The Inerrancy of Scripture

One of the key fundamentals of Christianity is the belief that the Bible is authoritative over all matters of our lives - our minds, our bodies, and our actions. In general, this has meant that Christians throughout the ages have accepted Scripture unquestioningly - in other words, the "inerrancy" of the Scriptures was assumed. The Bible, as being inerrant, is without a single mistake in the letters and words of the original manuscripts and has been passed down faithfully through the ages by our copyists.

However, over the last hundred years or so, a trend has developed in Christendom towards saying that the Bible continues to be authoritative while being simply a human book, fraught with the same errors and limitations as any other work compiled by fallible men. For example, Neo-Orthodoxy, a movement begun in the early 20th-century, says that we should focus on Jesus Christ, the Word, rather than the Scriptures, which do attest to Him albeit in an imperfect way. According to Neo-Orthodoxy, the Bible becomes real (i.e., "inerrant" or "truthful") to us only when our experience confirms it. This same trend has also crept into doctrinal statements, where the words "authoritative," "inspired," and "infallible" no longer carry the meaning of "without error." Accordingly, it is very important that we use the correct, exact words to describe the authority of Scripture in our doctrinal statements. This is of practical importance, since one can often tell much about what a church is like just by reading its statement of faith.

I will lay out a overview of how the inerrancy of Scripture is supported, using Scripture itself to back up this doctrine, and express some practical ways in which we can defend this fundamental of the faith. I take this very seriously, because I believe that without the objective truthfulness of Scripture, there is no absolute foundation to support Christianity. Experience only will be our guide, and experience, with its always changing and shifting guidelines, will destroy Christianity.

The classic passage referring to the inspiration of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (ESV) "Breathed out" has been translated "inspired" in some versions, but I prefer the former's use because it expresses the actual Greek more precisely. Scripture comes from the very mouth of God, and its source is absolutely infallible and inerrant. Therefore, it is easy to assume that the product of such a perfect Being must necessarily be perfect, especially if it is something like the Scriptures. Unlike with the creation and man, God did not let sin and imperfection eventually enter into His Scriptures; He breathed them out flawlessly and has preserved them for thousands of years, so that we can be confident that what we have now, the original readers had. Amazing, huh?

So, how did God work through imperfect human beings to get His words written down on paper? 2 Peter 1:20-21 provides the answer: "....no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. " Scripture is not a mishmash of perfect and imperfect words; it was providentially directed through the great power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit supernaturally worked through the thoughts and minds of men to make sure that the words were inscribed according to God's perfect intention. Thus, we find that David says, "The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me; His word is on my tongue" (2 Samuel 23:2). David, even though he committed many notorious sinful acts, was still blessed to be an agent whom God used to record His words.

A common stereotype raised by critics is that this method of inspiration reduces the writers to the state of robots, who merely "dictated" what God demanded them to write. This is a misleading and incorrect description of the whole process of writing Scripture. In a remarkable way, akin to the great paradoxical quandaries of the Trinity, the divine sovereignty / human responsibility issue, and the divine/human nature of Christ, a perfect God recorded His inerrant Scriptures through the hands of very imperfect men. He used their training, education, personalities, and styles of writing to craft the Bible. One just has to read Paul's letters to see how evident this is, and how his personality impacts the thrust of the text! :) Holding to a dictation theory of inspiration is indeed too simple a way to attempt understanding such a profound Divine action. The specific theological term of describing the creation of Scripture is: the verbal (each word), plenary (complete in every respect), inerrant (without error) inspiration (God-breathed) of the Scriptures. So, we see how using specific terminology can make a world of difference when it comes to explaining doctrine.

Also, in several occurrences in Scripture, the intrinsic holy nature of God's Word is supported by the people whom it records. Jesus, for example, had a very high view of the Scriptures. When He was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, He phrased each of His answers in Scriptural form: "It is written...." In another place, Jesus said to his opponents "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). A remarkable testimony to the precise preservation of God's Word was also given by Christ Himself when he responded to a group of Jewish people who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Jesus stated that when God spoke to Moses from the burning bush (in the book of Exodus), He identified Himself: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." From this, Christ deduced: "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 21:31-32). Even though the three patriarchs mentioned had bodily died a long time before, their spirits were still alive and would be eventually reunited with their bodies - they did not simply go out of existence. Even more amazing, the difference here is a simple matter of tense: "I am the God," versus "I was the God." If He insisted so much on the specific tense of a particular word, it is no doubt that Jesus Christ indeed believed that the Old Testament had been faithfully passed down through the past 1,500 years!


"Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth," prayed Jesus (John 17:17). He perhaps was remembering the great Psalm 119, which is devoted entirely to the praising of God's mighty Word: "The sum of Your Word is truth" (v. 160). Christ's prayer was that the disciples would be set apart unto holiness by the truthful Scriptures, which gave and taught them everything necessary in order to know God. We cannot find God through nature. We cannot find Him through other human beings. We can only find Him through a Book which He has written. This Book tells us Who He is, and how to interpret the world which we live in. Only then can we rightly see God working in everyday affairs. If this Book is not inerrant, what can we trust instead? Thus, it is not only of great theological importance that the Bible must be without error, but practical living is also directly affected. I spoke on Truth earlier in this blog, and refer you back to it for further details on the nature of absolute truth.

"Well, that is all good and neat," some might say, "but what evidence is there besides Scripture itself that Scripture is actually inerrant? For example, has it really been passed down faithfully?" Well, I have diligently researched this question and found convincing answers.

First of all, the question of the preservation of the Scriptures. The Old Testament was copied with absolute precision by Jewish Scribes. If they made a mistake in copying, the manuscript was immediately buried out of sight. Every time the name of God was written, the scribe would ceremoniously wash himself and utter prayers. This is actually why we do not have too many OT manuscripts; because the scribes were so careful in copying Scripture, they destroyed all the incorrect copies. At least let me give you some manuscript dates: For a long time, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts we had were from the 8th-9th centuries AD, so we used these to get our translations. However, in the 1940's, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, which contained large portions of the OT. Amazingly, some of these dated from before the time of Christ! A comparison with the later manuscripts found almost no differences whatsoever; the only variations were in spelling and a few word placement situations that hardly affected the overall meaning of the text. This confirms that we can trust the Old Testament.

As for the New Testament, it was written in Greek. Indeed, it is the best-attested ancient Greek document of all, with over 5,000 manuscripts. Homer's Iliad runs a distant second, with about 600 to 700 manuscripts. Furthermore, the earliest NT copies date from the 2nd century BC, only about a hundred years after Christ. Homer's earliest copy is dated approximately 500 years after he wrote the Iliad. Other famous works of antiquity are even less impressive in their manuscript evidence: for the Roman historian Tacitus, we only have 20 copies, and the earliest one is dated over 1,000 years from when he wrote his books (1st century AD). The great philosopher Aristotle, whose works are world-renowned, has about 50 copies, and 1,400 years separate these copies from the original manuscripts (4th century BC).

How, then, can we discredit the Bible purely on the basis of manuscript evidence? If we say goodbye to Scripture, then we must say goodbye to the Greeks and Romans too. Let me make a personal observation: I have been currently reading up on classical history for months. The works are well-written and full of consistency and detail (according to the standards of these times). Yet Livy, Suetonius, and Herodotus all have late copies of their manuscripts, much later than those of the NT. Does that mean I think their works are complete fiction? Of course not! I fully expect these writers to be reliable sources for the history of Greek and Rome, but do exercise discretion since they are only human and liable to make mistakes and errors of judgment. How much more should I respect the dear Scriptures to which I steadfastly hold to, which were not only perfectly preserved but also inerrantly written?

Furthermore, the small number of manuscripts from most writings of antiquity make it impossible to know how consistent they are with the original. With 5,000+ Greek manuscripts from the New Testament, comparison is much easier to make. Upon examining this evidence, we find out that 99.5% of the New Testament is textually pure. The remaining .5% is mostly spelling differences and word order; no major doctrine at all is affected by those variations. What other ancient writing can compare with this level of accuracy? Through the violent turmoils of history, much has been lost and destroyed, including many writings of antiquity, yet the Bible has been preserved completely through it all. Thank God for His amazing providence!

The Bible, itself, is also a wonderfully consistent book. We must realize that it was not written at one time, immediately - it is the product of 1,500 years of progressive revelation from God. A myriad of authors have been used by God to write Scripture - kings (David, Solomon), prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah), shepherds (Amos, Moses), a tax collector (Matthew), a doctor (Luke), and an educated religious leader (Paul). You would think there would be all kinds of inconsistences between the books of the Bible - but no, the unity is incredible! Everything makes sense, from history to doctrine, to the character of God, etc - there are no variations. It is true that there are "difficulties" in many areas, but these are partly due to the vastness of God's understanding as compared to our limited comprehension, and also because of cultural differences in the way they understood things back then (chronology, customs, etc). The point is - there may be apparent contradictions in Scripture, but in reality there are none. There are always sound explanations to get past Biblical difficulties. If any of you have questions regarding a "contradiction," by all means feel free to ask me. I love studying this stuff so I can get answers.

These are the main supports of Biblical inerrancy that I've given above. The Scriptures are something we cannot ignore - and so many of us Christians, myself included, are guilty of minimizing their importance. This book is Holy - it is special, beyond special even. The Holy Spirit of God has used it to save millions upon millions of people. "Bible" means "Book" - so "Holy Bible" means "Holy Book." That is all we need to describe this amazing volume - it is God's own personal revelation down to us so that we can know Him, worship Him, and find salvation through Jesus Christ alone. What a true privilege it is to hold this book in our hands, and realize that God was not indebted to give us such a precious work! The Bible is a book produced by divine love, so that we, as fallen humanity, would be reconciled to our God and have peace with Him once again. Let us give the Scriptures our proper appreciation, then, and devour them hungrily, looking to sustain our spiritual lives and enjoy the great God Whom we serve.

Gaius Julius Caesar: An Assessment

I am currently studying a pivotal time in Roman History: the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. The man who perhaps did more than ever to effect this remarkable change to Roman affairs is Gaius Julius Caesar, made world-famous by Shakespeare's play and the aura of majesty that he has passed down upon kingdoms after kingdoms - with rulers using his name adapted to their language: "Kaiser," and "Tsar/Czar," for example. The Biblical world was also affected as well - because of Caesar's notable actions, the stage was set for the Roman Empire, ruled by one man (Caesar's adopted son, Augustus), to bring about the great peace that would rule the Mediterranean world and pave the way for the spread of the true Faith through the preaching of Jesus Christ and His apostles.

So, I ask, how may we look at this man? What should we make of him? For a while, I have now been puzzling over an extremely pivotal question that has been endlessly debated by historians: Was Caesar out to preserve the Republic, or was he determined to bring about the Empire? History shows us what has happened, but the question of Caesar's actual intentions is more difficult to determine. I will lay out here my own personal conclusions, and I will try to make everything simple and easily understandable to many of you, who may not be acquainted with Caesar's life.

First of all, we must consider the world Caesar grew up in. He was born about 100 BC, and came to manhood in the turbulent time of Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who both warred for control of the Roman state (my prior entry on the decline of the Republic details how events came to this sorry mess). The entire Republic was in turmoil. The renegade Sulla, having defeated King Mithridates of Pontus, who had seriously threatened Roman dominion in Asia, attacked Marius' forces in Italy. Although Marius himself had passed from the scene, his son continued on the war in his name. Sulla eventually won out, had himself declared dictator with absolute powers, and established a brutal reign of terror by way of proscription lists. Every day, Rome's inhabitants had to go to the Forum and see who was marked out for death. Some individuals managed to escape and buy some time, but bounty hunters almost always were able to discover and slaughter them. It was not a good time to be a Roman!

Julius Caesar was around 18 years old at this time. Unfortunately for him, he was connected to Marius through his aunt, for she had married him - so that meant Caesar was Marius' nephew. Furthermore, he had married Cornelia, the daughter of Cinna, another prominent member of the Marian party. When he was brought before Sulla, Sulla felt some pity for him due to his youth, but ordered Caesar to divorce his wife and thus sever the connection with the opposing party. The young man boldly refused. Sulla, taken somewhat aback by Caesar's bravery, let him go but admitted to his friends, "There are many Mariuses in this young man." Interestingly, Sulla (perhaps regretting his savagery) eventually resigned his office and lived as a private citizen until his natural death a couple years later. Caesar in later days ridiculed him, saying: "Sulla never knew his political ABC's."

By examining Caesar's youth, several key characteristics of his personality and approach to power become clearer. Caesar was always a key favorer of the people, always striving to keep himself popular. In the civil wars which he fought for control of Rome, he treated his conquered enemies with amazing humanity, pardoning many of them (including those who would eventually become his murderers), and even as dictator never pushed forth any personal vendettas upon anyone. In this, he most likely reacted against Sulla's abuses and remembered the turbulent times of his own youth.

Caesar, however, was no saint when it came to politics. He behaved in a very utilitarian manner, often using bribery and manipulation to achieve his ends. When he was elected consul in 59BC, Caesar prevented his partner from working with him and forced through his own agendas so effectively that Romans referred to this year as "The consulship of Julius and Caesar." Caesar throughout his early political career also threw many forms of lavish entertainment for the populace of Rome, which included enormous parties and awestriking gladiator exhibitions. He thus gained the public favor but at the same time was plunged into the depths of debt. It was probably partly because of the excesses which characterized his consulship and his enormous obligation to his creditors that Caesar desired to keep a grip on power, because any Roman in a key political office was immune from prosecution until his term ended. There was no doubt that Caesar's enemies would bring him to trial once he left public office.

Julius Caesar did long for greatness: when he was on a military campaign in Spain, he saw a statue of Alexander the Great and wept over the fact that he was about the same age as Alexander was when he died, having conquered the whole world - and yet Caesar himself had not really accomplished anything at all! This confirms a key point of Scripture, which speaks clearly on the principle of the natural, unsaved man living solely for his own glory in the very end:

"For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh....For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Romans 8:5,7).

Also,

"For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world" (1 John 2:16).

Natural man desires for honor and glory - some through power, some through charity to others, that they might be thought good and virtuous. The question remains: Was Julius Caesar seeking to advance his name through either personal despotism or as the Savior of Rome?

There is no doubt that Caesar in some way wished to preserve his person. After his consulship ended, he was given command of Rome's provinces in Gaul for 5 years, thanks to an informal power-playing partnership between him, Pompey the Great, and Marcus Crassus, Rome's richest man. Now, in command of armies, Caesar could do great exploits and make his name even more untouchable. This is precisely what he did. Over the next seven years, he would defeat innumerable armies of Gauls and Germans; make the first Roman incursions into Britain; masterfully besiege the Gaulish leader Vercingetorix while being himself besieged by the Gauls' relief army, and win a remarkable victory over both forces; and write what has been considered to be a supreme example of Latin literature in action: his war commentaries. The Senate, who distrusted Caesar, was becoming increasingly worried at his growing power and his popularity with the people - a new civil war was not afar off. Caesar claims that he did everything he could to avert the conflict, but it broke out nevertheless.

This war, between Caesar and Pompey the Great, who championed the cause of the Senate, raged for four years and continued even after Pompey was murdered by the Egyptians; the other key leaders of the Senate took up the fight again. As I remarked before, Caesar was characterized by an almost extravagant propensity towards clemency to his opponents. Often, the enemies whom he pardoned would actually go back to the opposing armies and fight him again later! He took great pains to minimize the losses of enemy Romans in battle and preferred to attack allies who were not of Italian ancestry. This, in a sense, is admirable, but I feel that Caesar learned his lesson from Sulla too sharply; he swung to the opposite extreme. Whereas Sulla slaughtered all of his major enemies, Caesar pardoned them all, even those who had wronged him greatly - and some of them would later bring about his death. A balance between pardon and execution is important if one wishes to weigh mercy and justice accurately - and only the most discerning men have been able to achieve such a status. Julius Caesar did gain popularity by his mercy - but at the ultimate cost of his life.

Once Caesar had prevailed over his enemies, the Senate voted unprecedented honors upon him: he was the perpetual dictator; he had the powers of a tribune; he could wear his triumphal robes at all public places; his statue was set up with those of the gods; the Roman month Quintilis was renamed to July after him (and this is our July today!); and so on. Caesar generally accepted these honors, and it was thought by many that he desired to bring back the monarchy of Rome, which had been removed hundreds of years ago due to the last king's terrible abuses of power. For example, at a festival, Mark Antony, Caesar's partner in the consulship, offered him a crown in the name of the people of Rome. Caesar refused this offer several times, saying that the chief god Jupiter was the real king of Rome. Nevertheless, it was suspected that Caesar and Antony had planned this ceremony for show.




Caesar on a coin at the time of his perpetual dictatorship.






Was the Roman Republic savable at this point? Caesar, by all purposes, was effectively the king of Rome in all but name. My previous post on Rome made the case that the Republic expanded beyond a point where it could reasonably govern. It may have worked well when the Romans were in control of only a small area of land, but now in an empire with dozens of languages and nationalities and customs and values, its foundation became shaky. Over the last hundred and fifty years (back to around 200 BC), single men grew more and more involved in state affairs and ended up fighting on and off for control of the state for over fifty years (c. 85 BC to 30 BC). Many senators during this time longed sentimentally for the more "peaceful" times of the early Republic, when the government at least was stable. That is one reason Rome resisted the change of its system of rule for so long - it believed its way of ruling (at least in the eyes of the Senate itself) was perfect and did not need to be altered. Caesar undoubtedly believed that things needed to change, and he might have tackled this enormous issue in more detail if it was not for his untimely death.

Julius Caesar desired fame, prestige, and renown, but he also desired the state of affairs to change. I am not sure what he exactly envisioned, but it was not the Republic of the past. The Republic in its present form had failed and was incompatible with the times and circumstances. If it was to continue, it would need to be radically reformed. Caesar may have believed that a monarchy was the best way to address this problem, but it fell to his adopted son Augustus to smoothen the process (by keeping the form of the Republic while practically adopting absolute power in his own person as the princeps, or first citizen). Ironically, it was by senators who were hoping for the restoration of the ancient Republic that Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. The assassins, instead of bringing about a glorious and peaceful return to the bliss of Republicanism, instead plunged Rome into more dreadful civil wars for the next decade and a half. The issue would be decided not by a select body of men chosen by the people, but by one man assuming the power unto himself - Augustus.

Julius Caesar, whatever his intentions may have been, did show Rome one thing - that sometimes it takes the decisive action of one man to bring about stability in the government. Rome could probably have survived under a modified Republic, but the imperial power won out in the end. Nevertheless, it is true that abuses of power happen on both the republican end and the imperial end. I am not saying a republic is bad, but I am saying that a republic has notorious weaknesses, as does a monarchy/dictatorship. I frown upon Caesar's unscrupulousness in gaining power by political maneuvering, but I do recognize that through his power peace briefly came to Rome. In a republic, peace and harmony exists when the people are well-informed and thoughful in electing their leaders; in a monarchy, peace and harmony exists when an intelligent and principled man/woman is administrating governmental affairs for the good of the people. Is it not interesting what the eternal form of government shall be? Christ as King and Absolute Despot of the Universe - One Man in Power! Yet we Christians, as saints, shall also rule with Him and have a hand in the government. And we will not need to worry about our Lord abusing His power - for He is all-wise, all-truthful, all-just, all-merciful, and all-sovereign!

I do not think Julius Caesar acted totally for his own interests at the expense of the people. He was too careful for that, and he remembered what had happened with Sulla. Rather, he tried to blend the two sides together in order to get the best of both worlds - his fame and the good of Rome. This fusion is best shown by Caesar's last will and testament: he gave every Roman citizen a sum of money and some of his own property as a city park for the enjoyment of the people. His own name and the prosperity of Rome would thus be enhanced. Tragically, since Julius Caesar's life was cut short at the age of 55 at the height of his glory and in the middle of his great schemes, we will only know at the Judgment what he truly desired to create.


I encourage all of you to read the primary sources about Caesar and come to your own judgment about him. We are blessed with a great amount of information about him, and much of that is from his own hand, in the War Commentaries (although he presents himself in a strictly factual way and does not philosophize). The works can be read online or purchased, most commonly from Penguin Classics. Here are the major titles:

Plutarch, Caesar's Life - Very readable and takes the position of Caesar aspiring to absolute power.

Appian, Civil Wars - Basic overview of Caesar's war with Pompey.

Dio Cassius, Roman History - Sometimes harsh and biting, but recognizes Caesar's talents.

Suetonius, Life of Julius, from The Twelve Caesars - his style is in a form of snippets detailing Caesar's life, personality, quirks, and talents.

Caesar's own Commentaries on the Gallic Wars and Civil Wars - particularly excellent from a military perspective, somewhat dry but with some fascinating details.

Also, there are many biographies out there, often of varying quality. Use your judgment!

As always, post comments if you have questions or need me to clarify something more specifically. In my next entry, I promise to deal with something theological!

Henry Martyn

Every now and then, I have thought it would be a good idea to present short biographical sketches of key Christian figures who contributed greatly to the growth of the Church. As we read over what God did through them, we are encouraged, admonished, challenged, and inspired to imitate them in the same way that Paul told believers to imitate him (c.f. 1 Cor. 4:16, Phil. 3:17). Hebrews 13:7 also reminds us to imitate the faith of our leaders who spoke the Word of God to us, and in a way this can be true of those who are dead yet speak to us through their writings and examples. It is not their strength or their holiness that sets them apart, but rather the grace and power of God who chose them according to His good pleasure to extend the boundaries of His Kingdom so that He might be greatly glorified.


Henry Martyn is not a particularly well-known figure among most Protestants today, the fact of which I find deplorable. A native of Cornwall in southwest England, he lived from 1781 to 1812, and was one of the "Evangelical Anglicans" in the Church of England, associating with such better-known figures as John Newton, the writer of Amazing Grace, and William Wilberforce, who led the fight in Parliament to abolish the slave trade (the recent movie titled after Newton's song has Wilberforce as its main character). As such, in a denomination largely characterized by ritualism and nominalism, his presence was a breath of fresh gospel air to whomever he came in contact with.


Martyn was a model student, attending Cambridge University and becoming "Senior Wrangler," the highest-ranked person in his class in the mathematics department. As such, he was seriously considering going into the field of law, but when he became acquainted with the minister Charles Simeon and heard about the great missionary need overseas, especially in India, his heart was convicted. Martyn therefore resolved to go into the ministry and enlisted as a chaplain in the British East India Company. During this time, he began to keep a journal of his daily activities and his spiritual life, and was greatly influenced by David Brainerd, a missionary to Native Americans in America during the 1740's (whose diary was published by the famous preacher Jonathan Edwards after Brainerd's death). There was, however, not a little impediment in the road to overseas missionary service for him: He fell in love. The lady's name was Lydia Grenfell, and though she was a few years older than him, her devotion to God was no less fervent. However, despite this severe conflict between love and service to the Lord, Martyn was able to press on with his desire to go to India and Lydia did express some interest in joining him there.

In 1805, Henry Martyn set sail for India and had a most eventful trip. He landed in Brazil, shared the gospel with some of the Catholic priests there, was a spectator of a battle at Cape Town in Africa between the British and the Dutch (the wars of Europe with Napoleon were beginning to rage at this time), and held services for largely unresponsive sailors and military personnel on board his ship. Once he arrived at Calcutta, he met William Carey, a Baptist shoemaker turned Bible Translator who is often called "the Father of Modern Missions." Martyn had an exceptional aptitude in linguistic skill, and so he planned to translate the Bible into the Hindustani language as well as serve his chaplaincy duties. Upon reaching India, Martyn wrote the memorable line in his journal, "Now let me burn out for God!"

During his time in India, from 1806 to 1811, Henry Martyn stayed at two stations, Dinapur and Kanpur (Cawnpore). The work of translation was slow and difficult, since Martyn had to deal with often quarrelsome and opinionated Hindu pundits (religious experts) and munshis (secretaries). He needed them, however, since they knew the language well and were able to assist him in the laborious work.





















Artist rendering of Martyn translating with the aid of his munshi (the spelling was different back then)

Martyn kept corresponding with Lydia, whom he now seriously hoped to marry. However, everything came to naught when Lydia's mother refused to let her daughter go to such a faraway and strange place like India. Brokenhearted, they nevertheless continued writing to each other, but now only in the name of friendship.

The climate of India is severe, with seasons of oppressive heat and torrential rain. Martyn, whose health was never top-notch, often suffered greatly, but continued to persevere. He finished translating the New Testament into Hindustani, and also completed a version in the Persian (Iranian) language. However, upon further inquiry with other Persians, he discovered that the Persian translation was horrendously defective. Martyn thus intended to travel to Persia, and then to Arabia, to correct his translation and work on newer ones.

From Calcutta, he sailed to Bombay, then to the Persian Coast, and made a difficult overland journey to the city of Shiraz. For many months, he stayed there, perfecting the Persian translation and engaging in ceaseless debates and disputes with leading Shi'a Islamic scholars and mystic Sufi gurus. Since Martyn was the first missionary in hundreds of years to enter this land, he was constantly the object of constant inquiry. Nevertheless, he conducted himself
admirably and bravefully.

Finally, once the translation was done, Martyn began the journey to the Shah of Persia to present the New Testament into his hands. As he travelled, he continued to meet with inquirers and discuss the question of Christianity. At one point, he was in a room full of Muslim clerics who demanded that he affirm the Islamic statement of faith: "God is God, and Muhammad is his prophet." Henry Martyn carefully responded, "God is God, and Jesus is the Son of God." There was such an uproar following this utterance that he barely escaped with the papers of his New Testament translation.

















The scene following Martyn's great profession of the Christian faith, as depicted by an artist.

Unfortunately, shortly after this event, Martyn collapsed due to illness and was not able to personally give the Bible to the Shah - another person went in his place. He spent a few months recuperating at Tabriz, in northwestern Persia, and decided that he needed to travel back to England to regain his health before continuing his labors. In the fall of 1812, he set forth on the difficult overland route across Turkey towards Constantinople (Istanbul). At first, the journey went pleasantly enough, but once he entered into Turkish dominions his new guides began to push him too strongly, and his health broke again. Plague was also raging in the lands between him and Constantinople, and he was forced to enter into that country. At last, taking advantage of a brief respite in this exhausting journey, Martyn found the time to pen a few last lines in his journal:

October 6. No horses being to be had, I had an unexpected repose. I sat in the orchard, and thought with sweet comfort and peace, of my God; in solitude my company, my friend, and comforter. Oh! when shall time give place to eternity? when shall appear that new heaven and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness? There, there shall in no wise enter in any thing that defileth: none of that wickedness which has made men worse than wild beasts,--none of those corruptions which add still more to the miseries of mortality, shall be seen or heard of any more.

Ten days later, in the city of Tokat in central Turkey, Henry Martyn's faithful life came to an end, ingloriously buried among a host of plague-ridden victims. Several years later, some missionaries located his grave and erected a memorial obelisk over it. His bones remained there until, pressed by the expanding city's hunger for development, they were obliterated and the obelisk unceremoniously placed away in the recesses of the Tokat museum.

So, no discernible form of the remains of Henry Martyn can be found on this earth, but the impact of his life endures. In his time, the sorrow at his passing in England was great. The Anglican church sainted him (an act that he would have been mortified by), his friend published a biography largely based on his journals that became a spiritual classic, and dozens of missionaries were inspired to follow up on his work in India and in Iran. The effect of his ministry among the natives was not forgotten; although revival never happened, several individuals did come to faith and the remembrance of him as a "man of God" was a sweet savor for many years to a land in darkness. Above all, his translations formed the backbone of further versions of the Bible in Hindustani and Persian. It is no doubt that the present-day church in Iran, currently undergoing severe persecution from the Islamic authorities, owes much of its heritage to the labors of this frail young man who lived 200 years ago. It was God shining through him, and God alone who challenged the Indians and the Iranians with gospel truth through the courageous witness and translation work of Henry Martyn.

I strongly encourage more reading up on Henry Martyn. His journals, while sometimes overly melancholic, are still full of a rich trove of spiritual insight and riveting accounts of his dealings with the people of India and Iran. Below are some recommended resources for further exploration:

Life and Letters of Henry Martyn, by John Sargent - The pioneering work, there are many old editions that may be found in used bookstores. A friend of mine got this off Amazon after I told her about it. It uses the journals very well, but chooses to skim over Martyn's relationship to Lydia and thus does not show the full picture of him as a human being. Also available on Google Books.

For the Love of India: The Story of Henry Martyn, by Jim Cromarty (2005) - I have not read this, but on the surface it seems to be a thorough book, and may be a good modern-day perspective on Martyn.

Letters and Journals of the Rev. Henry Martyn, by Samuel Wilberforce - Also available online, I read both this and Sargent's version together. It fills in Sargent's deficiencies, showing many of Martyn's letters to Lydia.

Henry Martyn, Saint and Scholar, First Modern Missionary, by George Smith (1892) - I recently looked over this on Google Books, its main value is the excerpts from Lydia's own diary and a fuller perspective on his time period from nearly 100 years later; otherwise, it is similar to Sargent and Wilberforce.

Does your heart not feel encouraged at how God has strengthened so many people to proclaim His name across the wide world, among so many civilized and barbarous nations? That is why I offer these biographical sketches, to exhort all of us to trust in God and remember His mighty dealings and His awesome power by which He uses us poor weak vessels to perform His magnificent actions worthy of the highest praise and song. And, of course, through Jesus Christ He saved us so that we could serve Him. Let us praise Him for His glorious redemption!