Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 32

Luke 1:26, There it is related that the angel Gabriel came as a messenger sent by God to Mary in her virgin state, when she was espoused to Joseph of the house of David, and that He announced to her she would conceive and bear a son, who would be holy, and be called a son of the highest; that the throne of David would be assigned to him by the Lord God for occupation, and that he would reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there should be no end.

The statement disagrees with those made in other parts of the New Testament, and cast strong suspicion on the veracity of a book asserted to be written under the influence of inspiration. If Mary had received such a divine message, why did she and her children refuse faith in, and obedience to that Son of God, and why did she and her offspring keep away from the circle of the disciples of him whom she had borne through the intervention of a miracle? See Mark 3:31. A marked contrast also appears between the words of Luke 1:26, and those in John 7:5, which we had occasion to quote in a former chapter, viz., "His brethren did not believe in him." Would it not have been the duty of the virgin-mother to inform her children what a strong claim her first-born had on their pious attachment to him? Again, why did Mary name her son "Jesus?" If he were to be named Emmanuel, according to the interpretation given to the famous passage in Isaiah, which is especially cited in Matthew 1:22, why did the angel hold out the never-fulfilled promise that Jesus would sit on the throne of David? Moreover, why was Jesus called the descendant of David, since it is alleged that he was not the offspring of Joseph, of the house of David, but was begotten of the Holy Ghost? The number of contradictions also is increased by the words of Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 28, for there it is said, "Then shall the son also himself be subject unto him, that put all things under him." This is an additional proof that the kingdom of Jesus is not intended to continue throughout eternity, but is to be only of a temporary nature; hence, we arrive at the conclusion, from the very authorities of the Christian faith, that the Father and the Son are totally distinct personages.

The fact that Troki concentrated very little of his criticism in the book of Mark shows his familiarity with New Testament criticism. Mark is favored by historians for his lack of embellishment. Now we are on to Luke, which is one of the more eloquently written books of the New Testament. Luke, at the beginning of his book, said that he had gathered his information from different sources, the way a historian does.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

At the beginning of Luke, the angel Gabriel made an announcement to Mary that her son would eventually occupy David's throne. Notice what Gabriel did not say. He did not say when these events would take place. Troki would need to argue that Jesus is somehow disqualified from fulfilling these in the future, and I don't see how he could even begin to argue that.

A. Lukyn Williams responds with the following: "Yet it is not said, either here or in any other passage of Scripture, that she did not believe on Him. Surely her anxiety for Him was very natural. She showed lack of trust, it is true, but a mother's heart will ever yearn over the safety of her child. Neither can any reason be alleged why the fact that she knew He was the Messiah should weaken her anxiety. It might well increase it, as she came to perceive more clearly whither He was being led, and to what contumely and suffering He would be exposed. St. Peter, it, must be remembered, acknowledged Him to be the Messiah, and almost immediately after doing so, tried to persuade Him that He would not be called upon to endure suffering and death."

There were good reasons for Mary not to reveal her virginal conception. Who would believe it if she told them? Most people would just think her a liar or would question her sanity. She had good reasons for keeping this a secret.

Regarding the name of Jesus, Williams writes: "R. Isaac objects that Jesus is never called by the name "Immanuel" in the New Testament. But to make an objection of this kind is surely only to trifle with the subject, in a way unworthy of a thoughtful and candid mind. Jesus is, as a matter of fact, often called Immanuel in Christian parlance, and, whether He is called by this name or not, the word ("God with us") does correspond exactly to the nature and personality of Jesus according to the evidence of the New Testament, the only evidence which we possess."

What about his descent from Joseph? Again, according to Roman and Jewish law, Joseph was betrothed to be married to Mary, no other alleged human father could be found, so Joseph was considered by law to be the father of Jesus. We need to consider the idea of legal fiction. A legal fiction is an assumption that something occurred or someone or something exists which, in fact, is not the case, but that is made in the law to enable a court to equitably resolve a matter before it. A corporation is not a person, yet the law considers a corporation to be a person, as the law says.

The other objections are also pretty trivial. Jesus was to be called "God with us" and that is how the New Testament treats him. He is to this day worshiped as God, so how could anyone say that such a prophecy was not fulfilled?

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul makes the following claim about Jesus: "For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all."

This chapter says that all things will be in subjugation to Jesus, and that Jesus will be in subjugation to the Father. What was Paul supposed to say, that Jesus was some rogue deity? The Son has always submitted to the will of the Father, so it is not as though the reign of Jesus will end. Troki has also said that his shows the Son and the Father to be two different persons. This is true. Yet, they are both the same God. The statement "there is one God" is quite a different statement from "God is one person." The New Testament affirms the former, but strongly denies the latter.