SINCE the world, as seen in Chapter I, gives abundant evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being, Who has stamped His handiwork with the unmistakable trade-mark of teleology, which fact proves conclusively that the present condition of the world is not an end within itself but, like a prophetic utterance, points forward to a higher and a more glorious existence in the future, and since His providences in this life set forth clearly His beneficent character and love for His creatures, it is most reasonable to suppose that He has spoken to them. The Bible claims to be this Word which He, in His love, has revealed for the good of humanity. Various attitudes are taken by different groups of people toward this collection of sacred literature.
 

VARIOUS ATTITUDES TOWARD THE BIBLE
 

When one admits the Divine origin of the Five Books of Moses he is logically bound to accept the Divine origin and authority both of the Prophets and the Psalms, for Moses in two passages assumed unmistakably that God would raise up prophets for them who would deliver His Word to them.
 

In Deut. 13:1-5 Moses gave Israel the negative test whereby she could ascertain whether a man who claimed to be a prophet of God with a message of God to them was a prophet of God or not. He says, "If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet ... and he give thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, 'Let us go after other gods' ... thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet ... and that prophet ... shall be put to death."

The expression, "If there arise," etc., assumes the possibility of the appearance of prophets in their midst. The test by which they were to determine whether a prophet was true or false was this "and he give thee a sign ... and the sign come to pass ... saying, 'Let us go after other gods.'" The giving of this test assumed unmistakably that there would arise true prophets who would bring a message to them from God. The credentials which a prophet was to bring, said Moses, were that he should give a sign or wonder which was to come to pass. Of course, if the sign or wonder which he gave did not come to pass, it was self-evident that he was not sent from God; but if the sign or wonder did come to pass that fact was not in and of itself a sure guarantee that God had sent him, for there is a world of evil spirits which at various times worked through false prophets as they did through the magicians who opposed Moses when he went to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage. These magicians possessed supernatural power which was from Satan, the adversary of God. If the sign or wonder came to pass the final test of the prophet was to be found in the character of his message, namely, if he said, "Let us go after other gods," that message was positive proof that the supernatural power which he manifested in giving the sign or wonder which came to pass was not from God but from the evil one. This test also assumed that if the message which the prophet brought was, "Let us go after the Lord," then this message was to be the final proof that God had sent the prophet.
 

Again in Deut. 18:20-22 God supplemented the original test in the following words, "But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die." This passage unmistakably assumes the appearance in Israel both of true and of false prophets. The identification of the true prophet is that he should speak in the Name of the Lord what the Lord commanded him to speak. Upon the appearance of a prophet speaking in the Name of the Lord, should Israel say in her heart, "How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?" the absolute test of the prophet is found in the following words: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him." Hence the final test of a prophet and his message was found in his speaking in the Name of the Lord, and in the fulfillment of the prediction. This same passage also assumes that two types of false prophets would appear: first, the one who speaks in the Name of God that which God had not commanded; secondly, the prophet who would speak in the name of other gods. According to this verse, if a prophet spoke in the Name of God presumptuously, or if he spoke a message in the name of the heathen gods, God positively says, "that same prophet shall die." The context shows that He is not talking about a natural death, for such would be no sign whereby Israel might know whether the message was true or false, when delivered by a prophet speaking presumptuously in the Name of God. Hence the death here coming to either type of false prophet is a judgment which God would send upon false prophets, whereby Israel would know conclusively that they were false. Such a prophet arose in the days of Jeremiah (Jer. 28:1-17) in the person of Hananiah, who spoke a message presumptuously in the Name of God and who died in the seventh month of the same year, which death was the judgment of God sent upon him, and which was God's method of showing Israel that Hananiah was a false prophet.

At different times in Israel's history God raised up prophets who, according to His promise in these passages from Deuteronomy, gave a sign in the Name of God which came to pass. The fact that they spoke in the Name of Israel's God and that the sign came to pass was God's absolute guarantee that these prophets were speaking His word just as Moses had, and that their words were as authoritative and binding upon Israel as those which he had given through Moses. Israel in the prophetic days was very cautious to ascertain what message was from God and what was not.


Footnotes:

¹ The fundamental principle of rationalism is a prejudice and hostility toward all Divine interposition in the affairs of men. Hence for it a miracle is impossible. Since the miraculous element stands out most conspicuously throughout the historical books, they are by rationalistic scholars considered only as fallible works of men from which all miracles must be expunged as legends and fictitious history. Therefore they do not hesitate to use the "pen knife" to cut out all of this so-called unreliable legendary history. The process goes on ad liberatum.

To approach the record with a predisposition against miracles is most unscientific and unscholarly. To be scientific one must take the data which are supplied and investigate the same thoroughly. Many things today are being done which a century ago men would have pronounced absolutely impossible. Hence one is acting unwisely and unscientifically in approaching any subject with a decided predisposition, either for or against it. A passion for facts should be the governing principle. Historical facts are established by historical testimony. Logic and philosophy, though seemingly flawless, can never overthrow a fact that is established by genuine historical testimony.

The seemingly impossible does occur. If men who have learned many of the "laws of nature" can so manipulate, combine, and utilize them as to bring about results which Nature unaided cannot accomplish is it incredible that the Eternal God, the Creator of the Universe, Who subjected the material creation to certain laws, can manipulate, combine, and utilize these, His laws, and bring about results which are unknown to men? As an example of man's combining and utilizing the laws of nature and producing results which Nature alone could not accomplish, note the "heavier-than-air machines" which are commonplace with us today. The God who created this world can intervene whenever in His good will and pleasure He chooses. Hence a "miracle" is possible. What is a miracle? A miracle is an act of God which ordinarily He performs in a hidden and veiled manner (Isa. 45:15), but which, for some moral or spiritual purpose, He performs in an open and manifest way. When competent witnesses testify that God has intervened, the fact must be accepted as true. (See Chapter XXI for a competent witness.)

² Considering the Hebrew Scriptures as works of men, the "critics" approach them as they do any ordinary document.

Allow the author to assert that the science of literary criticism has rendered an invaluable service to humanity, especially in its detecting fraudulent and fictitious documents, which have been used in the past by unscrupulous men for the purpose of promoting their own designs and purposes. But this noble science of literary criticism has been prostituted and, in an illegitimate and illogical manner, made to serve the purposes of rationalism.

With the tools of literary criticism rationalists have approached the Tenach and have dissected it, especially the historical portions, and have apportioned it to various writers who lived in the period of time beginning with the ninth century to the Maccabean period. Biblical criticism began with the dissection of the Torah. At the present time that theory which holds the field is what is known as the Documentary Theory. According to this hypothesis, Moses did not write the Torah, but there were two historians who lived some time during the seventh or eighth centuries before the common era and who wrote histories from the creation of the world to their day. They are known as J and E. About the time of Josiah, who reigned about 622 before the common era, some priest, who wanted to exalt the sanctuary at Jerusalem, fabricated a code of laws in such an ingenious manner that he was successful in convincing the king and the people that it was an ancient code which had been delivered by Moses. This was the Deuteronomic Code. Later a school of prophets, following the lines of Ezekiel, drafted what is known as the Priestly Code. Finally, in the post-exilic days and probably in the days of Ezra there were "redactors" or editors who combined these various documents, editing and cementing them together with their own comments. Thus came into existence the Torah as it now stands. This theory has been carried to a most minute and detailed analysis by some so that it is claimed that there were several other documents used in the composition of the Torah.

The critics are very confident that with their critical apparatus they are able to dissect the Torah (and also the entire Tenach) into the exact original documents and to tell who wrote each sentence and word. Hence they speak most confidently of the "assured results" of criticism.

Since this age is highly scientific and pragmatic, the author would like to restate the challenge which has been proposed to the critics, but which, so far as he knows, has never been accepted. The challenge is this: let a committee of ordinary practical business men select, say, four different lengthy compositions on a certain subject written by different men who have a different outlook and whose education differs. Let them turn over two of these documents to some writer who will take them and weave them into a single document. In accomplishing this task the "redactor" is to make such changes and alterations as will serve his purpose: rejecting certain words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and paragraphs; adding such material as he wishes; and making such editorial revisions as are necessary. This work being done, let another "redactor" take this new composite document and another one of the originals and "edit" them, and from them produce another single document. Likewise, let a third take this second composite document and weave it together with the fourth original one. Then let the four original and the first two composite documents be put in a vault by this committee for safekeeping.

Then let the committee turn over exact copies of the final composite document into the hands of critics (experts) who possess special literary and analytical powers in order that they may restore each of the original documents and also each resultant new document. When the work has been finished let each critic submit his work to this committee who will in turn compare the "assured results" with the original documents.

If they are unable, with their critical apparatus, to dissect and to analyze such a modern document, apportioning to each writer his very words, no one can have confidence in their ability to dissect the Torah, which was completed, according to the critical theory, in the period between the Exile and the Maccabean period, and to restore the supposed original documents. If they cannot accurately dissect the Torah, neither can they any portion of the Tenach.

To ask the critic, by the test given above, to demonstrate his ability to restore original documents is no unreasonable request, for scholarship has been subjected to such an acid test, at least, once before. In order to prove that George Rawlinson had the proper clew to the deciphering of the cuneiform writing, the trustees of the British Museum gave lithographic copies of a long historical inscription (Tiglath-pileser I, ca. 1120-1100 B.C.) to four men who worked independently. When they had finished the work, the translations were submitted for comparison. To the unbounded joy of scholars these translations agreed substantially from beginning to end. Thus scholars demonstrated their ability to decipher the cuneiform inscriptions. Not until the literary critics are able to demonstrate by such a practical test their ability to restore original documents, is it reasonable for them to ask intelligent, thinking people to accept the "assured results" of Biblical criticism.

³ Many scientists endeavor to throw doubt on the Mosaic account of creation by affirming that the Bible asserts that the world in round numbers is about 6000 years old, whereas they believe they have absolute evidence that it has been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years. One of the reasons for such conclusions is based upon speculations concerning the various strata of the earth's surface. These speculations date back to the adoption of the "onion coat" theory of the earth first propounded by Werner. The current theories used in explaining the long "geological and prehistorical periods" or epochs are but modifications and adaptations of this long exploded, "onion coat" theory. To prove it resort is had to the supposed evidence furnished by such places as the Grand Canyon of the Colorado and the Niagara Falls and Gorge. Scientists today know the yearly rate at which these rivers are cutting their way through the strata of rocks. They measure the depths of these, gorges and the recession of the Falls and make their simple calculation by division. By so doing they assume that the same causes and conditions have existed from the beginning. But it is a well-known fact that according to the generally accepted theories concerning the glacial periods the same conditions have not prevailed upon the earth all along. This fact being true, conditions have varied, hence any estimates based upon such calculations are fallacious and unreliable.

Resort is, likewise, had to the evidence furnished by the anthropologists. Assuming what is only a theory and cannot be proved, that there are skulls and human remains that date back thousands of years, one does not have to surrender his faith in the Bible as the Word of God. In Gen. 1:2 is a record of the destruction of the earth which originally was created in a perfect condition (Isa. 45:18). In Gen. 1:28 God told Adam to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." The word translated "replenish" is the same as used in Gen. 9:1 where God told Noah to replenish the earth. So far as our knowledge is concerned there may have been a pre-Adamic race upon the earth before the catastrophe of Gen. 1:2. If this theory (the author simply states the theory, but frankly admits that he does not know) is true, these ancient skeletons may be of the pre-Adamic race.

⁴ The similarities and verbal agreements between the Mosaic code and that of Hammurabi are so very pronounced and striking that most critics reach the conclusion that Moses borrowed many things from Hammurabi when he made his code; or worked over the former code, expunging from it all undesirable matter and altering the text to serve his purpose. That there is a very close and vital connection between the codes is beyond dispute. It is certain that Hammurabi did not borrow from Moses for the former lived, in round numbers, 400 years prior to the latter. Did Moses borrow from Hammurabi? To this question most critics answer in the affirmative; but the author begs to differ from them on this point, since the Mosaic writings give positive evidence of having been written by a man inspired by God Himself.

How, then, can these similarities be accounted for scientifically? Gen. 26:5 supplies what, to the author, seems to be the solution to the problem: "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." From this passage it is absolutely certain that in the days of Abraham there were "commandments, statutes, and laws" which were in force and which God Himself had given. This passage becomes very luminous in the light of the facts presented in Gen. 14 from which one learns that Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. Evidently there was some kind of a "system of worship" or ritual over which he presided, since he was "priest of God Most High." Being king of Salem (Jerusalem), he ruled a kingdom in which laws were enforced. These laws and the ritualistic service were of divine origin.

Confirmatory evidence supporting the proposition that God gave a revelation which antedates the Mosaic is found in the fact that there were prophets outside the borders of Israel. As an example of one, note the prophecies of Balaam who was a Syrian and who endeavored to curse Israel (Num. 22-25). By some scholars it is asserted that many of the Messianic prophecies found in Egypt, which antedate the days of Moses by centuries and in which the names of the gods of Egypt appear, read like prophecies of the Tenach if the names of these heathen deities are expunged and the Name of the God of Israel inserted. These facts point very definitely to the conclusion that there were true prophets of God who lived and spoke messages of God prior to the days of Moses. These messages from God, however, were corrupted by men after they refused to retain God in their knowledge. The original meaning, however, still was conveyed, though veiled greatly, when read in the light of the pure unadulterated Word of God as it appears in the Tenach.

Instead of Moses' borrowing from Hammurabi, one would conclude that the similarities between the Hammurabi code and that of the revelation of God, as found in the Torah, may more scientifically be explained upon the basis that Hammurabi borrowed from these primitive revelations of God.

It is quite likely that the tradition preserved among the Hebrews that God offered His law first to all nations and, when they refused it, He gave it to Israel who accepted it, is to be traced historically to this primitive revelation. Since God is the Author both of the primitive revelation, from which, doubtless, Hammurabi borrowed the highest and best elements of his code, and since He is the Author of the Mosaic Code, it is easy to account for the similarities of the heathen code with that of the divine Mosaic Code.

⁵ In no other writings, either ancient or modern, does this phenomenon occur. This statement being a proven fact, the law of the octave which is stamped both upon the book of nature and the book of revelation proves without a doubt to the candid, careful investigator for truth that the Bible is the Word of the Living God Who created the heavens and the earth, and in Whom man lives and moves and has his being.


 

<<<< previous     next >>>>