OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND NEW
TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY
BY
PROFESSOR
W. H. GRIFFITH THOMAS, D. D.,
Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada
A large number of Christians feel compelled to demur to
the present attitude of many scholars to the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
It is now being taught that the patriarchs of Jewish history are not historic
persons; that the records connected with Moses and the giving of the law on
Sinai are unhistorical; that the story of the tabernacle in the wilderness is a
fabricated history of the time of the Exile; that the prophets cannot be relied
on in their references to the ancient history of their own people, or in their
predictions of the future; that the writers of the New Testament, who assuredly
believed in the records of the Old Testament, were mistaken in the historical
value they assigned to those records; that our Lord Himself, in His repeated
references to the Scriptures of His own nation, and in His assumption of the
Divine authority of those Scriptures, and of the reality of the great names
they record, was only thinking and speaking as an ordinary Jew of His day, and
was as liable to error in matters of history and of criticism as any of them
were.
The
present paper is intended to give expression to some of the questions that have
arisen in the course of personal study, in connection with collegiate work and
also during several years of ordinary pastoral ministry. It is often urged that
problems of Old Testament criticism are for experts alone, and can only be
decided by them. We venture to question the correctness of this view,
especially when it is remembered that to many people "experts" means
experts in Hebrew philology only. By all means let .us have all possible expert
knowledge; but, as Biblical questions are complex, and involve several
considerations, we need expert knowledge in archaeology, history, theology, and
even spiritual experience, as well as in philology. Every available factor must
be taken into account, and the object of the present paper is to emphasize
certain elements which appear liable to be overlooked, or at least
insufficiently considered.
We
do not question for an instant the right of Biblical criticism considered in
itself. On the contrary, it is a necessity for all who use the Bible to be
"critics" in the sense of constantly using their "judgment"
on what is before them. What is called "higher" criticism is not only
a legitimate but a necessary method for all Christians, for by its use we are
able to discover the facts and the form of the Old Testament Scriptures. Our
hesitation, consequently, is not intended to apply to the method, but to what
is believed to be an illegitimate, unscientific, and unhistorical use of it. In
fact, we base our objections to much modern criticism of the Old Testament on
what we regard as a proper use of a true higher criticism.
For nearly eighteen
centuries these modern views of the Old Testament were not heard of. Yet this
is not to be accounted for by the absence of intellectual power and scholarship
in the Church. Men like Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus,
Calvin, Luther, Melancthon, to say nothing of the English Puritans and other
divines of the seventeenth century, were not intellectually weak or inert, nor
were they wholly void of critical acumen with reference to Holy Scripture. Yet
they, and the whole Church with them, never hesitated to accept the view of the
Old Testament which had come down to them, not only as a heritage from Judaism,
but as endorsed by the apostles. Omitting all reference to our Lord, it is not
open to question that the views of St. Paul and St. Peter and St. John about
the Old Testament were the views of the whole Christian Church until the end of
the eighteenth century. And, making every possible allowance for the lack of
historical spirit and of modern critical methods, are we to suppose that the
whole Church for centuries never exercised its mind on such subjects as the
contents, history, and authority of the Old Testament?
Besides, this is a matter
which cannot be decided by intellectual criticism alone. Scripture appeals to
conscience, heart and will, as well as to mind; and the Christian
consciousness, the accumulated spiritual experience of the body of Christ, is
not to be lightly regarded, much less set aside, unless it is proved to be
unwarranted by fact. While we do not say that "what is new is not
true," the novelty of these modern critical views should give us pause
before we virtually set aside the spiritual instinct of centuries of Christian
experience.
The Jewish nation is a
fact in history, and its record is given to us in the Old Testament. There is
no contemporary literature to check tile account there given, and archaeology
affords us assistance on points of detail only, not for any long or continuous
period. This record of Jewish history can be proved to have remained the same
for many centuries. Yet much of modern criticism is compelled to reconstruct
the history of the Jews on several important pints. It involves, for instance,
a very different idea of the character of the earliest form of Jewish religion
from that seen in the Old Testament as it now stands; its views of the
patriarchs are largely different from the conceptions found on the face of the
Old Testament narrative; its views of Moses and David are essentially altered
from what we have before us in the Old Testament.
Now what is there in
Jewish history to support all this reconstruction? Absolutely nothing. We see
through the centuries the great outstanding objective fact of the Jewish
nation, and the Old Testament is at once the means and the record of their
national life. It rose with them, grew with them, and it is to the Jews alone
we can look for the earliest testimony to the Old Testament canon.
In face of these facts,
it is bare truth to say that the fundamental positions of modern Old Testament
criticism are utterly incompatible with the historic growth and position of the
Jewish people. Are we not right, therefore, to pause before we accept this
subjective reconstruction of history? Let anyone read Wellhausen's article on
"Israel" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and then ask himself
whether he recognizes at all therein the story as given in the Old Testament.
It is sometimes said that
modern criticism is no longer a matter of hypothesis; it has entered the domain
of facts. Principal George Adam Smith has gone so far as to say that
"modern criticism has won its war against the traditional theories. It
only remains to fix the amount of the indemnity." But is this really so?
Can we assert that the results of modern criticism are established facts? Indeed
Dr. Smith has himself admitted, since writing the above words, that there are
questions still open which were supposed to be settled and closed twenty years
ago.
In the first place, is
the excessive literary analysis of the Pentateuch at all probable or even
thinkable on literary grounds? Let anyone work through a section of Genesis as
given by Dr. Driver in his "Introduction", and see whether such a
complex combination of authors is at all likely, or whether, even if likely,
the various authors can now be distinguished? Is not the whole method far too
purely subjective to be probable and reliable?
Further, the critics are
not agreed as to the number of documents, or as to the portions to be assigned
to each author. A simple instance of this may be given. It is not so many years
ago when criticism was content to say that Isa. 40-66, though not by Isaiah,
was the work of one author, an unknown prophet of the Exile. But the most
recent writers like Duhm, Macfadyen and Wade consider these chapters to be the
work of two writers, and that the whole Book of Isaiah (from three authors) did
not receive its present form until long after the return from the Exile.
Then, these differences
in literary analysis involve differences of interpretation and differences of
date, character, and meaning of particular parts of the Old Testament. To prove
this, we ask attention to the following extracts from a review of a work on
Genesis by Professor Gunkel of Berlin. The review is by Professor Andrew Harper
of Melbourne, and appeared in the "Critical Review" for January,
1902. Professor Harper's own position would, we imagine, be rightly
characterized as generally favourable to the moderate position of the critical
movement. His comments on Gunkel's book are, therefore, all the more noteworthy
and significant.
"It will change the
whole direction of the conflict as to the early books of the Pentateuch and
lead it into more fruitful directions, for it has raised the fundamental
question whether the narratives in Genesis are not far older than the authors
of the documents marked J. E. P., and whether they are not faithful witnesses
to the religion of Israel before prophetic times." "His conclusion
will, in many respects, be welcome to those who have felt how incredible some
of the assumptions of the Kuenen-Wellhausen school of critics are."
"It will be obvious
at a glance what an upsetting of current conceptions in regard to the history
of religion must follow if it be accepted."
"They are
sufficient, if made good, to upset the whole of the current reconstructions of
the religion of Israel. To most readers it will be seen that he has in large
part made them good."
"There can be no
doubt that his book most skilfully begins a healthy and much-needed reaction.
It should, therefore, be read and welcomed by all students of the Old Testament
whose minds are open."
In view of Gunkel's
position thus endorsed by Professor Harper, is it fair to claim victory for the
modern critical theories of the Old Testament? When an able scholar like
Professor Harper can speak of a new work as "sufficient to upset the whole
of the current reconstructions of the religion of Israel," it is surely
premature to speak even in a moment of rhetorical enthusiasm, as Dr. George
Adam Smith does, of "victory" and "indemnity." Dr. Smith
himself now admits that Gunkel has overturned the Wellhausen theory of the
patriarchal narratives. And the same scholar has told us that distinction in
the use of the name for God is "too precarious" as the basis of
arguments for distinctions of sources. For ourselves we heartily endorse the
words of an American scholar when he says:
"We are certain that
there will be no final settlement of Biblical questions on the basis of the
higher criticism that is now commonly called by that name. Many specific
teachings of the system will doubtless abide. But so far forth as it goes upon
the assumption that statements of fact -in the Scriptures are pretty generally
false, so far forth it is incapable of establishing genuinely permanent
results." (Dr. G. A. Smith, "Modern Criticism and the Preaching of
the Old Testament", p. 35. Dr. Willis J. Beecher, in "The Bible
Student and Teacher", January, 1904) Sir W. Robertson Nicoll, editor of
the "British Weekly," remarked quite recently that the "assured
results" seem to be vanishing, that no one really knows what they are.
4. IS THE POSITION OF MODERN CRITICISM REALLY
COMPATIBLE WITH A BELIEF IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A DIVINE REVELATION?
The problem before us is
not merely literary, nor only historical; it is essentially religious, and the
whole matter resolves itself into one question: Is the Old Testament the record
of a Divine revelation? This is the ultimate problem. It is admitted by both
sides to be almost impossible to minimize the differences between the
traditional and the modern views of the Old Testament. As a reviewer of Dr.
George Adam Smith's book, "Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old
Testament", rightly says:
"The difference is
immense; they involve different conceptions of the relation of God to the
world; different views as to the course of Israel's history, the process of
revelation, and the nature of inspiration. We cannot be lifted from the old to the
new position by the influence of a charming literary style, or by the force of
the most enthusiastic eloquence." ("American Journal of
Theology", Vol. VI., p. 114)
In view of this
fundamental difference, the question of the trustworthiness of the Old
Testament becomes acute and pressing. In order to test this fairly and
thoroughly, let us examine some of the statements made on behalf of the modern
view.
We may consider first the
rise and progress of religion in Israel. Dr. G. A. Smith says: "It is
plain, then, that to whatever heights the religion of Israel afterwards rose,
it remained before the age of the great prophets not only similar to, but in
all respects above-mentioned identical with, the general Semitic religion;
which was not a monotheism, but a polytheism with an opportunity for monotheism
at the heart of it, each tribe being attached to one god, as to their
particular Lord and Father." ("Modern Criticism", p. 130)
Consider what is meant by
the phrase, "in all respects above-mentioned identical with the general
Semitic religion," as applied to the religion of Israel previous to the
eighth century B. C. Can this view be fairly deduced from the Old Testament as
we now have it? Still more, is such a view conceivable in the. light of the
several preceding centuries of God's special dealings with Israel? Wherein, on
this assumption, consisted the uniqueness of Israel from the time of Abraham to
the eighth century B. C.?
We may next take the
character of the narratives of Genesis. The real question at issue is the
historical character. Modern criticism regards the account in Genesis as
largely mythical and legendary. Yet it is certain that the ,Jews of the later
centuries accepted these patriarchs as veritable personages, and the incidents
associated with them as genuine history. St. Paul and the other New Testament
writers assuredly held the same view. If, then, they are not historical, surely
the truths emphasized by prophets and apostles from the patriarchal stories are
so far weakened in their supports?
Take, again, the
legislation which in the Pentateuch is associated with Moses, and almost
invariably introduced by the phrase, "The Lord spake unto Moses."
Modern criticism regards this legislation as unknown until the Exile, or a
thousand years after the time of Moses. Is it really possible to accept this as
satisfactory? Are we to suppose that "The Lord spake to Moses" is
only a well-known literary device intended to invest the utterance with greater
importance and more solemn sanction? This position, together with the generally
accepted view of modern criticism about the invention of Deuteronomy in the
days of Josiah, cannot be regarded as in accordance with historial fact or
ethical principle.
Canon Driver and Dr. G.
A. Smith, it is true, strongly assert the compatibility of the new views with a
belief in the Divine authority of the Old Testament, and so far as they
themselves are concerned we of course accept their statements ex animo.
But we wish they would give us more clearly and definitely than they have yet
done, the grounds on which this compatibility may be said to rest. To deny
historicity, to correct dates by hundreds of years, to reverse judgments on
which a nation has rested for centuries, to traverse views which have been the
spiritual sustenance of millions, and then to say that all this is consistent
with the Old Testament being regarded as a Divine revelation, is at least
puzzling, and does not afford mental or moral satisfaction to many who do not
dream of questioning the bona fides of scholars who hold the views now
criticized. The extremes to which Dr. Cheyne has gone seem to many the logical
outcome of the principles with which modern criticism, even of a moderate type,
starts. Facilis descensus Averno, and we .should like to be shown the
solid and logical halting-place where those who refuse to go with Cheyne think
that they and we can stand.
Sir W. Robertson Nicoll,
commenting March 12, 1903, on a speech delivered by the then Prime Minister of
Great Britain (Mr. Balfour) in connection with the Bible Society's Centenary,
made the following significant remarks: "The immediate results of
criticism are in a high degree disturbing. So fat they have scarcely been
understood by the average Christian. But the plain man who has been used to
receive everything in the Bible as a veritable Word of God cannot fail to be
perplexed, and deeply perplexed, when he is told that much of the Old Testament
and the New is unhistorical, and when he is asked to accept the statement that
God reveals Himself by myth and legend as well as by the truth, of fact. Mr.
Balfour must surely know that many of the higher critics have ceased to be
believers. More than twenty years ago the present writer, walking with Julius
Wellhausen in the quaint streets of Greifswald, ventured to ask him whether, if
his views were accepted, the Bible could retain its place in the estimation of
the common people. `I cannot see how that is possible,' was the sad
reply."
It is no mere question of
how we may use the Old Testament for preaching, or how much is left for use
after the critical views are accepted. But even our preaching will lack a great
deal of the note of certitude. If. we are to regard certain biographies as unhistorical,
it will not be easy to draw lessons for conduct, and if the history is largely
legendary, our deductions about God's government and providence must be
essentially weakened. But the one point to be faced is the historic cre6ibility
of those parts of the Old Testament questioned by modern criticism, and the
historical and religious value of the documents of the Pentateuch. Meanwhile,
we ask to have char proof of the compatibility of the modern views with the
acceptance of the Old Testament as the record of a Divine revelation.
At the foundation of much
modern thought is the philosophy known as Idealism, which, as often
interpreted, involves a theory of the universe that finds no room for
supernatural interpositions of any kind. The great law of the universe,
including the physical, mental, and moral realms, is said to be evolution, and
though this doubtless presupposes an original Creator, it does not, on the
theory now before us, permit of any subsequent direct intervention of God
during the process of development. This general philosophical principle applied
to history has assuredly influenced, if it has not almost moulded, a great deal
of modern criticism of the Old Testament. It is not urged that all who accept
even the position of a moderate criticism, go the full length of the extreme
evolutionary theory; but there can be no reasonable doubt that most of the
criticism of the Old Testament is materially affected by an evolutionary theory
of all history which tends to minimize Divine intervention in the affairs of
the people of Israel. It is certainly correct to say that the presupposition of
much present-day critical reasoning is a denial of the supernatural, and especially
of the predictive element in prophecy.
As to the theory of
evolution regarded as a process of uninterrupted differentiation of existences,
under purely natural laws, and without any Divine intervention, it will suffice
to say that it is "not proven" in the sphere of natural science,
while in the realms of history and literature it is palpably false. The records
of history and of literature reveal from time to time the great fact and factor
of personality, the reality of personal power, and this determinative element
has a peculiar way of setting at naught all idealistic theories of a purely
natural and uniform progress in history and letters. The literature of today is
not necessarily higher than that produced in the past; the history of the last
century is not in every way .and always superior to that of its predecessors.
Even a "naturalistic" writer like Professor Percy Gardner testifies
to the fact and force of personality in the following remarkable terms:
"There is, in fact,
a great force in history which is not, so far as we can judge, evolutional, and
the law of which is very hard to trace-the force of personality and
character." And quite apart from such instances of personality as have
arisen from time to time through the centuries, there is one Personality who
has not yet been accounted for by any theory of evolution--the Person of Jesus
of Nazareth.
There are sufficient data
in current Old Testament criticism to warrant the statement that it proceeds
from presuppositions concerning the origins of history, religion, and the
Bible, which, in their essence, are subversive of belief in a Divine
revelation. And such being the case, we naturally look with grave suspicion on
results derived from so unsound a philosophical basis.
Kuenen and Wellhausen are
admittedly accepted as masters by our leading Old Testament "higher
critics" in England, Scotland, and America, and the results of their
literary analysis of the Pentateuch are generally regarded as conclusive by
their followers. On the basis of this literary dissection, certain conclusions
are formed as to the character and growth of Old Testament religion, and, as a
result, the history of the Jews is reconstructed. The Book of Deuteronomy is
said to be mainly, if not entirely, a product of the reign of Josiah, the
accounts of the tabernacle and worship are of exilic date; monotheism in Israel
was of late date, and was the outcome of a growth from polytheism; and the
present Book of Genesis reflects the thoughts of the time of its composition or
compilation in or near the date of the Exile.
Now it is known that
Kuenen and Wellhausen deny the supernatural element in the Old Testament. This
is the "presupposition" of their entire position. Will anyone say
that it does not materially affect their conclusions? And is there any safe or
logical halting-ground for those who accept so many of their premises? The
extreme subjectivity of Canon Cheyne ought not to be a surprise to any who
accept the main principles of modern higher criticism; it is part of the
logical outcome of the general position. We gladly distinguish between the
extremists and the other scholars who see no incompatibility between the
acceptance of many of the literary and historical principles of Kuenen and
Wellhausen and a belief in the Divine source and authority of the Old
Testament. But we are bound to add that the unsatisfying element in the
writings of moderate men like Canon Driver and Principal George Adam Smith is
that, while accepting so much of the "naturalism" of the German
school, they do not give us any clear assurance of the strength of the
foundation on which they rest and ask us to rest. The tendency of their
position is certainly towards a minimizing of the supernatural in the Old
Testament.
Take, as one instance,
the Messianic element. In spite of the universal belief of Jews and Christians
in a personal Messiah, a belief derived in the first place solely from the Old
Testament, and supported for Christians by the New, modern criticism will not
allow much clear and undoubte(4 prediction of Him. Insight into existing
conditions is readily granted to the prophets, but they are not allowed to have
had much foresight into future conditions connected with the Messiah. Yet
Isaiah's glowing words remain, and demand a fair, full exegesis such as they do
not get from many modern scholars. Dr. James Wells, of Glasgow, wrote in the
"British Weekly" some time ago of the new criticism on this point:
"The fear of
prediction in the proper sense of the term is ever before its eyes. It gladly
enlarges on fore-shadowings, a moral historical growth which reaches its
culmination in Christ; and anticipations of the Spirit of Christ; but its
tendency. is always to minimize the prophetic element in the Old
Testament."
Another example of the
tendency of modern criticism to minimize and explain away the supernatural
element may be given from a book entitled, "The Theology and Ethics of the
Hebrews," by Dr. Archibald Duff, Professor in the Yorkshire College,
Bradford. This is his account of Moses at the burning bush:
"He was shepherding
his sheep among the red granite mountains . . . . The man sat at dawn by the stream,
and watched the fiery rocks. Yonder gleamed the level sunlight across the low
growth. Each spine glistened against the rising sun. The man was a poet, one
fit for inspiration. He felt that the dreams of his soul were the whisperings
of his God, the place His sanctuary. He bowed and worshipped," (p. 6.)
This, at least, is not the prima facie impression derived from the account
given in Exodus.
One more illustration may
be given of modern critical methods of dealing with narratives of the Old Testament
which were evidently intended to be regarded as historical. In the
"International Critical Commentary" on Numbers, Dr. G. B. Gray, of
Mansfield College, Oxford, thus writes on what he terms "the priestly
section of the book"
"For the history of
the Mosaic age the whole section is valueless." "The historical
impression given by (P) of the Mosaic age is altogether unhistorical, and much
of the detail . . . can . . . be demonstrated to be entirely unreal, or at
least untrue of the age in question." "This history is
fictitious."
These statements at once
set aside the history contained in more than three-quarters of the whole Book
of Numbers, while as to the rest Dr. Gray's verdict is by no means reassuring,
and he clearly does not possess much confidence in even the small quantity that
escapes his condemnation. The brazen serpent is said to be an invention on the
part of some "who had come under the higher prophetic teaching"
before Hezekiah, and is meant "to controvert the popular belief" in
the healing power of the serpent by ascribing it to Jehovah. As to the story of
Balaam, Dr. Gray wrote: [sic]
"It may, indeed,
contain other historical features, such as the name of Balak, who may have been
an actual king of Moab; but no means at present exist for distinguishing any
further between the historical or legendary elements and those which are
supplied by the creative faculty and the religious feeling of the
writers."
What is any ordinary
earnest Christian to make of all these statements? The writer of the Book of
Numbers evidently composed what professes to be history, and what he meant to
be read as history, and yet according to Dr. Gray all this has no historical
foundation. We can only say that the Christian Church will require very much
more convincing proofs before they can accept the critical position, and it
does not facilitate our acceptance of this wholesale process of invention to be
told that it is due to "the creative faculty and the religious feeling of
the writers."
As to the fact that so
many of our British and American "higher critics" are firm believers
in the Divine authority of the Old Testament, and of a Divine revelation
embodied in it, we cannot but feel the force of the words of the late Dr. W. H.
Green, of Princeton: "They who have themselves been thoroughly grounded in
the Christian faith may, by a happy inconsistency, hold fast their old
convictions, while admitting principles, methods, and conclusions that are
logically at war with them. But who can be surprised if others shall with
stricter logic carry what has been thus commended to them to its legitimate
conclusions?"
It is well known that
during the last sixty years a vast number of archaeological discoveries have
been made in Egypt, Palestine, Babylonia, and Assyria. Many of these have shed
remarkable light on the historical features of the Old Testament. A number of
persons and periods have been illuminated by these discoveries and are now seen
with a clearness which was before impossible.
Now it is a simple and
yet striking fact that not one of these discoveries during the whole of this
tune has given any support to the distinctive features and principles of the
higher critical position, while, on the other hand, many of them have afforded
abundant confirmation of the traditional and conservative view of the Old
Testament.
Let us consider a few of
these discoveries. Only a little over forty years ago the conservative
"Speaker's Commentary" actually had to take into consideration the
critical arguments then so prevalent in favour of the late invention of
writing. This is an argument which is never heard now in critical circles. The
change of attack is most striking. While forty or fifty years ago it was argued
that Moses could not possibly have had sufficient learning to write the
Pentateuch, now it is argued as the result of these modern discoveries that he
would have been altogether behind his contemporaries if he had not been able to
write. Again, the Babylonian story of the flood agrees in long sections with
the account in Genesis, and it is known that the Babylonian version was in
existence for ages before the dates assigned. to the Genesis narrative by the
critical school. Professor Sayce rightly calls this a crucial test of the
critical position. The historicity of the kings mentioned in Genesis 14 was
once seriously questioned by criticism, but this is impossible today, for their
historical character has been proved beyond all question, and, in particular,
it is now known that the Amraphel of that chapter is the Hammurabi of the
Monuments and a contemporary with Abraham. The puzzling story of Sarah and
Hagar is also now seen to be in exact agreement with Babylonian custom. Then
again, the Egypt of Joseph and Moses is true to the smallest details of the
life of the Egypt of that day and is altogether different from the very
different Egypt of later ages. Sargon, who for centuries was only known from
the one reference to him in Isa. 20:1, is now seen to have been one of the most
important kings of Assyria. And the Aramaic language of Daniel and Ezra, which
has so often been accused of lateness, is proved to be in exact accord with the
Aramaic of that age, as shown by the Papyri discovered at Elephantine in Egypt.
Now these, and others
like them, are tangible proofs which can be verified by ordinary people. Hebrew
philology is beyond most of us and is too subjective for any convincing argument
to be based upon it, but archaeology offers an objective method of putting
historical theories to the test.
Not the least important
feature of the archaeological argument is that a number of leading
archaeologists who were formerly in hearty agreement with the critical school,
have now abandoned this view and oppose it. As Sir William Robertson Nicoll has
forcibly said: "The significant fact is that the great first-hand
archaeologists as a rule do not trust the higher criticism. This means a great
deal more than can be put on paper to account for their doubt. It means that
they are living in an atmosphere where arguments that flourish outside do not
thrive."
Professor Flinders
Petrie, the great Egyptologist, uttered these words not long ago: "I have
come to the conclusion that there is a far more solid basis than seems to be
supposed by many critics . . . . I have not the slightest doubt that
contemporary documents give a truly solid foundation for the records contained
in the Pentateuch . . . . The essential point is that some of these critical
people support from an a priori basis instead of writing upon ascertained
facts. We should remember that writing at the time of the Exodus was as
familiar as it is now . . . . The fact is that it is hopeless for these people
by means merely of verbal criticism to succeed in solving all difficulties that
arise."
The Christian Church
approaches the Old Testament mainly and predominantly from the standpoint of
the resurrection of Christ. We naturally inquire what our Master thought of the
Old Testament, for if it comes to us with His authority, and we can discover
His view of it, we ought to be satisfied.
In the days of our Lord's
life on earth one pressing question was, "What think ye of the
Christ?" Another was, "What is written in the Law? How readest
thou?" These questions are still being raised in one form or another, and
today, as of old, the two great problems--two "storm-centres"; as
they have well been called-are Christ and the Bible.
The two problems really
resolve themselves into one, for Christ and the Bible are inseparable. If we
follow Christ, He will teach us of the Bible; and if we study our Bible, it
will point us to Christ. Each is called the Word of God.
Let us, first of all, be
quite clear as to our meaning of our Lord as "The Word of God."
"In the beginning was the Word." A word is an oral or visible
expression of an invisible thought. The thought needs the word for its
expression, and the word is intended to represent the thought accurately, even
if not completely. We cannot in any degree be sure of the thought unless we can
be sure of the word. Our Lord as the Word, therefore, is the personal and
visible expression of the invisible God. (John 14; Heb. 1:3.) We believe that
He is an accurate "expression" of God, and that as the Word He
reveals God and conveys God's will to us in such a way as to be inerrant and
infallible. As the Incarnate Word He is infallible.
He came, among other
things, to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37), and it is a necessary
outcome of this purpose that He should bear infallible witness. He came to
reveal God and God's will, and this implies and requires special knowledge. It
demands that every assertion of His be true. The Divine knowledge did not,
because it could not, undergo any change by the Incarnation. He continued to
subsist in the form of God even while He existed in the form of man. (Phil.
2:6. See Dr. Gifford's "The Incarnation:")
In view of this position,
we believe that, as Bishop Ellicott says ("Christus Comprobator") we
have a right to make this appeal to the testimony of Christ to the Old
Testament. The place it occupied in His life and ministry is sufficient warrant
for referring to His use of it. It is well known that, as far as the Old
Testament canon is concerned, our highest authority is that of our Lord
Himself; and what is true of the Old Testament as a whole, is surely true of
these parts to which our Lord specifically referred.
Let us be clear, however,
as to what we mean in malting this appeal. We do not for an instant intend
thereby to close all possible criticism of the Old Testament. There are numbers
of questions quite untouched by anything our Lord said, and there is
consequently ample scope for sober, necessary, and valuable criticism. But what
we do say is, that anything in the Old Testament stated by our Lord as a fact,
or implied as a fact, is, or ought to be, thereby closed for those who hold
Christ to be infallible. Criticism can do anything that is not incompatible
with the statements of our Lord; but where Christ has spoken, surely "the
matter is closed."
What, then, is our Lord's
general view of the Old Testament? There is no doubt that His Old Testament was
practically, if not actually, the same as ours, and that He regarded it as of
Divine authority, as the final court of appeal for all questions connected with
it. The way in which He quotes ft shows this. To the Lord Jesus the Old
Testament was authoritative and final, because Divine.
No one can go through the
Gospels without being impressed with the deep reverence of our Lord for the Old
Testament, and with His constant use of it in all matters of religious thought
and life. His question, "Have ye never read?" His assertion, "It
is written," His testimony, "Ye search the Scriptures" (R. V),
are plainly indicative of His view of the Divirie authority of the Old
Testament as we have it. He sets His seal to its historicity and its revelation
of God. He supplements, but never supplants it. He amplifies and modifies, but
never nullifies it. He fulfils, i.e. fills full, but never makes void.
This general view is
confirmed by His detailed references to the Old Testament. Consider His
testimonies to the persons, and to the facts of the old covenant.
There is scarcely a
historical book, from Genesis to 2 Chronicles, to which our Lord does not
refer; while it is perhaps significant that His testimony includes references
to every book of the Pentateuch, to Isaiah, to Jonah, to Daniel, and to
miracles-the very parts most called in question today.
Above all, it is surely
of the deepest moment that at His temptation He should use three times as the
Word of God the book about which there has, perhaps, been most controversy of
all.
Again, therefore, we say
that everything to which Christ can be said, on any honest interpretation, to
have referred, or which He used as a fact, is thereby sanctioned and sealed by
the authority of our Infallible Lord. "Dominus locutus est; causa finita
est."
Nor can this position be
turned by the statement that Christ simply adopted the beliefs of His day
without necessarily sanctioning them as correct. Of this there is not the
slightest proof, but very much to the contrary. On some of the most important
subjects of His day He went directly against prevailing opinion. His teaching
about God, about righteousness, about the Messiah, about .tradition, about the
Sabbath, about the Samaritans, about women, about divorce, about the baptism of
John, were diametrically opposed to that of the time. And this opposition was
deliberately grounded on the Old Testament which our Lord charged them with
misinterpreting. The one and only question of difference between Him and the
Jews as to the Old Testament was that of interpretation. Not a vestige of proof
can be adduced that He and they differed at all in their general view of its
historical character or Divine authority. If the current Jewish views were
wrong, can we think our Lord would have been silent on a matter of such moment,
about a book which He cites or alludes to over four hundred times, and which He
made His constant topic in teaching concerning Himself? If the Jews were wrong,
Jesus either knew it, or He did not. If He knew it, why did He not correct them
as in so many other and detailed instances? If He did not know it--but I will
not finish.
Nor can this witness to
the Old Testament be met by asserting that the limitation of our Lord's earthly
life kept Him within current views of the Old Testament which need not have
been true views. This statement ignores the essential force of His personal
claim to be "the Word."
On more than one occasion
our Lord claimed to speak from God, and that everything He said had the Divine
warrant. Let us notice carefully what this involves. It is sometimes said that
our Lord's knowledge was limited, and that He lived here as man, not as God.
Suppose we grant this for argument's sake. Very well; as man He lived in God
and on God, and He claimed that everything He said and did was from God and
through God. If, then, the limitations were from God, so also were the
utterances; and, as God's warrant was claimed for every one of these, they
are therefore Divine and infallible. (John 5:19; 5:30; 7:13; 8:26; 12:49;
14:24; 17:8.) Even though we grant to the full a theory that will compel us to
accept a temporary disuse or non-use of the functions of Deity in the Person of
our Lord, yet the words actually uttered as man are claimed to be from God, and
therefore we hold them to be infallible. We rest, therefore, upon our Lord's
personal claim to say all and do all by the Father, from the Father, for the
Father.
There is, of course, no
question of partial knowledge after the resurrection, when our Lord was
manifestly free from all limitations of earthly conditions. Yet it was after
His resurrection also that He set His seal to the Old Testament. (Luke 24 :44.
)
We conclude that our
Lord's positive statements on the subject of the Old Testament are not to be
rejected without charging Him with error. If, on these points, on which we can
test and verify Him, we find that He is not reliable, what real comfort can we
have in accepting His higher teaching, where verification is impossible? We
believe we are on absolutely safe ground when we say that what the Old
Testament was to our Lord, it must be and shall be to us.
We ask a careful
consideration of these eight inquiries. Taken separately, they carry weight,
but taken together they have a cumulative effect, and should be seriously
pondered by all who are seeking to know the truth on this momentous subject.
We may be perfectly sure
that no criticism of the Old Testament will ever be accepted by the Christian
Church as a whole, which does not fully satisfy the following conditions:
1. It must admit in all
its assumptions, and take fully into consideration, the supernatural element
which differentiates the Bible from all other books.
2. It must be in keeping
with the enlightened spiritual experience of the saints of God in all ages, and
make an effectual appeal to the piety and spiritual perception of those who
know by personal experience the power of the Holy Ghost.
3. It must be
historically in line with the general tradition of Jewish history and the
unique position of the Hebrew nation through the centuries.
4. It must be in unison
with that apostolic conception of the authority and inspiration of the Old
Testament,. which is so manifest in the New Testament.
5. Above all, it must be
in accordance with the universal belief of the Christian Church in our Lord's
infallibility as a Teacher, and as "the Word made flesh."
If and when modern higher
criticism can satisfy these requirements, it will not merely be accepted, but
will command the universal, loyal, and even enthusiastic adhesion of all
Christians. Until then, we wait, and also maintain our position that "the
old is better."
Return to the Aisbitt’s Homepage