BE CANDID | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 9, 1879

BE CANDID.

A SKEPTICAL friend presents the following queries, which, as we give him credit for candor in asking, we are happy to answer, trusting that the answers will be candidly considered.

1. How do you reconcile the genealogical records concerning Christ, as given by Matthew and Luke?

ANS. Matthew gives us the genealogy of Christ through the line of Joseph, his reputed father, and Luke through the line of Mary, his mother. These lines come together twice, in Zorobabel and David, before reaching back to Abraham. The matter is explained and illustrated by a beautiful diagram in the Religious Encyclopedia. It is likewise fully explained in Dr. Clarke’s notes. See also the REVIEW, Vol. 51, No. 21.

2. How comes the account of the taking of the city of Jericho to be accredited to Moses, as he was then dead (or had been translated). What authority has the Bible writer for giving that account? If Moses did not give it, who did?

ANS. The account of the taking of Jericho is not accredited to Moses, but to Joshua. Moses was not translated. We had never supposed but that Joshua, the successor of Moses, was able to write. We fear our friend has not sufficiently informed himself in regard to the facts of the narrative.

3. What authority had Moses for giving an account of the fall of man, etc., since he lived about midway between Adam’s day and our day?

ANS. Inspiration.

4. If the gospel writers were inspired, why do they not agree regarding the writing above the cross? They all mention it, and no two agree.

ANS. Our friend again misapprehends the facts in the case; for they agree perfectly. Let us see how they each record it: Matthew: “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” Mark: “The King of the Jews.” Luke: “This is the King of the Jews.” John: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” Constructing out of all these an inscription which shall embrace everything that any of them have mentioned, we have this: “This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” This is doubtless just what was written. Now mark: It was not necessary for each evangelist to give the entire title, unless he was moved to do so. But if he gives only a part, he does not contradict the fact that something more was written. For instance, Matthew omits the words, “of Nazareth,” which John uses, simply saying, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” What Matthew says was all there, was it not? Yes. And that is all that he affirms. He does not say that the words “of Nazareth,” which John uses, were not there. So there is no contradiction between him and John. On the other hand John omits the words “this is,” which Matthew uses, simply saying, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” But he does not say that the words of Matthew, “this is,” were not there? No. Then where is the contradiction? There is none. None of them affirm that what they present was the entire title, and they were not obliged to give that. But all which any one gives was in the title just as he says. So they are all absolutely correct, and there is no contradiction between them.

5. In reference to David’s act of numbering Israel, it is once said that he was influenced by God, and again that he was influenced by Satan. How are these statements reconciled?

ANS. A misapprehension again of the facts in the case; for God did not stir David up to number the people. This was Satan, as is plainly stated in 1 Chron. 21:1; but in the parallel passage in Kings it is simply the pronoun “he” that is used. And while, if we look at the apparent grammatical construction, the word “Lord” in the preceding clause would seem at first sight to be the antecedent of the pronoun he, it is not necessarily so; and when we look at the sense, we see at once that it cannot be so. For this act of numbering Israel was the very thing that caused the anger of the Lord to be kindled against David. But we cannot suppose that any writer who was capable of framing words into a correct sentence, would be guilty of saying in the same breath that God moved David to number Israel, and then was angry with him for so doing. We therefore, taking the account in Chronicles which admits of no ambiguity, conclude that Satan was the one who moved David to number Israel; and that consequently, the pronoun “he” in the account in Kings, refers to Satan, as an antecedent understood. To reason otherwise on this, would be to manifest a desire to find a contradiction in the Scriptures, and whoever cherishes such a desire, approaches them under the influence of a bias

which will almost certainly prevent his arriving at the truth.

6. It is once said that after David had numbered the people, he paid fifty shekels of silver for the threshing-floor of Araunah, and in another place that he paid six hundred shekels of gold. How can these statements be harmonized?

ANS. It will be noticed that the expression in 1 Chron. 21 is much more comprehensive than that in 2 Sam. 24. In the latter place simply the threshing-floor proper and the oxen are spoken of, for which he paid fifty shekels of silver; but in 1 Chron. 21 everything is included, the threshing-floor, the oxen, the instruments of wood, the wheat for the meat offering, and “the place,” which is taken to mean quite a large extent of adjoining territory, for which he paid six hundred shekels of gold. And that this comprehensive view is taken in 1 Chron. 21, is evident from the first verses of the next chapter, which declare that David called that place the house of the Lord, and immediately commenced preparation for the building of the temple upon the ground which he had purchased, which would require much more ground than a mere threshing-floor. See Barrett’s Synopsis of Criticisms on 2 Sam. 24.