banner

Last Updated on :
Saturday, November 22, 2014

 

sp spacer

 

spacer

Was Jesus of Nazareth The Messiah?


spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer

 

THE CHAIRMAN asked the meeting to observe the patience exhibited on the previous evening, while the discussion proceeded.

MR. ROBERTS: Ladies and Gentlemen, after what Mr, Stern said last night, it is impossible to conceive by what sign he is to identify the Messiah when he comes. He said it was no business of his to define these signs; that he was here simply to deny that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. I submit that he misapprehended his duty. It is true he is here to deny that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, but how is he effectively to do this unless he shows that he does not answer to the signs by which the Messiah is to be known? And how can he show this without telling us what those signs are? Any argument short of this, must fail to justify the conviction which he is here to declare. Nay, he went further, and astonished us by saying that if Jesus of Nazareth himself were to re-appear, he is not quite sure that he would believe in him then. (Mr. Stern: Hear, hear.) Upon what ground? Would not his reappearance be evidence of his Messiahship? Mr. Stern says he does not know that he would be able to recognise him. If that would be an obstacle, how is he ever to believe in any Messiah? Has he ever seen his own Messiah? How is he to know him when he appears? If Jesus of Nazareth were to re-appear, that would be evidence that he was the Messiah. (Mr, Stern: No, no.) Mr. Roberts: Mr. Stern says "No". It will belong to the last stage of my plan of evidence, to press home that argument; to enter upon it at present would be to diverge from the plan I have laid down for myself. I, therefore, merely hint at it, and pass on to notice one or two other points. Mr. Stern said that since the disciple Thomas, called Didymus, said, "I will not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is risen, unless I have an opportunity of putting my finger into the marks of the nails, and my hand into his side", he is justified in taking the same position. I admit that this would be so, if Mr. Stern were in the position of Thomas, called Didymus. But Mr. Stern is not in that position. Thomas had no evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, beyond the assurances of his ten fellow disciples; and considering the circumstances under which it was given, it is no wonder that it didn't carry conviction to the mind of Thomas. These circumstances require to be taken into account. The disciples were not expecting that Jesus would die. They were looking for his triumph over all enemies, and the establishment of his power over all the earth, as a deathless King. When, therefore, instead of this, he was taken prisoner, and actually crucified and buried, it staggered their faith, and drove all their hope in him to the wind. They knew not, as John tells us, the Scripture, that he should rise again from the dead. They were in a state of consternation and bewilderment. Is it a great marvel that in this state of things, Thomas, on hearing the statement of the ten disciples, that Jesus had risen, should say, on the spur of the moment, "After what has happened I will not believe, unless I have the opportunity of satisfying myself?" It was no wonder; it was an exceedingly natural position for him to take. But Mr. Stern's position is very different. Mr. Stern has in his possession, or at least may have, for I do not know whether he has given sufficient attention to the subject to be really in possession of such evidence as, fairly considered, would compel him in believing that which Thomas at the time doubted. He has just precisely the same reason for believing in Jesus, that he has for believing in Moses. I should like Mr. Stern to tell us why he believes in Moses; and I am sure if he gives us a reasonable definition, it will be a definition containing a reason for believing in Jesus. And then if he is so very anxious to keep Thomas company, why not keep him company to the end of the chapter? Thomas was a believer in the sequel; and the very fact that he took a sceptical attitude in the first instance, gives the strongest weight to the fact that subsequently he did believe. Indeed, we may accept it almost as a kindness of providence, that there should have been in the company of the disciples one who represented the searching spirit of modern criticism; for a man of the disposition to be in such circumstances convinced, is a standing argument to the end of the world. I submit, therefore, that Mr. Stern is not justified in using Thomas for a sceptical purpose. Such use cannot be logically sustained at all. Thomas's case is a stronger argument for belief, than the other ten disciples who never doubted. If Mr. Stern uses him to justify doubt, I use him to justify belief.

Mr. Stern says his fathers rejected Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore he is justified. I ask him if he is prepared to stand by that? Didn't his fathers reject and kill the prophets? -- Moses himself not excepted, except in the matter of death. Why doesn't Mr. Stern reject them? Moses was rejected by his brethren. When he supposed that they would have understood how that God would, by his hand, deliver them, they said, "Who made thee to be a ruler and a judge over us?" and afterwards, when Moses was on the summit of Sinai, they said, "As for this Moses, we wot not what has become of him", and proposed to appoint a captain over them, to return to Egypt. In fact, if we go through the whole history of Israel, you will find the true prophets were always rejected, and the false ones always listened to. If, then, Mr. Stern rejects Jesus of Nazareth, merely because his fathers did so, is he not logically bound to reject the prophets also? Why does he not say, "Because my fathers rejected Moses and Elijah, and all the prophets, I will do it?"

I will not condescend to notice the remarks with which he favoured you last night, in reply to my citation of the Edenic promise concerning the seed of the woman, beyond saying that it is puerile in the extreme, to suggest that God should deal with so trifling a matter in defining the moral relations of things, as the propensity of the serpent to bite a man's heel. I will rather pass on to the line of argument which I opened last night, and in which I had arrived at the point of applying the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the birth of Immanuel to Jesus. I will now remark that whatever may be said with regard to the prophecy on the score of obscurity, the balance of probability -- putting it in the very mildest form -- is in favour of the view I have presented. The Messiah of the New Testament answers to the peculiarity of that prophecy exactly, in that he was born of a virgin of the house of David, and I am fortunately not without good company in applying the prophecy to that fact. Matthew was a Jew; one Jew is at least as good as another. Matthew belonged to a party of Jews, the reality and potency of whose labours for the advancement of the truth, are evidenced even in the present constitution of political society. He was one of a band of men who sealed their testimony with their blood. Mr. Stern says he belonged to a band of illiterate men: so much the better for my argument. How came it that illiterate men moved the world? Illiterate men could never have done that in the capacity of illiterate men merely. There must have been a cause in operation with their illiterateness, to have produced so great a revolution as that which resulted from their efforts. The New Testament account reveals this cause, and gives the only rational explanation of their movement. They were personal witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus. They declared their personal knowledge, and "God worked with them, confirming their word with signs following" (Mark 16:20). This accounts for their perseverance, and their ultimate success. Take away this element, and you take away the explanation of a great historic fact that no man can gainsay. The illiterateness of the apostles, upon which Mr. Stern delights to dwell, I rely upon as in the circumstances, one of the strongest evidences of the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Well, then, Matthew, one of this band of men, to whom Jesus made the promise that the Spirit should come and guide them into all truth, applies the prophecy of Isaiah in the way I am contending for; and therefore I am in good Jewish company. I refer to Matt. 1:22, where, in recounting the facts connected with the supernatural birth of Christ, Matthew says, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord, by the prophet, saying, 'Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted, is God with us' ".

There is a necessity not recognised by Mr. Stern and his party, but recorded by everyone of the prophetic writings, why the Messiah should be born, not of the will of man, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. I refer to the names that are bestowed in those writings upon the Messiah -- names which are not intelligible on the supposition that the Messiah was to be a mere man. I proceed to give you a few illustrations of this. In the 24th Psalm, we have this beautiful passage in connection with the Kingly manifestation of the Messiah -- "Lift up your heads, oh ye gates, and be ye lifted up ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in. Who is this King of Glory?" The 10th verse, "THE LORD OF HOSTS, he is the King of Glory." Upon what principle of Judaism can Messiah be styled "the Lord of Hosts, Yahweh of Armies, their God?" Can a mere man be Yahweh? But accept the Messiah of the New Testament and the difficulty is gone. God was manifest in the flesh, by that universal Spirit which radiates from Him, and which is the pabulum of all existence; by which the Creator is everywhere present, and by which when He manifests Himself, it is as much Himself as His own personal glory enthroned in heaven. That is the New Testament explanation of this prophetic mystery. I call upon Mr. Stern to give his explanation.

In Psalm 45:3, the Messiah is thus addressed:--

"Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. And in thy majesty ride prosperously, because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things. Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the King's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee. Thy throne, O God (elohim), is for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre."

 

I ask him upon what principle a mere son of David is to be called the Elohim of Israel. Then in Isaiah 24:23, we read:

"The moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before His ancients gloriously."

 

I am one with Mr. Stern in expecting the Messiah to reign in Jerusalem as King -- enthroned King of the whole earth, upon the holy hill that God has chosen. But who is it that is here described as "the LORD of Hosts"? Can a mere man, such as the Messiah of the Jewish expectation, be called the LORD of Hosts (Yahweh of Armies)? The description is exactly applicable to Jesus, for he is Jehoshua -- LORD of Hosts -- God manifest. Again, in Jer. 23:5, you find this:--

"Behold the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS -- Yahweh (Jehovah) of Israel, our righteousness."

 

Upon what principle is that applicable to a mere son of David, such as the Jews expect? It is applicable to a son generated by the spirit from a virgin of David's house. Again, in Hosea 13 we find another and signal illustration of the same phrase. At the 4th and 9th verses, it says:--

"I am the Lord thy God, from the land of Egypt. Thou shalt know no God but me ... O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thine help. I will be thy King."

 

Where is there a man that can say, "I am the Lord thy God, from the land of Egypt?" In what sense is the uprise of a mere son of David a fulfilment of the promises of God, that HE would be their Messiah; which, in fact, is a prophetic parallel to the memorial name God took upon Himself at the bush -- YAHWEH, I will be; to which, though in the English version translated "I am", I suppose Mr. Stern will not object. "I will be thine Elohim, your Messiah." How? Jesus, the word made flesh, is the explanation. But how could a mere flesh and blood son of David answer to the description? In Joel 3:17, we are told:--

"So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more."

 

In Zeph. 3:14, we find another illustration of the same feature:--

"Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel, be glad and rejoice with all thy heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, He hath cast out thine enemy: the King of Israel, even the LORD (Yahweh), is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more."

 

Clearly that applies to a time not yet arrived in the experience of Israel. But how can a mere son of David be described as "Yahweh in the midst of Israel?" If a mere son of David could be so described, why not David himself, for surely a father is equal to his son, on the principles before the Jewish mind in the consideration of this question? Let Mr. Stern find some place in the Holy Writings where David describes himself, or is described by the name Yahweh. I know that this he cannot do. But he is obliged to recognise the fact that that name is applied to David's son -- the Messiah. The question is, upon what principle? If the Messiah is a mere son of David -- not the root as well as the offspring of David -- why is he described by the name of David's God? There is no answer on the Jewish hypothesis; but admit that the Messiah is son of David's God, as well as son of David by Mary, and the difficulty vanishes. Then in Zech. 2:10-12:

"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of Hosts hath sent me unto thee. And the LORD shall inherit Judah, his portion in the Holy Land, and shall choose Jerusalem again."

 

This is a prediction of Israel's national aggrandisement under their expected Messiah; and on the same subject, in the 14th chapter of the same book, 9th verse, we read, "And the LORD (Yahweh) shall be King over all the earth", which agrees with the doctrine of his manifestation, which I have pointed out.

But further, this personage to come is described as the Son of God even in the Jews' own writings. In Psalm 2:7, we find the statement:

"The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."

 

In Zech. 12:8, the same feature is presented:

"In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and he that is feeble among them at that day, shall be as David, and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them."

 

How can a mere man of the house of David, constitute the house of David as if it were God? Jesus of Nazareth, the manifestation of God by His Spirit, does indeed exalt the house of David in his person to equality with God. This is the blasphemy the Pharisees charged against Jesus, in saying that he was equal with God, being the Son of God (John 5:18). Then in Isaiah 63: 1, you have the same idea that is presented in the quotations I have made; all of which I press upon Mr. Stern's urgent attention, with a request that he will explain how they can be reconciled with the idea that the coming Messiah is to be a mere son of David:

"Who is this that corneth from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment."

 

I presume Mr. Stern will admit that this is a description of his Messiah in military operations against the Gentile nations, when the time comes for him to do for the world what Joshua did for the nations of Canaan. "For the day of vengeance is in my heart, and the year of my redeemed is come". A mere son of David could never use such language, but Jesus of Nazareth could; for he by the Spirit was one with the God of Israel (John 10:30); as he also said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also". By this indwelling power, he was enabled to still the storm on the sea of Galilee.

Next and most conclusively of all: the Messiah promised in the prophets was to be a sufferer. He was to be rejected; he was to be put to death; in proof of which I rely first upon the prophecy of Daniel, with which Mr. Stern dealt so very weakly; in fact he did not deal with it at all, for he said he was not able to tell what the 70 weeks meant. That is a damaging fact in his case -- that he should be unable to explain one of the principle predictions of one of his own prophets, concerning the Messiah -- especially when that very prediction was the the foundation of a strong expectation entertained by his own nation, of the appearance of the Messiah, in the days of Josephus. The statement says that at the expiry of the period mentioned there, the Messiah should be cut off. There can be no dispute as to the signification of the term "cut off". If Mr. Stern should raise any objection on the point, I will be prepared, from the writings of his own nation, to show that it means to die -- to punish; as when we are told, for instance, that the wicked shall be (kahrath) cut off -- the very word employed in the prophecy of Daniel. Why was the Messiah to be cut off? The explanation is given a verse or two before the statement in verse 24. This "cutting-off" manifestation of the Messiah is connected with the finishing of transgression, the making an end of sin, making reconciliation for iniquity, bringing in everlasting righteousness, and so forth. I call Mr. Stern's attention to the fact that the Messiah of the New Testament is taught to have accomplished these very things by his death, and it is a Jew that teaches it. Paul said Jesus "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself"; and he (Jesus) was "made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption". There are numerous statements of this doctrine in the New Testament, but, as this is so well-known to be a doctrine of the New Testament, I need not quote further testimony. I will, at once, point out that in that respect, Jesus'of Nazareth corresponds with the Messiah of Daniel 9. I call upon Mr. Stern to show in what way his expected Messiah is to fulfil that chapter.

I next quote the 53rd of Isaiah, which I invite Mr. Stern very specially to deal with:

"Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and we hid, as it were, our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely, he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death, because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him. He hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore, will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

 

 

 

MR. STERN: Mr. Chairman and friends, I must say that you have been very patient in listening to the speech of Mr. Roberts. There is great credit due to him for being able to deliver such a speech. But we have come here to discuss whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. We do not come here to listen to a lecture from Mr. Roberts upon the Old Testament. I don't think there is anything in the Old Testament but what I am perfectly acquainted with. I was quite prepared to hear all that he might have to say on the subject. Still, I asked him questions last night which I consider have never been answered. I asked him then to produce the originals of the New Testament. (Laughter.) You may laugh if you please, but at the same time I am quite serious when I ask you (turning to Mr. Roberts) to produce the originals of the New Testament. I have said, and I maintain it, that the New Testament is a compilation of falsehoods and forgeries, and until you can produce the originals, I will not believe in it. Who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; in what language, and to whom were they written, and where? You never so much as condescended to tell me anything about it. The only thing you did was to ask me to produce the originals of Moses. That is a nice way of answering a question. I must say I did intend to conduct this debate in the most amicable manner, but it will be impossible to do so if we go on in this way. This is merely a bandying of words. I have nothing to do with producing the originals of Moses; though if I undertake to discuss Judaism versus Christadelphianism, I shall have no objection to produce them. But I have come here for one purpose only -- to discuss whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah or not. I have nothing to do with producing the originals of Moses. What has that to do with the subject? Then my friend asked me, since I object to Jesus on the ground that I am not acquainted with him; that I never saw him; and if he appeared to me I should not recognise him, which is quite reasonable on my part, I should say; for I cannot recognise anyone that I have never seen. He asks "If your Messiah come, how will you recognise him?" I have not come here to discuss as to what Messiah we expect. He then compares Moses to Jesus. What a comparison! We look upon Moses as a man, not as a God. We revolt at the idea of man being God. That is what we object to. If you bring Jesus and tell me to believe in him as a man, leave the God theory out, I have no objection; but when you tell me he is a man, and yet the Son of God, I revolt against it, and won't have it. We only look upon Moses as a man, and not as son of God. A man can believe in a good many things that he has not seen. I have never seen Napoleon, nor Abraham Lincoln, but I believe there were such men. I know there is an Emperor of Germany. I could mention hundreds of people whom I have not seen, and yet whom I believe to exist; but here you bring me people to believe in, upon authorities that the greatest intellects that have written upon the subject pronounce to be forgeries. See Mosheim, page 64, Peregrinations of the Apostles.

Of course that is just what I say. "The distance of time and the want of records". I won't believe these statements until you bring me the proper records. It is no use my going on to discuss the subject of the genealogy of Jesus at present; I must leave that alone until my friend brings further evidence on the subject. One of the answers my friend gave me last night was, that God who made Adam out of the dust, could so arrange that a man should be born without a father. Well now, this I hold; and if you are not satisfied, I am perfectly willing to leave it to the Chairman; if he will kindly undertake the trouble, or rather if he will undertake to decide whether I am in order or not. I hold that Mr. Roberts is out of order in asking such questions. I have not come here to discuss what God can do or cannot do; I have come to discuss whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah or not. You bring me your books to prove that he was. You bring me the New Testament, in which I say I do not believe. I hold that you have to show that these records are true before I can accept them; but to say that God did one thing because He did another, is begging the question; I shall not trouble to answer such irrelevancies. My friend has quoted Isaiah 53. From the way in which he read this chapter, it would appear that every word referred to Jesus, but, with your permission, I will read it, and see if we cannot show its meaning to be quite different. What this has to do with the Messiah I really don't know. Isaiah says "who hath believed our report?" Now you know Isaiah was not speaking two or three years after Christ was crucified, or is reported to have been crucified -- for I don't believe he was crucified -- but about a thousand years before -- I do not know the exact time. He says "Who hath believed our report?" speaking of the past; "and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" Certainly if Mr. Roberts had explained it we should have known better, but it cannot be Jesus; he was not born till nearly a thousand years afterwards. "For he shall grow up as a tender plant; he has no form nor comeliness, and when we should see him there is no beauty that we should desire him". How is it that some of you do desire him. You actually wish me to desire him, but I don't. "He is despised and rejected of men". It was only a few Jews who rejected him. "A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief". I don't know what sorrows Jesus had. He could not have known any such sorrows as we have to-day. He was not obliged to get up at six o'clock in the morning, and go and slave away his life until six at night. (Hissing.) My friends, I told you last night that your hissing would not prevent me saying a word. (Renewed signs of disapprobation; the Chairman having to interpose his authority before perfect quietness was restored.) Besides, hissing was the cause of interrupting me in the middle of a sentence. But this is my first attempt at such a thing as this. How it will end I don't know -- the Lord only knows. I was quoting this passage. "A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." How this can be applied to Jesus I don't know, for the best part of his life we know nothing about him. One says he has been in Bethlehem, another in Judea, another in Egypt, and another elsewhere; and the whole of his ministrations didn't last more than three years. I have gone through sorrows myself, but they have not come altogether, they have come gradually, and we take them in the best part. If Jesus had been married, and had a lovely wife, and his wife died, and he got married again, and perhaps had a wife he could not live so agreeably with, as you have heard is sometimes the case, you might have said he was acquainted with grief and sorrows. Or if he had children whom he loved, and they were cut off while young, you might say he was a man acquainted with sorrows and grief. But what sorrows and grief had Jesus? Why I cannot really see how that passage can be quoted at all in his favour. Why when the worst came to the worst, when he had not a farthing in the world, and when there were 500 people around him, he could feed them with a few loaves and fishes, and there could be gathered up seven baskets full of fragments. Surely there could be no sorrow there. If he had only left us that secret, what a different state of things there would have been now; no work-houses, no gaols. But this beautiful Son of God and Mary, this man without a father, this man who could do all these things, you say he was acquainted with sorrows! Show me the sorrows; what is the sorrow, when and where? My friend says all these things applied to Christ. Yes; they are applied to him by those who believe in Jesus. Why do they apply them? Because if they did not they would not have a Messiah. Whom was it done by? By a lot of people who thought it an act of virtue to deceive and lie for the purpose of defending anything in favour of the Church; by people who had no principle whatever. My friend who comes here to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, shows me a passage that I am sure has nothing to do with him. "He was despised and we esteemed him not". Well, now, if the Jews were to say so, there would be something in it; but since the Christians quote it in their favour, and since the Christians do esteem him, I do not see how it can be applied in his favour. "Surely he hath borne our griefs". How could Jesus, when he was not yet born? It does not say "He shall bear our grief". It says he hath borne our grief and carried our sorrows; and yet we did not esteem him stricken of God and afflicted". If this is not alluding to a personage who had lived before Isaiah spoke these words, then I must say words have no meaning at all. "He was wounded for our transgressions". Who was? Jesus? who was going to be wounded a thousand years after? "The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed". How can that apply to Jesus? He hadn't lived then. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all". On whom? You must understand that Isaiah, who is looked upon as one of the greatest of the prophets -- of what I shall call the greater prophets -- lived at a time when the Jews were not as he wished them to be, when they were probably as we are to-day -- I must admit it -- not very strictly obeying the laws of Moses. We certainly have not got such great men who can come to-day and give us their intellects and their time to bring us together and tell us what to do. But there was Isaiah then among the people, and he, like a good man, went and told them of their faults. He said, "We have gone astray". He is including himself with the others. "The Lord hath laid upon him". Upon whom? "He shall lay upon him in a thousand years". That would have sounded strange. If words mean anything at all, they mean what he said. Of course, I must admit I have not been to an English school; what little I know of English I have had to pick up myself, but from what little I do know I consider -- and if I am wrong, my opponent will inform me -- that the sentence is in the past tense. "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth". Why, if there was nothing else in this chapter, those very words would be sufficient to show that they were not referring to Jesus, "He was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth". Did not Jesus open his mouth? Who said "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani?" "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" Who said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". The passage is simply alluding to someone that had passed away, and who was oppressed and afflicted of God; and Isaiah said it was done for our sakes, and Isaiah consoles himself with that sentence; but it could never have been alluding to Jesus, for he actually did speak; he could not bear the excruciating pains when it came to the last moment. "He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who shall declare his generation". I have yet to learn when Jesus was in prison. When my friend gets up, I shall want him to tell me what prison it was, and how long he was there. "And who shall declare his generation?" Why, Matthew and Luke: they declare it. We know the generation of Jesus; he was the son of Abraham, according to your theory. He was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Jacob, according to Matthew, and the son of Heli, according to Luke. But it seems to be made up in this way: if Jesus was born without a father, his mother's husband had two fathers, and so, between the two, we can reconcile them. But when was Jesus in prison? Is it such a difficult task? "Who shall declare his generation?" That is what you have been declaring these last two nights. "For he was cut off out of the land of the living. For the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death", This cannot be speaking of Jesus, because it all refers to the past, "Because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth". I shall be able to show that there was a great deal of deceit in the mouth of Jesus before I have done to-night. "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief, when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed". I want to know if Jesus could see his seed when he never got married? It is simply alluding to a man who shall enjoy the pleasures of life, and live to see his children's children. But it is just as Mosheim has said, and my friend has admitted: the most ignorant people were the first that joined this beautiful Christianity, this loving faith of yours, and to ignorant people it is easily reconciled. I am not a learned man, but it does not require a great deal of learning to find that this passage speaks of a man who had come. "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities." How does he? Christ says, "Ye that would not that I should reign over you, bring them hither, and slay them before me?" That is the way he justifies them. Is that justification? "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he hath poured out his soul unto death: he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors". There is nothing of the sort. "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved". All we have to do is not to discuss; we want no theories, we want no ideas of people who have lived before us; all we want is people of the greatest ignorance that can come here and join issue with my friend, and repeat the words, "I believe in Jesus". That is quite sufficient; we shall be saved. (Mr. Roberts: 0 no!). "He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned". If these words do not mean that, I do not know what they mean. They seem to me plain language; in fact, too plain. I have tried, no doubt in the humblest possible way, to show that this chapter in Isaiah has nothing to do with Jesus. My friend may probably say who has it to do with? I am perfectly satisfied that it does not refer to Jesus. I am not bound to tell him what it does refer to. When I undertake to discuss Judaism versus Christianity, I shall be prepared to tell him whom it does refer to. I am perfectly satisfied that my friend is a learned man, and has given a great deal of study to these things; and just as I know to whom it alludes, I am perfectly satisfied that he knows the same. -- (Time called.)

 

 

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry to find, ladies and gentlemen, that Mr. Stern is so unacquainted with the writings of his own nation as to argue that the present tense, in the 53rd of Isaiah, can not have a future signification. Nothing is more frequent, in these writings, than the employment of the present tense, in prophetically depicting future scenes and events. For instance: in the 60th Isaiah we have the future glories of the Jewish nation thus introduced: "Arise, shine for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee". According to Mr. Stern's argument, this describes a state of things existent in the days of Isaiah, whereas he is here to-night to contend that the Light of Israel has not come. How does he get out of that difficulty? Again, in the 9th Isaiah, we read: "For unto us a child is born, to us, a son is given". I presume Mr. Stern will not deny that this refers to the Messiah, for it goes on to say that "on the throne of David" he shall sit, and order and establish the kingdom for ever. Applying it, then, to his Messiah, and construing the tense of the verb as he would construe it with the 53rd chapter it would show that the Messiah had at that time appeared; whereas Mr. Stern denies that he has yet appeared. I might give many illustrations of the same thing. -- "I have made thee a father of many nations". God said to Abraham, when he as yet had had no child. Mr. Stern argues in ignorance of, or opposition to, the fact that divine language is based upon prescience; that God calleth "things that are not -- (but which He intends to be) -- as though they were". The Spirit of Christ in Isaiah, foreseeing the sufferings of the Messiah as though they were already present, employs that tense in depicting them. Mr. Stern may well hesitate to say to whom the language appears. He cannot say definitely.

MR. STERN: I can.

MR. ROBERTS: But he has told us something on the subject upon which I shall be able to destroy him -- in an amicable sense, of course. He tells us that the chapter applies to some one who had appeared before the days of Isaiah; and it does not apply to the Messiah, for the Messiah, according to Mr. Stern, has not yet made his appearance; and when he appears, will not be a sufferer. In saying this, Mr. Stern makes himself wiser than the Rabbis of his own nation.

MR. STERN: Hear, hear.

MR. ROBERTS: Even those Rabbis that agree with him in rejecting Jesus. I shall quote the opinions of several Rabbis -- unbelievers in Jesus, but who contend, or at all events admit, that the 53rd of Isaiah does apply to the Messiah, although I dare say it will be difficult to find a Rabbi of that kind nowadays; for the exigencies of this controversy forced them to put a false construction upon it -- a construction very different from that accepted by the Jews when the claims of Jesus of Nazareth had not to be encountered. I first read you a quotation that has been made from the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, a rabbi said to have lived contemporary with Christ, or about 30 or 40 years before his days, and, therefore, before the present controversy had arisen. In his commentary upon the 52nd and 53rd of Isaiah, he says:--

"Behold my servant, the Messiah, shall prosper; he shall rise and shall increase, and shall be exceedingly powerful, inasmuch as the house of Israel have expected him many days, during which their look and their splendour were eclipsed among the nations above those of other men. So shall he disperse many nations. Kings because of him shall be dumb; they shall lay their hands on their mouths, for what had not been related to them they shall behold, and what had not been heard of by them, they shall contemplate. Who hath credited this our (Isaiah 53), and on whom is the mighty arm of Yahweh now displayed? The righteous man shall grow before him like the young twigs that are in the act of budding, and like the tree which spreads forth its roots by the running stream, so shall the generation of the righteous increase in the land that had lacked. His appearance is no ordinary appearance, nor is his terror that of a common man, but his splendour will be a sacred splendour, so that everyone that seeth him shall gaze on him. For this reason, he will be condemned, but he shall cause to arise the glory of all kingdoms: they shall be weak and sickly, just as a man of sorrows and inured to misfortune, or as when the presence of the habitation being withdrawn from us, we are despised and nothing accounted of, so shall it be to them. Therefore he will entreat for our sins, and our iniquities on his account shall be forgiven us. He is delivered up by our iniquities, but by his doctrine, peace will increase among us . . . It is the pleasure of Yahweh, on his behalf, to remit us all our sins. He entreats, and is heard; and before he opens his mouth, he is accepted."

 

This quotation shows that Jonathan Ben Uzziel, 1,800 years ago, applied the 53rd chapter of Isaiah to the Messiah. Mr. Stern finds it inconvenient to admit this application. He says it does not apply to the Messiah at all, but to some one living before the days of Isaiah. Therefore he considers himself wiser than Jonathan Ben Uzziel and Zohar, who make the same applications as Ben Uzziel; wiser also than Solomon Ben Isaac. Jarki, another rabbi, who, writing in the 12th century, says:

"King Messiah was among the generation of the wicked, and he applied his heart to seek mercy for Judah, and to fast and to humble himself on their behalf, as it is said. 'And he was wounded for our transgressions', and he seeks mercy for them when they sin, as it is written, 'And by his stripes we are healed; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.' ".

 

Even of Aben Ezra we are told that he admits that Jonathan Ben Uzziel and many other Jews of old, applied it to a personal Messiah. In his commentary on Isaiah 53, he says, "Jonathan Ben Uzziel has interpreted it of the Messiah who is to come, and this is also the opinion of wise men of blessed memory, in many of their Medrashes".

I have several other illustrations of a similar treatment of the chapter by the Jews in ancient times, but I will content myself with reading the comprehensive declaration of Rabbi Moses Alschech, who lived in the fifteenth century, and who also applied it to the Messiah. He says: "Our Rabbis, with one mouth have reverently received by tradition that King Messiah is here spoken of". I have got all the ancient Rabbis on my side against a single Jew of the nineteenth century.

(MR. STERN: Hear, hear).

MR. ROBERTS: Then Mr. Stern's comments on the experience of Jesus -- I certainly think it unnecessary to notice these particularly. I might also use another adjective; it would be almost a condescension to reply to them, I would only say that the relation of sorrow to a man depends upon what he is. That which is sorrow to one man is not sorrow to another. Go quite low enough for illustration, and you find a creature in a well-known enclosure to be found at the back of many cottages, whose head you could not cause to ache by telling it of a bank failure: the mere mention of which would fill a commercial man with panic and drive sleep from the pillow, and perhaps drive him to suicide. The only way of making the porcine creature sorry would be to whip it on the back. You might shout bad over a pig's head for a year and produce no effect. (Uproar among the Jews.) There is nothing insulting in my remark. It all depends upon the mental quality of the man, as to what will make sad. Take a man of low type of mentality, and you could not injure his feelings by language which stings to the quick a man of higher organization. And if this holds good with regard to the lower manifestations of mentality, how much more strictly does it apply to the highest faculty of the human mind. A philanthropist's heart is pained in going through the streets of Birmingham, where a mere clod-hopper feels nothing, because the former stands on a pinnacle of moral elevation which the latter has no conception of; and if Mr. Stern fails to see that Jesus was a man of sorrows with abundant reason, it is impossible for me to make him see it. It reminds me of the uselessness of attempting to enlighten Israel; for their own prophet Moses said, "Ye are a stiffnecked and rebellious race with heart fat, ears dull of hearing, and eyes closed." Their entire history has been a history of rebellion. They rebelled against Moses in the wilderness; they rebelled against all the prophets and turned aside to idolatry continually, and they are now scattered among the Gentiles, in consequence of their almost incurable tendency to go astray from the God of their fathers. Mr. Stern's attitude in this matter is only another illustration of the same thing. (Time called.)

 

 

THE CHAIRMAN, in reference to the wish of Mr. Stern that he should decide as to whether Mr. Roberts had adhered to the question or not, said that before the debate commenced, he had a clear understanding that he should not undertake anything of the kind. He thought that had just been the mischief at other debates.

MR. STERN: I suppose it is now a fight between myself and my friend, and fight it I shall. I have tried to conduct the discussion in a most amicable and gentlemanly manner. I have controlled myself as much as I possibly could, I know he is trying to irritate me. (Hisses.) It is no use hissing me. I have told you, and I tell you again, that hissing will have no effect upon me. We are discussing a very serious subject. Mr. Roberts seems to be trying to drag me into a discussion of Judaism versus Christianity. I hold he is out of order to quote disputed writings, when I keep telling him to produce the authority. He says I spoke irreverently of Jesus. If I did I am sorry for it. If I said anything to wound your feelings; if I spoke irreverently, I certainly am sorry, but how can I help it? My friend is looking upon Jesus as the Son of God; I am looking upon him as a man and an imposter. This is my duty here to-night, and however painful, I must do it, and will do it. For the sixth time, I beg of Mr. Roberts -- or else I will throw the discussion up -- I ask him to show me his authority for the writings of the New Testament. He forgets that he has come here in opposition to greater men who have gone before him, and that he lays down a doctrine in opposition to the generality of Christians. But look how liberal he is to me. He won't allow me to have an opinion. He says I am in opposition to all the Jewish writers. The question is not whom I am in opposition to; I came here to debate the question whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah or not. My only duty is to prove that he is not. How can I prove that he is not before he proves that he is? The quotations he has brought have nothing to do with the subject; the passages in Isaiah have nothing at all to do with Jesus. Then what does he do? Instead of answering what I begged of him to do, he goes forward and shows me another quotation, which has nothing at all to do with the question. He says, "Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." Of course, the glory of the Lord had risen when they had got an Isaiah to speak to. What argument is this? But I will take it from whom it comes. My friends of the Jewish persuasion have been offended because he has mentioned a pig. They must not be offended, for, being a Christian, he must introduce the pig in some way or other. Mr. Roberts seems to be trying to drag me into a discussion of Judaism versus Christianity, but I do not intend to enter into that to-night. Again, he brings Hebrew authorities who seem to have written in his favour. To show that he has dived deep into the subject, it is sufficient to notice that he has produced the testimony of rabbis living at the time of Christ; because we know certainly that none but learned men could pretend to know anything about that. But he does all this, I hold, for the purpose of evading the question at issue. As soon as he showed me a passage last night in Isaiah, which he said referred to Jesus, that is a virgin conceiving and bearing a son, I did my best to give my version of what it meant, and if I proved my case his whole argument falls to the ground. The next argument was about Daniel. I cannot understand a person saying one thing and meaning another. I can only take it from what I hear. But. Mr. Roberts says that the subject Daniel spoke about then was not a subject for everyone to understand, and that he spoke in an allegorical way. Well, he did speak in a curious way, but after all, it was only a dream and, surely to goodness, we are not to rest such important things on what people see in visions and dreams. There is no accounting for what a man sees in a dream. We dream so many strange things. Then he brings in things that have nothing to do with the matter. I remember hearing a conversation between my father, who was a very good Jew, and several learned men, in which an opinion was expressed that Daniel was mad, and I am inclined to look on him in the same light. I don't care who hears me. Supposing, however, we granted, for the sake of argument, that every day meant one year. Let us see whether Mr. Roberts' case would hold good even then. Since my friend takes upon him, in 1871, perhaps 2,000 years after the words were spoken, to tell us that these people didn't mean what they said; that when God said seventy weeks he meant seventy times seven years; let us see how it will apply in other places? Jesus was to be three days and three nights in the ground -- that was three years. I have as much right to assume that in this case as he has in the other. I stand here as an authority in opposition to an authority like Mr. Roberts. I give him credit for his superior learning, but I don't see superior logic on his side. He comes here telling us, like the stupid missionaries -- (The Chairman objected to the words.) Well; I beg pardon. With your permission, I will withdraw the word. He comes here like the intelligent missionaries (great laughter and applause); like these intelligent missionaries, he comes forward and taunts me with being blind, not being able to see. Why, my good sir (turning to Mr. Roberts), why should you be so personal to me? I have tried to be as gentle as possible. Why should you taunt me with wilfully misrepresenting? Why should you taunt me with not seeing it, when we can see other things well enough. We can see precious stones (loud laughter). The Jews are clever enough judges of the minutest things, and why should they be blind on this subject? We are the best judges of jewels -- diamonds, emeralds, and the best stones -- and you will acknowledge that it takes good sight to be that. Surely, we can see such a bit of an argument as a virgin conceiving without a man, or anything of that sort. Then there have been men, as recorded in the Old Testament, who have lived something like 800 or 900 years. But as every day of those years, according to Mr. Roberts, must mean a year, those people are alive now, and if Mr. Roberts can tell us where they are to be found, I shall be obliged to him. If it means years in Daniel, in must mean years in other places. When Moses said, "Six days shalt thou work, and do all that thou hast to do", he meant they should labour six years continuously, and make as much overtime as they pleased. If I had known that this would have been the subject of discussion, I am sure I would not have undertaken it. If I had known that questions would arise like this, I should have been sorry to come here, wasting my time and yours. I have come here to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah. How can I approach the subject when Mr. Roberts will not deal with it? I again ask him to answer these questions which I have put to him, and it will give me a chance of proceeding. I intend, if I have time, to go through Dan. 9, and show that it is impossible to reconcile the weeks and years. The Chairman informs me I have but one minute, so I ask you, Mr. Roberts, to tell me who wrote St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John? When were they written? In what language? At what place? and by whom? (Time called.)

 

 

MR. ROBERTS: I say, respected friends, in answer to that, that Matthew was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, and afterwards translated into Greek; Mark was written by Mark at the dictation of Peter, as is supposed; Luke was written by Luke; John was written by John; the three last all in Greek. They were all written for the information of believers in Christ, and as an authentic and official record (for the information of subsequent generations) of the facts upon which their faith was based. I am not able to produce the originals, because, as I believe, they do not exist. If Mr. Stern asks me why, I give this answer: I say for precisely the same reason that he would tell me who wrote the five books of Moses, the books of Samuel and the others. Why would he say so? for a very good reason. If the authorship of a book is unquestioned at the moment of its production, and continues in all subsequent generations to be received, the fact amounts to a demonstration. To pursue this thought would lead me to diverge from the subject, and I will only say that commonsense at once recognises the reasonableness of the principle. We can only know of the authorship of a book, produced at a time antecedent to our own, by the repute existing amongst those who from their position were competent to judge. Upon this principle, Mr. Stern accepts the writings of Moses; upon the same principle, the classical public accepts the writings of Shakespeare; the writings of Herodotus, and the Greek authors generally; and on the same principle we accept the other writings of his own nation, which he rejects, namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If he urges it as a difficulty that I cannot produce the very documents written by these men, he behaves unreasonably, because he puts himself in precisely the same difficulty with Moses.

MR. STERN: What has that to do with it?

MR. ROBERTS: A great deal.

MR. STERN: No.

MR. ROBERTS: I will show that it has. Mr. Stern believes in Moses and yet he cannot produce the originals.

MR. STERN: I can.

MR. ROBERTS: I say that statement is not true.

MR. STERN: It is.

MR. ROBERTS: Then I call upon him to produce them.

MR. STERN: I shall produce them.

THE CHAIRMAN: This conversation is out of order. I beg of each speaker not to utter a single word whilst the other is speaking.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Stern puts himself up as an authority, and says he pits his authority against mine. There is no need for this. I am not an authority at all. I do not pretend to have the slightest scintilla of authority. I am here as a perfectly unofficial individual dealing with historical facts, and these are the authorities with me. It is with these I ask Mr. Stern to deal. Mr. Stern thinks Daniel was mad. (Mr. Stern: Hear, hear.) Then observe the position in which he puts himself, viz., against God. His God considers Daniel wise. In Ezek. 14:14, it says, "Though these wise men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in the land, they should but deliver their own souls by their righteousness." Again, in the 28th of Ezekiel, speaking of the King of Tyre, at the 3rd verse, God says, "Behold thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee", an ironical saying, but still showing Daniel as a standard of wisdom, From these two testimonies alone (even apart from the book of Daniel), we observe the fact that God considered Daniel wise and righteous, whereas Mr. Stern, adopting the theory of his father, considers him mad. Why? Because it is the only way of getting rid of Daniel's prophecy which tells so powerfully in favour of Jesus of Nazareth. He asks why didn't Daniel speak plainly, and say what he meant? There is a reason. God intended the book of Daniel for a very wide bearing and providential purpose; it was to let those know to whom it should be given that the purposes of God at last concerning Israel was, that they should triumph at the last, but should first be prevailed against. At the same time it was not His will that His people of these early times should know that the triumph of the enemy would be so long. He therefore vailed the matter, and gave revelation in such a form that they were not able to perceive the time. But why then give the time at all, it may be asked. Because it was necessary that when the end of time should be reached, a people should be able to perceive the scope of the divine purpose -- a people who, seeing this, should be looking for the coming of the Messiah, and prepared as intelligent spectators for the development of the divine purpose. So that there is a reason, and it is impossible to upset that reason if the authenticity of the book of Daniel be accepted; for in that book we are told both that Daniel did not understand (Dan. 12:8), but that at the time of the end the vision should be understood (Dan. 12:4).

Then Mr. Stern asks how the statement of Isaiah can be applied to Jesus, whose genealogy I have attempted to produce, if he was cut off? and seeing that the same individual who was cut off was to have a generation succeeding him -- was to see "his seed". Mr. Stern asks how could he have "seed", seeing he never was married? I answer there are more methods of generating seed in the divine operations than are known to Mr. Stern's philosophy, as John the Baptist said, "Of the very stones God could raise children to Abraham". I point to the operations of the gospel as the answer; and when Mr. Stern says I am calling upon him to accept records which he does not believe, I entirely repudiate that representation of the matter. I am not dealing with documents only. I am dealing with historical facts, facts whose evidence is before himself. We have a Christianity apart from the book; that Christianity has a history, and I ask him is it not an historical fact that Christianity came out from Jerusalem through Jews? He cannot deny it. Those Jews preached among the Gentiles for the express purpose of generating believers in Jesus; their word was a seed from which believers sprung, and the existence of those believers explain how it is that Christ can have a seed in a higher sense than Mr. Stern recognises, for what is their doctrine? "As many of you", says Paul, writing to the Christians, "as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ, and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise". So that here is a seed developed from Christ in relation to Abraham, in connection with the promise of which Abraham was made the depository. I need say no more to explain how the Messiah, though cut off, could have a seed. I will simply ask Mr. Stern how his system explains it? I presume he will say that he is not bound to give an explanation, and he must take the consequence of adopting that policy so far as the impression on the audience is concerned. It is a very suspicious fact when a disputant refuses to explain facts alleged to be inconsistent with his own theory.

I now resume the line of evidence I was pursuing. I was illustrating the fact that the Messiah, according to the prophets of Mr. Stern's own nation, was to be a sufferer. He says that Isaiah himself was the great light of Israel. Well, now observe that this great light was sent to say (Isaiah 6:9), "Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see indeed, but perceive not". What is the meaning of this? Does it not show that the Jews lack understanding? For as Mr. Stern says, they can discern jewels and diamonds, but higher things are hid from them in our time. "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and be converted and be healed". According to Mr. Stern's interpretation, the great light of his nation was sent to bring darkness! What a desperate strait Mr. Stern must be in when he finds himself compelled to sustain his theory by such injustice to his own Scriptures. I referred to the 53rd chapter of Isaiah as showing that the Messiah was to be a personage at first rejected. I now refer to Psa. 118:22 for the same purpose, "The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner". The builders of Israel were to reject their chief corner stone; will they deny that the chief corner stone of their political edifice is the Messiah? Then he was to be rejected by the builders. Is the Messiah of Mr. Stern's expectation to be rejected? Jesus of Nazareth was rejected by the head men of Israel, and therefore he answers to this prophetic intimation of David. I next refer to Isaiah 8:14.

"He shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and shall be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him".

 

Who has been the stone of stumbling to Israel? Jesus of Nazareth. And God has hidden His face from them; for are they not now broken and snared and taken? Have they not been for 1,800 years wandering in darkness? Jesus of Nazareth has ascended into Heaven, and by the testimony of the Apostles, is sitting at the right hand of God; and the binding of the law and the sealing of the testimony among his disciples is now going on. How complete is the correspondence between Jesus and the Messiah foretold by the prophets. (Time called.)

 

 

MR. STERN: My opponent thinks that he has a perfect right, and that he is perfectly in order, to go on asking me to produce the originals of Moses. I hold that he is out of order to answer my question by asking me another. I have not come to discuss Judaism versus Christadelphianism. I shall produce the originals of Moses when we discuss that subject. It is not my purpose here to-night. It is for you (looking at Mr. Roberts) to produce yours; it is for you to affirm that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and for me to deny. Now we have got so far from Mr. Roberts; after a great deal of trouble I have got him to acknowledge that Matthew was written by Matthew, Mark by Mark, Luke by Luke, and John by John, consequently I shall deal with that matter as soon as I am at liberty; but I shall now proceed with what I intended to do in my last speech. My friend says that I have no right to assume that Daniel was mad. Perhaps it is a very grave assumption on my part to say so. I only say this that if he was the prophet of God, and if he spoke the words of God, of course he was not mad at that time; but it is possible when he said those words about the little horns and the big horns and what he saw in the vision -- it is quite possible that if he was not mad, he was not very sensible. At least so far as I am concerned, it has nothing whatever to do with the subject to-night. The only issue is whether we shall take the weeks in Daniel to represent weeks of years, and in other places as weeks of days. My friend has not attempted to deal with that. I have laid great stress upon what a queer thing it would be if Jesus were in the grave three years instead of three days. I have shown that, according to my friend's argument, some people referred to in the Old Testament must have lived for thousands of years. Perhaps Livingstone has met with some of them in his travels; that is to say if I assume that each week of the years they lived represents seven years. I am now going to Daniel 9. In verse 25 it says that Messiah the Prince will appear at the end of the seventh week, before the re-building of Jerusalem. Now this cannot be this Jesus, as he was not born until 350 years after the re-building of Jerusalem, and only seventy years before it was again destroyed. Besides in the next verse it is said that after three score and two weeks the Messiah shall be cut off. Calling the weeks seven years in this case as in the other, the true Messiah ought to have lived 434 years. Did Christ live so long? He died, it has been said, when thirty-two or thirty-three years old; thus leaving a slight deficiency of upwards of 400 years. Again, from the context it appears that the Messiah was to be a temporal prince. Daniel calls him Messiah the Prince, and talks of troublesome times and of building streets and walls. Was Jesus such a Messiah? We are told in verse 27 that he was to confirm the covenant with many for one week. Did Jesus confirm a covenant with anyone for one week -- namely, seven years? His ministry lasted about three. In the midst of the week, we are also told he was to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. Did Christ do this in his time? The Messiah was to be cut off after three score and two weeks, at the same time that the city and the sanctuary were destroyed. Now Jesus was put to death thirty-seven years before the destruction of the city, and not at the same time. It is further announced that these seventy weeks were to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins. Was this result attained either during the seventy weeks or after their expiration? Why as Jews we do not to-day profess to be without sin. So far from these seventy weeks or 490 years, agreeing so precisely with the advent of Christ, there was a difference of at least half-a-century. In every particular therefore, is this boasted prophecy of Mr. Roberts falsified. I will now -- since my friend insists upon the genuineness, and since he rests his whole life upon the New Testament -- I will now proceed to quote a few passages, and see how these men who were inspired by God, relate circumstances, whether they knew them or not -- agree with each other. I will endeavour to show you how they agree with one another. In the first place I refer to St. Luke, and he gives us a description of the resurrection. He says "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre bringing spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them". Now this inspired writer cannot even tell you who "they" were. He simply says "they" came "and certain others with them"; I do not know who they were. But when I come to St. John he seems to be a little more informed on the subject, and it is very kind of him that he really condescends to mention it. St. John says, "the first day of the week came Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, to the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre". Now although Luke is deficient in instruction, John makes up for it. Why Mary was so anxious to go on Saturday night, or as he terms it on Sunday morning, I do not know. They could not have expected anything which they afterwards saw, for they seemed all astonished at what they did see. What her object was in coming we are not told; but let us suppose that she did know. Some ladies know things even better than gentlemen. Supposing Mary did know the things which the apostles did not. The grand inspired apostles, the beautiful apostles, which my friend objects to me speaking so disparagingly of -- the grand apostles did not know as much as the woman. What did she know? She knew that Jesus was to rise on the third day, for he was to be like Jonah who was in the whale's belly for three days and three nights. Jesus was to be three days and three nights in the grave. As Jesus was crucified on Friday, and buried on the same evening; how comes it that she was so very anxious to know whether he had risen when he had only been buried thirty hours? I shall leave it to Mr. Roberts, who knows what people not only said but thought at the time -- if he will be kind enough to tell us. (Time called.)

 

 

MR. ROBERTS: I can tell Mr. Stern that Mary did not go to the sepulchre with the expectation that Jesus should rise. On the contrary, in common with the disciples, she "knew not the Scriptures that he should rise from the dead". She went to the grave to perform the last offices of the dead, to anoint the body with certain spices. Mr. Stern is therefore arguing on a fallacy, when he assumes Mary was at the grave in expectation of His resurrection. Then the apostles were not inspired at that time; they were not inspired till the Day of Pentecost; we are distinctly informed (Jno. 7:39) that the Holy Spirit was not given when Christ was with them. The argument on that point therefore also falls to the ground. As to the alleged discrepancies between the accounts of the resurrection, he has yet to make them manifest. What is there inconsistent between the two narratives although they vary? I see nothing, and until he shows they conflict, I need not attempt to reconcile them. Then because he finds the prophecy of the seventy weeks very much in his way, he makes another attempt to get rid of it. But just as he assumed facts about the resurrection which had no existence, so he does in this case. He says that the Messiah should have appeared at the end of the seventh week after the re-building of Jerusalem. He does not perceive that the whole period from the re-building of Jerusalem to the Messiah, is seventy weeks, and that the seven weeks is only a subdivision marked by certain events in Jewish history. Mr. Stern on this point is raising fictitious objections. I may tell you in brief that just as in the application of the 53rd of Isaiah, so in this, he is at issue with the great bulk of his ancestors, who recognised the seventy weeks as the prophetic equivalent of 490 years, at the end of which they expected the Messiah. He asks why should they look at the matter thus; the reason is obvious. Fitness demands, that where in a vision great things are represented by little things, such as a dynasty by a little horn, an empire by a beast, and so on, so a great period of time should be represented by a small period of time; and if he asks for Scriptural authority for the view that the scale is a day for a year, he has only to refer to the 4th chapter of Ezekiel, 4th and 5th verses, where a period of time is distinctly explained to have been symbolised on the day for a year principle. The period of seventy weeks is subdivided with regard to certain events that were to mark the currency. After three score and two weeks (in the 25th verse), from the issue of the command for the restoration of Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince, were to be seven weeks, at the end of which Jerusalem would be fully re- established, though the time would be troublous; three score and two weeks, at the end of which the ministry of the Messiah would commence. But Mr. Stern says that according to Daniel, the Messiah was to appear at the end of the seven. This is not so; and as Mr. Stern has failed to show it, it is sufficient for me to contradict it. It is after the threescore and the seven that the Messiah was to appear, and Jesus appeared at that very time John had fulfilled his mission in preparing a situation favourable for the Lord's introduction to the notice of Israel. Three and a half of the last seven years had run, and then Jesus himself was revealed to Israel; and in the second half of the last seven, he did confirm the covenant made to the fathers. I give Mr. Stern a Jew's authority for that. Paul, in Rom. 15:8, says, "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers". Jesus confirmed those covenants of promise by removing the great impediment in the way of their fulfilment. He was cut off, and thus made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, without which it was impossible that the bestowal of immortality involved in the covenant could have been made for Abraham was under the sentence of Eden. Until the obstacle arising out of that was removed, it was impossible that the covenant could be carried out. The matter before us is the solution of the difficulty. Jesus of Nazareth, the seed of Abraham and David, yet a spotless, sinless victim, died, crucified, and thus took away the sin of the world, and in rising again confirmed the covenant made with the fathers. This was in the last half of the week. He also caused to cease the Mosaic sacrifices, for Paul, who was a Jew of higher standing than Mr. Stern (for, as he said, "I am a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee, a Hebrew of the Hebrews") says Jesus put an end to the law of Moses, nailing it to his cross. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth (Rom. 10:4). He says, "The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, but by one offering he, the Messiah, hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. He taketh away the first covenant (Mosaic) that he may establish the second" (Abrahamic) (Heb. 10:9). So that as regards their efficacy -- their divine validity -- Jesus of Nazareth did cause, in his death, a cessation of sacrifices as intimated in the prophecy of the seventy weeks. It is vain for anyone to point to the fact that they continued to be offered in the temple, for though offered they were no longer recognised.

I will now resume my line of evidence. In Zech. 12: 10, speaking of the time of coming glory, it says:

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplications; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. "

 

To whom does this apply? Does Mr. Stern expect his Messiah to be pierced by the Jews? No, but Jesus of Nazareth was pierced by the Jews. Mr. Stern may say the Romans. No doubt the actual wounding was by them, but at whose instigation was it? When a man takes an implement in his hand and does something with it, you do not say it is the implement that does it; the thing done is the act of the operator, though actually done by the implement. In this way the Queen is said to do things in the government of the country that she in reality does not do, because they are considered to be done by her authority. On the same principle, the Jews did pierce the Messiah by means of the Romans, The Romans of their own accord would never have done it. Pilate wanted to let him go, but the Jews clamoured for his crucifixion, and so Pilate gave them their way. Here then is a statement that they are to look upon him whom they have pierced. Does not this answer to Jesus of Nazareth?

I refer next to Zech. 9:9, where this same king is introduced:"Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion, shout 0 daughter of Jerusalem, behold thy King cometh unto thee; he is just and having salvation; lowly riding upon an ass and upon a colt the foal of an ass".

And it goes on to say at the eleventh verse, "As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant, I have sent forth thy priests out of the pit wherein is no water" (a metaphorical description of the grave peculiar to the prophets). Now here is an intimation that there is to be in connection with the Messiah, a liberation of the people from the grave, as the result of a covenant to which blood has relation. "The blood of thy covenant". Can Mr. Stern explain this connection with his Messiah? Can he deny its applicability to Jesus of Nazareth? The blood of Jesus Christ was shed on Calvary, and in all New Testament representations of the final triumph of Christ's work, his blood is a prominent feature. "He hath washed us in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5). "Thou hast redeemed us by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9). Mr. Stern asks how Jesus justifies anybody? I answer by quoting Paul in Acts 13:38. In the course of a speech addressed to the Jews, Paul says, "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe arejustifed from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses". My answer then is, that Israel's God is pleased to regard a man as in a righteous position who has faith in this crucified Messiah.

In Isaiah 49:7, you have the same idea distinctly brought to view:--

"Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and the Holy one of Israel, and he shall choose thee. Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant for the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages".

 

Now what is a covenant? According to the Hebrew term, it is a dividing by cutting, because a covenant was established over the divided bodies of slain beasts; so that in saying of this personage that God would give him for a covenant, it was equivalent to saying that he would give him up to be done as was done to Jesus of Nazareth; as the result of which, great blessings would flow to those who believed in him. Will this apply to Mr. Stern's looked-for Messiah? It applies to Jesus. Carrying out this view, we find in the next chapter (Isaiah 50:5), "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting", which is true of Jesus of Nazareth: to him these words most truly apply. Again, in Micah 5:1, you have the same feature:

"Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops; he hath laid siege against us; they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek".

 

The judge of Israel is the Messiah. Has the Messiah whom Mr. Stern expects, to be smitten? (Looking at Mr. Stern). He shakes his head; therefore his Messiah is not the Messiah of the prophets, for the Messiah of the prophets was to be smitten to death, and buried with the rich. (Time called.)

 

 

MR. STERN: You have heard the last sentence of Mr. Roberts; I am very sorry to say that I do not approve the style or the manner he debates this question. Really and truly if you have taken notice of him, you must have been impressed as I have been. It must have seemed to you, as if the Jews are here before you, accused today of crucifying Jesus, and you are the jury to judge, and he is the counsel pleading for Jesus; and he wishes you to condemn us to-day. Really, I did not think I was coming here for that; surely he might have put it in a milder manner than he has done. Do speak in a calmer tone! What do you mean by saying we have crucified your Jesus? How dare you come here and say we have crucified your Jesus? According to your theory, he has no right to be crucified; according to your theory, Jesus is wrongly crucified; we are to be blamed for crucifying him. And what would become of your salvation then? You would all have to go to hell. We ought to argue this question calmly. I have tried to argue it calmly. I have no ill-feeling against any man or women, no matter where they come from; whatever creed they belong to. As Christians, I hate you, but outside of your Christianity, I can love, and respect you as men. I do not blame you, nor give you a wrong sentiment as individuals, I give my hatred to that blasphemous, infamous and merciless creed which you call Christianity. (Disapprobation.) My friends I have told you over and over again, that hissing will have no effect on me. Not one sentence will I leave out. Well, my friend speaks as if life itself depended upon it.

MR. ROBERTS: It does.

MR. STERN: It does in your opinion. If I was to be judged, I would at least get impartial people to judge me. I have told you over and over again, that I have not come here to discuss Judaism. We have got another night, and I hope and trust that he will use milder language, so that I may be able to reply in the same terms. I told him at the outset, "do not be surprised, if the result of this discussion is for me to embrace Christianity". Is this the way to get me to be a Christian? At least you ought to use mild language. Let us see some of your Christian kindness. We are not here as Jews who have crucified Jesus: I hold that they did not crucify him. The Jews were under the Roman government, and they had no power to withhold him from being crucified. It is your forged documents that tell you we have crucified him. We have never done anything of the sort. In fact, before I leave here, I am prepared to prove that Jesus was not crucified at all. (Laughter.) According to Mr. Roberts, everything I say falls to the ground, and everything he says is established. He says, Jesus did fulfil the covenant. I will refer you to Dan. 10:27 - "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week". Christ did not confirm the covenant for one week, that is, seven years. The whole of his ministry did not last above three. How can it refer to Jesus. He says that although they have continued to sacrifice, they are not recognised by God. This is the height of presumption, for a man to come here in 1871, and tell us what God did 2,000 years ago. How dare you come here and say so? The very fact that they continued the sacrifices showed that God must have accepted them. How dare you come here and say He did not? Surely my friend does not mean to say that he has dreamed, and that a ghost has appeared to him. I do not believe in ghosts; but perhaps he will make a distinction between an ordinary ghost and a holy one. If he does I shall be glad to know the difference. Of course my friend says he has cut me to pieces with everything he has said. I will leave it to you whether he has or not. He says that Mary Magdalene went with some spices to embalm Jesus. Well now, it says, "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth and cometh to Simon Peter". She ran away, so you see she did not do what she went for. But mark this, although Luke says, "They came, and certain others with them", which means a few, say half-a-dozen, John says it was only Mary Magdalene; and Mark says "when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him". It says there were two Marys. This is certainly a little more sensible, still it would not agree with Luke; it must be more than three; it certainly contradicts. In John it says that on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene, "then she runneth". It is alluding to one person, because if any more were there they would all run. Now let us see what Matthew says: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre; and, behold, there was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it". Here is an earthquake which everybody should have noticed, and yet none of the apostles say anything about it but Matthew. My friend says they were not inspired then, and that they were liable to error; and I admit it. I wish to make one or two remarks before the close of the meeting. I am perfectly willing to receive any fair argument, any reasonable one, but not a mysterious one. The whole of last night he was referring to the beautiful mysteries of the New Testament. I intended to ask him what he meant. I do not blame him for referring to the mysterious, but I want people to explain mysteries. I have not come here to get you to embrace Judaism. If he tries to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, I shall prove that he was not. The decision rests with you. I will conclude in the words of the poet, John Critchley Prince:

"My religion is love -- 'tis the noblest and purest;
My temple the universe -- widest and surest;
I worship my God through His works which are fair,
And the joy of my thoughts is perpetual prayer."

 

 

PREFACE| FIRST NIGHT | THIRD NIGHT

 


spacer