How is it that early Christians, who were mainly monotheistic Jews, showed such devotion, even worship, to Jesus Christ while still worshipping God in heaven? Larry Hurtado answers that question and more in this book and he does it in intricate, scholarly detail. In fact, Hurtado argues that this attitude towards Jesus stretches back to earliest Christianity in Jerusalem. This doctrine, this concept, he says, did not arise out of much later reflection and theological development, as some would argue.

He begins by setting his study in the context of first century Jewish monotheism, making it clear that generally the Jews of that time believed in one God and one God only. He then shows that from early on Christians, while still demonstrating devotion and worship to God in heaven, also demonstrated devotion and worship to Jesus Christ, a man dead but risen. In other words, these monotheistic Jews engaged in “binitarian” worship.

Hurtado examines Paul’s letters in chapter two, arguing that they are the earliest forms of Christian writing available to us. Hurtado notes that while Jewish critics of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles complained about his mixing with Gentiles and his attitude to the Law, particularly his apparent rejection of circumcision, none seems to have complained about his using divine terms for this risen Jesus. Whilst arguments from silence can prove little or nothing, sometimes they carry weight, and this one, I believe, does that. The conclusion Hurtado draws is that the reason they did not reject Paul’s teaching on “devotion to Jesus” was because they too were teaching it and that even before Paul did. Indeed, Hurtado wonders whether this could be one of the reasons Paul originally so strongly opposed Christianity.

Even in Paul’s early writings “devotion to Christ is presupposed”. This would date its origins to not later than the 40s A.D. For example, in the first chapter of 1 Thessalonians (probably written in 50 A.D.) Paul speaks of “our Lord [kyrios] Jesus Christ” (v.3) and of God’s “Son from heaven … Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath” (vv.9-10). Scholars commonly regard Philippians 2:5-12, which begins “Christ Jesus, ‘Who, being in very nature God …’”, as an early Christian hymn that Paul uses in his letter. That hymn, if such it is, glorifies Christ in unmistakable terms. If that letter was written in about 60 A.D., as is commonly believed, then that hymn must have been composed earlier, perhaps much earlier.

In fact, this belief and its associated practices seem to have become common remarkably early in different Christian groups. Hurtado says, “for such a major cultic innovation to have so quickly become widespread, conventionalized, and uncontroversial among various Christian groups, it must necessarily have originated among one or more sufficiently influential, respected, and very early circle of believers.”

After looking at Paul’s letters Hurtado goes on to examine “Judean Jewish Christianity”, the synoptic Gospels, and then John’s Gospel. After that he looks at early Christian writings that are not part of Scripture, and in the process moves into the second century.

John’s Gospel is generally regarded as the last of the four Gospels to have been written, but it (or most of it, some would argue) was still written in the first century, so soon after the events it speaks of. Yet John’s Gospel has an undeniably high view of Jesus. A striking example of this is John’s frequent recording of “I am” (Gk. egō eimi) on the lips of Jesus, most significantly “before Abraham was born, I am!” (Jn. 8:58). Hurtado says, “this absolute use of ‘I am’ in the Gospels amounts to nothing less than designating Jesus with the same referential formula that is used in the Greek Old Testament for God’s own self-declaration.”

Strikingly, Hurtado also suggests that John’s portrayal of Jesus as the Word (logos) in his first chapter is not really connected with the Old Testament concept of wisdom, as is often suggested. Rather it is more related to “the name of God and the angel of the Lord” found in the Old Testament and later “Jewish traditions”.

Was Jesus Really Born of a Virgin? is one of a series of little books produced by P & R Publishing that examines questions often asked by unbelievers and even believers. The series is called Christian Answers to Hard Questions. This particular booklet focuses on the supernatural origins of our Lord’s birth. It is short but it is comprehensive.

Brandon Crowe begins by stating briefly the biblical case and notes that we are really talking about “the virginal conception” of Jesus, rather than the virgin birth. He then considers and answers various objections. These include: the “Scientific”, the “Philosophical”, and the “Mythological” objections. At the end of each is a section “Before We Move On”, which asks questions about what has just been said. Through this method readers are able to immediately review what they have read.

It is common for people today to object to the virgin birth on the grounds that such a birth is scientifically impossible. But, as Crowe points out, believers in the first century, including the writers of the Gospels, were not ignorant of the only method of procreation and to them Christ’s conception was a most believable miracle. In fact, as Crowe says, “The issue rather is whether God is able to work above and beyond the laws of nature … to accomplish his purposes.” To that the author responds that He is.

Crowe also shows that the virgin birth was a common teaching in the early church. In other words, it was an early part of Christian tradition. He mentions the writings of Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, and Irenaeus, who all referred to it in the second century A.D. It was also a feature of the so-called Apostles’ Creed.

Brandon D. Crowe is assistant professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia).

After dealing with the objections, Crowe moves on to examine the biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In doing so he stretches his purpose a little to examine other issues in the birth narratives, but he retains his primary focus on the supernatural nature of Christ’s birth.

It is striking that the two accounts of the birth of the Lord Jesus in Matthew and Luke are quite different. Crowe argues that the two writers were being “selective” in their choice of the material they used (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), but that their accounts are not “contradictory”. For example, one has Jesus visited by shepherds, the other has Him visited by wise men. One has a message from angels, the other has a guiding star. They have different features, but they are not contradictory.

One of the few aspects of the birth story that both Gospels tell us is that Jesus was born of a virgin. That vital detail is strikingly common to both. While some may regard the doctrine of the virgin birth as unimportant, these biblical writers seem to have considered it most significant. And so should we.

Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God, and the virgin birth, virginal conception if you prefer, was the means by which He came to us and became one of us.

This is an excellent booklet on this subject, which would be a great help to those who have doubts about the virgin birth and for those who underestimate its importance.

Reviewed by David Malcolm Bennett

Publisher’s page: http://www.prpbooks.com/book/was-jesus-really-born-of-a-virgin

This is a difficult book to read, at least in some respects. But it tells a story of great importance and considerable relevance to us today. The Armstrong Girl is not difficult because it is hard to read or badly written, but rather because the story is harrowing.

Victorian England was Christian. Yet is any country Christian? Certainly some of the things that went on behind the scenes in nineteenth century Britain were horrific and deeply disturbing. One of the worst was child prostitution, and the Armstrong girl could well have become a child prostitute. Instead she became a pawn in a campaign to raise the age of consent and attack the exploitation of the children of the poor.

In 1885 Bramwell Booth, second-in-charge of The Salvation Army, and W. T. Stead, editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, became aware of children being sold into sexual slavery and, in some cases, being sent to brothels overseas. With the aid of others, who were mainly Christian, they hatched a clever plan to combat this. They “bought” thirteen-year old Eliza Armstrong from her mother and sent her to a brothel in London, where Stead greeted her. They later transported her to Paris, into the care of Salvationists, to show that it could be done. Various safety factors were put in place, to make sure that the girl would not be harmed and that they could not be accused of criminal behavior.

Then Stead launched forth with his “Maiden Tribute to Modern Babylon” campaign in the Gazette. It was vivid. It was dramatic. It was an early example of tabloid journalism at its most graphic. And it caused a great stir. Initially there was considerable criticism and some shops refused to sell the paper after the first edition. But as the week of articles progressed the tide turned, and with the support of many, including numerous church groups, the cry burst forth to end this terrible business.

The main result was to raise the age of consent in Britain from 13 to 16, which it still is today. Earlier proposals to raise the age of consent had failed in the House of Commons, so this was a major success.

But then things began to go wrong. They had technically committed a crime. They had broken the law, so in spite of their safeguards two court cases resulted, and Stead, Bramwell Booth and others were put on trial. Bramwell was found not guilty, Stead received six months in jail. Others were also imprisoned or lost their jobs because of their part in this campaign. Wickedly, those who made a living out of this evil trade escaped prosecution.

This is a very fine book about Charles Wesley. Yes, I did say “Charles Wesley”. As author Gary Best points out, there have been many books written about John Wesley, but his brother Charles has not been so fortunate. This biography seeks to address that imbalance and in the process reveal Charles Wesley to be much more than a hymn writer, though his hymns and other poetry are scattered throughout the book’s pages. Best argues that Charles has not been given the credit due to him for his important part in the founding of Methodism.

Charles, like his brother, was a traveling preacher for many years. Some contemporaries regarded him as a better preacher than John. It could be said that John’s preaching was logical, Charles’s was passionate, and their contemporary George Whitefield’s was dramatic and dynamic.

Charles Wesley was born prematurely and nearly did not survive. Probably partly because of that, in later life he suffered from a range of medical conditions, which limited his outdoor ministry from late middle age. His happy marriage to Sally Gwynne also contributed to his giving up the life of a traveling preacher, though this did not stop him ministering in London and Bristol in the south of England.

He was four years younger than John, and usually bowed to his older brother’s authority. Yet it was Charles, not John, who started the Holy Club at Oxford, though when John moved back to Oxford he took on its leadership. It was even Charles who first experienced his heart being warmed by God’s Holy Spirit in May 1838. That is, Charles was converted a few days before his older brother (assuming that the experiences of God that they had at that time were their conversions).

One mistake, I think, the Wesley brothers made was to insist on Methodism remaining in the Church of England. With the benefit of hindsight, it appears to have always been a vain hope. John insisted that the movement remain in the Established Church, though he occasionally wavered; Charles insisted on it and never for one moment doubted the correctness of his belief and actions. Yet when both were dead Methodism drifted from the Anglican Church.

At times the brothers clashed. One area of dispute was over the issue of Christian Perfection. Both Charles and John believed that a Christian could be perfect in this life (though there is disagreement about what they meant by that). John wrote a book about it, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, and Charles, inevitably, wrote hymns that taught it. One of his hymns on perfection is “God of all power and truth and Grace”. It has such lines as “perfect holiness in me”, “Purge me from every evil blot”, “cleanse me from every sinful thought”, “Give me a new, a perfect heart”, and, in case those prayers might be thought to refer to our existence in heaven, he says “O that I now, from sin released…”

But while the brothers agreed on the teaching they did argue on its outworking. John was more ready than Charles to regard some fellow Christians as having reached perfection. Charles warned his brother that many of those who were claiming to be perfect were boasting about the fact. In other words, not unreasonably, Charles thought that the boasters were far from perfect. John disagreed and this did cause tension between them.

There is, I believe, one major problem with this book. Best gives what I think is an unfair picture of John Wesley. He makes a lot of criticism of him and offers too little praise. It is true that John wanted to be boss, made sure that he was boss, and made it clear to everyone, including Charles, that he was boss, but there was a better side to him. He was often compassionate and caring, and he had a wonderful rapport with the poor that few, if any, well-educated men of his time could match.

Having offered that criticism let me make it clear that this is a fine book and well worth reading. It is also an important book because of the lack of other material on the life of Charles. Gary Best captures Charles Wesley as a man of courageous action as well as a thoughtful churchman, theologian and poet. He also gives some wonderful insights into early Methodism. Make sure you read it.

Reviewed by David Malcolm Bennett.

My Journey with the Bible

Like most of my generation (I was born in 1942), I was brought up on the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. Its language, I thought, was old fashioned and at times difficult to understand. However, it was dealing with ancient times, so this did not seem inappropriate.

I began to take the Bible seriously in my late-teens and the archaic language became more of a problem. I was not yet a Christian, but I had a very strong suspicion that the Bible was, indeed, the word of God, and I desperately wanted to understand it. However, much of it I found impossible to understand. The Gospels I could generally grasp, and some of the historical parts of the Old Testament, but the OT prophets and the New Testament letters were for the most part a mystery to me. While this was, no doubt, because I lacked at that time the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the main reason was that I just did not understand King James English.

Early in 1961 I went to work for a Christian publisher in London that also ran a small Christian bookshop. That March the New Testament of the New English Bible (NEB) was published and we sold more than a thousand copies in a day. The NEB was the first completely new English translation by a committee since the KJV¹ and it was not without its flaws. Yet it was in good, modern English.

I bought one of the thousand and began to read it from the beginning of Matthew. It proved a blessing to me in that I understood the language, but at another level I still did not understand its message. It was when I launched out into Paul’s Letter to the Romans that things changed (I was converted at about this time, but the precise order of events I cannot remember). Suddenly, in that most difficult of books, the words seemed to leap from that page and I understood very well what they meant about sin, salvation and the Lord of that salvation. Suddenly, I found the Bible exciting and challenging.

It is, perhaps, ironic that as time progressed I became dissatisfied with the NEB. I became aware that it showed signs of liberal bias in its translation, which was a bit disturbing. Perhaps the most unfortunate example of this was in 2 Tim. 3:16, the first part of which read, “Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth …” Thus this translation implied that some scriptures were not inspired, or at least might not be. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) by contrast, says, “All scripture is inspired by God”, which, all other translations I have consulted, though the precise wording may vary, make the same point: all Scripture is God-inspired, not just some of it.

With so many English versions of the Bible available, why do some still use the King James Version exclusively?

Introduction

We live in an age in which there are many English language translations of the Bible, too many, in fact. There are very good versions and others which are not so good. But which one should we read? To some people the King James Version (KJV) is the only Bible. But are they right?

Like most of my generation (I was born in 1942) I was brought up on the KJV, sometimes called the Authorized Version. Its language, I thought as a child, was old fashioned and at times difficult to understand. However, it was dealing with ancient times, so this did not seem inappropriate.

As I began to take the Bible seriously in my late-teens, the archaic language became more of a problem. I was not yet a Christian, but I had a very strong suspicion that the Bible was, indeed, the Word of God, and I desperately wanted to understand it. However, much of it I found impossible to understand. The Gospels I could generally grasp, and some of the historical parts of the Old Testament, but the OT prophets and the New Testament letters were for the most part a mystery to me. While this was, in part, because I lacked the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the main reason was I just did not understand the language.

When I purchased a modern translation of the New Testament, the understanding began to flood in.

The King James Bible

Many people brought up on the KJV have been happy to let it go, as I did. That does not necessarily mean that any of them respect it less. It is primarily because language has changed so dramatically in the past four hundred years that in many places the KJV is very hard to understand and, worse, very easy to misunderstand. These people have therefore adopted more recent translations, written in modern English.

However, there are many others who refuse to let the KJV go. To most of these people the KJV is the only translation. Indeed, some regard it as not just a translation, but as a volume that has been directly, divinely inspired. That is, many believe that the King James translation was directly inspired by God, and this, we are told, cannot be said of any other translation. These people argue that if the other translations disagree with the KJV, then those versions must be wrong. As James White says, “most” KJV-Only people seem to believe this. In fact, that is the reason that the debate generates so much heat.¹