment. Blot out all the miracles from your four gospels, and see what is left. You will find that the remaining fragments often fail to make sense. This clearly shows that the miracle stories are not something added as an afterthought, but are an integral part of the original record.
(Please dont shut your mind to these facts because some people argue that it is unscientific to believe in miracles. We shall be looking at miracles from a scientific viewpoint in Chapter 21.)
If their writing were the product of their own genius, why didnt they keep on writing? Creative geniuses cannot bear to stop after one short outburst. But since the gospel writers did stop so soon, they were evidently not men of genius eager to express themselves in creative work. Nor could they have been spurred on by the desire for fame.
Some unbelievers suggest that they did keep on writing, but that their other works were not preserved. But this only creates another problem: why did their readers not bother to keep the other works of these brilliant authors? Hundreds of pages of the writings of less gifted Jews and Greeks of that period have survived, but only a handful of pages by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Why?
If we regard these men as mere literary geniuses the problem is insoluble. Bestseller writers have seldom or never been known to burst into full flower with one brief work of superb artistry, and then stop. If only one gospel writer had done so, we might perhaps explain it as a remarkable exception to the general rule. But since two have done it, and the other two have added only a few more pages by way of sequel,29 we need some better explanation.
There is only one explanation that makes psychological sense. They must have been single-minded men with one purpose: to set down a few facts of tremendous importance. They told their tale briefly and accurately-and then stopped.
We have no idea whether He was short or tall, fat or thin, dark or fair, handsome or ugly. Why not? There is one obvious explanation which fits the facts. God said to an Old Testament prophet:
"The Lord seeth not as man seeth, for man looketh on the Outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."30
The evidence before us suggests that Jesus really was the Son of God. How very fitting that God should guide the pens of the four men who described His Son, to ensure that they gave us a perfect picture of His "heart", but not the slightest idea of His "outward appearance".
1 Quoted by A. R. Short, in Why Believe? Inter-Varsity Press, London, 7th edn., 1958
4 For example, Matt. 5:38-48; 10:16; Rom. 12:17-21
5 See G. C. Field, Pacifism and Conscientious Objection. Cambridge University Press, 1945. Also Bertrand Russell, Power (chapter 7), George Allen and Unwin, London, 1938. These two eminent philosophers cannot have been biased in favour of Christian pacifism, since they both declared themselves to be non-Christian and non-pacifist. (It is a common mistake to think of Bertrand Russell as a pacifist. His philosophy was to support what he regarded as "just" wars, and oppose "unjust" wars. Thus he opposed the first world war and the Vietnam war, but supported the war against Hitler.) Yet both writers accepted as a fact that the early Church was, by and large, a pacifist community. For a detailed statement of the historical evidence, see C. J. Cadoux, The Early Church and the World. T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1925
7 Life of Jesus, in Collected Works of Theodore Parker, edited by F. P. Cobbe. Trjibner, London, 1863-71
8 John Stuart Mill, Essays on Nature, the Utility of Religion and Theism. Longmans, London, 1874
29 The Acts of the Apostles, by Luke; the Book of Revelation and three short letters, by John.