the fundamentals: volume 4, chapter 2: the testimony of christ to the old testament

8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 2: The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament

1/27

•

•

•

•

•

•

CHAPTE R I I .

THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST TO

THE ·

OLD TESTAMENT

•

•

BY

WILLIAM CAVEN., D.

D

1

.

LL.

D.J,

LATE P'R.INCIP ,AL o ,F KNOX

1

COLLE

1

GE, T'ORONT ,o,

CANADA

Both Jews an

1

d

1

Ch1·istians

receive

the

Old Te ,stament as

containing a revelation from God, while the latter regard it

as standing in close and vital relationship to the New Testa-

1nent. Everything co,nn

1

ected with th

1

e Olcl Testam ,ent has,

of recent years, been subjected to the closest scrutiny the

~uthoI ship of its several books, the time when they were

written, their style, their historical v3:lue, their religious and

ethical teachings . Apart

fron1

the veneration with which -we

regard the O]d Testament writings On tl1eir own account.

the intima ,te c,o,nnect·ion w'h.i,ch

they

hav,e with tl1,e

Chris ,tian

Scriptures necessarily gives us the deepest interest in the

•

conclt.1sions whicl1 may be reached by Old Testament criti-

cism. For us the New Testament Dispensation presupposes

and grows out of '

the,

Mo ,sa ic, ,so the

book,s

of

the

New

Tes,~

tament touch those of tl1e Old at every point: In vete-re tcs

ta ie ito no'i llm latet, et in novo vetus

patet.

1

(In the Old

Testament the New is concealed, and in the New the Old is

rev ealed.)

We p,ropose to take a summary view of the testimony o f

our

Lord

to

the Old

Te stament,

as it

is

recorded

by

the

Evangelists. The New Te stament writers themselves largely

quote and refer to tl1e Old Testament, and the views which

they express

regarding

tl1e old

economy

and its writings are

in harmony with the statements of

their

Master ; but , for

various reasons, we here confine ourselves to

1

wh ,at is relat ed

of the

Lord Himself. . . .

•

•

•

•

•

•


2/27

•

•

•

•

Testimony

of

Clirist to the Old Te.stanie·1t

...

4,

•

. Let

11s

ref er, first, to what is contained or

necessarily

'lllplied in the Lord 's testin1ony to the Old Te stame11t Scrip ,

h.tres,

and, secondly, to the critical value of His te stimony.

I. TH E

L10

1

RD'S

T ESTIMONY TO

THE OLD TESTAl iE NT

Our Lor

1

d's authority tl1ougl1 tl1is

i

rather the arg 1-

11- .entitmilen tio niay be cited

in

favor of the Old

Te stament

canon as acce·pted by the Jew s in I-Iis day. He nev

1

er charge s

them

witl.t

adding to

or

taking from

the

Sci-iptures, or

in

any

Way

ampering wi.th the t

1

ext. Had they been guilty of so great

a sin it is hardly possible that amo,ng tl1e charges brought

against them,

this

matter should not even be alluded to. Tl1e ·

tures, and with making tl1e law void through their traditions,

but He never

l1ints

that they have foisted any book into

the

canon,

or rejected any which deserved

a

place

in

it. ·

Now,

the Old Testament canon of the first century is the

same as our

own.

The evide11ce for

·t·t1is is complete, and

~1~ fact is

hardly

questioned. Tl1e Ne w Te stan1ent contains,

1

ndeed , no catalogue of the Old Te stametlt books, but the

testimony of Josephu s, of 1'1elito of Sardi s, of Ori gen, of

Jerome, of the Talmud, decisiveiy sl1ows that tl1e Old Testa

tnent ca.non, a.nee fixed, has remained unaltered. Wl1ett1er

ntined by Ezra and the Great Synagogue is altogether correct

or not, it is certain ·that tl1e

Septuagint agrees with the Hebrew

as

to

the canon, thus showing that the subject Was not in

dispute two

1

centuries before Christ. Nor is the

testtm,ony

of the

Septuagint

weakened by the fact

tl1at

the common Old

as

hinted,

either

by the .author, or by any other Jewish writer,

that

it

was worthy of a place an1ong

the sacred

book s

llever quote s any of the aprocryplJal book s, nor refers to

the111.

•

•

•

•

•

•


3/27

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

48,

The F~ tndamentals ·

•

••

•

•

•

•

NO P~T ASSAILED

If our

Lord does not

na111e

l1e writers

of · the boo ,ks

of

tl1

· Old Testamerit in detail, it

may

at lea t be said that no worJ

of His calls in question the genuineness

of

any book, an~

· hat he distinctly assigns several parts of Scripture to tl1t

writers whose names they

pasS

under. The Law is ascribed

to Moses; David s name is connected with the Psalm s ; the

prophecies of Isaiah are attributed to Isaiah, and the proph·

ecies of Daniel to Daniel. We shall afterward inqQire whetber

these references are merely by way of accommodation,

ot

whether more importance sho uld be atta,ched to them ; ifl

the meantime, we note that the Lord does 11ot, n any instan ce,

express dissent from the comm.on

opi11ion,

and that, as ta

several parts of ,Scripture, He distinctly

endo1·ses

it.

The

references

to

Moses

as

legislator and

writer

are s1icl1

as these: To the clean sed leper He says, Go thy way,

sl1ev1

thyself to the priest, and offer tl1egift that Moses commanded

( Matt. 8 :4). He saith unto them, Moses because of tbf

hardness

of your hearts suffered you

to

put away your wive s

(Matt. 19 :8). Ii they hear not Moses and the prophets,

•

neitl 1er will they be persttaded, thougl1 one rose from

tl1c

dead ( Luke 16 :31). For

lf

oses

said, Honor thy f

at]1

er

and thy mother ; and, Whoso curseth f atl1er or motlier ~ let

him die the death (Mark 7 :10). And beginning at Moses

and all

tl1e

prophets ) he expounded unto them in .all

tJ1e

Scriptures the things co11cerning himself {Luke 24 :27). A11

things must be fulfilled

wl1icl1

were

written

in

the

law of

Moses, and in

the

propI1efs, and

in

the

psal1ns,

concerning me

. (Luke 24 :44). There is one that accuseth you, even Moses,

•

in·whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have

believed Me : For he wrote of Me. But

if

ye believed 11ot

his writings

1

how shall ye believe My

words?

(John 5 :45-47),

Did not Moses give

you

the law, and yet none

Qf

you keep~

· eth the 1aw? ~ (John 7:19). Moses therefore gave unto

•

•

•


4/27

I

•

Testimony of Christ to

t/1e

Old Testan ent

49 ·

•

•

•

you circumcision.

* * *

If a n1an on th.e Sabbath

day

receive circumcision, 'tha 't

the

law of Moses

should

not be

broken,'' etc.

(John

7

:2.2,

23). The

omitted

parenthetical

,vords ''not because it is of Moses, but of

the fathers'' ~ -

seem clearly to

show, it

may be

remarked

in passing, that

the

Lord is no

1

t unobservant

1

of

l1istorical

exactness.

Th

1

e Psalms are qttoted

by

our Lord more tl1an once, but

only

once is a writer named. The 110th Psalm is ascribed

to David; and the

vadidity

of the Lord's argume ·nt depends

on its being Davidic. The reference,

tl1erefore,

so far ,as

it

goes, confi1~s

the inscr iptions of the Psalms in relation to

authorship. .

Isa. 6 :9

is

q·uoted thus ·:

''In

them is fulfil'led th,e prophecy

of Esaias,

whicJt

saith,

By

hearing

ye

shall

hear,

and

sl1ail

not understand''

(Matt,

13:14, 15). Again, chapter

29:13 of

Isaiah's ·prophecy is cited: ''Well hath Esaias prophesied

of

You l1ypocrites. ·*

*

*

This

people

hon

1

oreth

me

with

thei1··

lips, but their ·heart is far from me'' (Mark .

7

:6) . When,

in

the

beginning

of Hi

ministry,

the Lord came to Nazareth,

tliere was

delivered

unto

]ji1n

i11 the

synagogue

''the

book

of

tl1e

prophet

Esaias ,.

And

when

he

ha ,d

opened

the book,

he

found the place ''here it was

writte11,

The Spirit

of

the Lord

•

1

upon me, because

He

hath a11ointed me to

preach

the

Gospel

to

the poor,''

etc. (Luke 4 :17,

18).

The passage read by

our

Lord

is

from

the

61st

cl1apter

of Isaiah,

which

belongs

to th ,e section of

the

book very of

ten,

at

present,

ascribed to

the

second,

or

pseudo,

Isaiah ; hut we

do not

press

this

point,

as

it may

be

s,aid that .

the Evangelist,

rathe ,r than ,Christ,

a cribes

the words

·to

Isaiah. . ,

In His great

prophecy respecting the

down£ all

of the ·

Jewish stat

1

e the Lord refers to ''the a.bomination

of

d,esola-

•

tton, spoken

of

by

Daniel the

prophet:''

As in

Dan.

9

:Z l,

We

read that ''For the

over ·spreading of

abominations

he

shall

tllake

it

desolat ,e,'' and in chapter 12

:11,

that

''tl1e abomina 'tion

that maketh desolate ( hall ) 1 g t ttp.''

•

•

•


5/27

•

,

•

•

50

•

The

undamentals

•

•

•

•

NARRATIVES AND RE CORDS AU THENTIC

•

When Christ

m.ake s

1i9fer ence to Old

Te stament

narrative s

and record s, He

accepts them

as auth entic,

as

histOrically

true. He

does

11ot give or sugges t in any case

a

mythical

or

allegorical

interpretatio n. The accounts

of the creation,

of the flood, of the

overthrow

of Sodom and Gomorrah, ·as

well as many incidents and ev·ents of lat

1

er occurrenc .e, a·re

taken as authentic. It may,, of ·course, be alleged that the

Lord 's reference s to

the

cr ,eation of man and \Voman, the

flood, the cities of the plain, etc., equally serve His .purpo se

of illustration whether He regar

1

ds them as historical

1

or not.

But on weighing His words it will be seen that they · ose mucH

•

of their force and appropriatenes s un .less the events alluded

'to had .a histori .cal char lacter.

•

•

•

Let us refer . more

particularl .Y

to this matter. When

tl1e

• •

Pharisees ask Christ w·hether it · is law£ul

£0

1

r a man to put

. away his wife for every cause, He answers them: ''Have ye

not read, that · He which made them in the beginning 11lade

•

them 111ale nd

f',emale,

and said, For thi.s

1

cause s·hall ·

a

n1a11

]eave father and 1nother, and shall cle.ave to his wife: and

they twain shall be one flesh?'' (Matt. 19:4, 5). Again:

•

"As the days of Noe were, so

shall

also the coming of the

Son

•of Man be. F

1

o·r ,as in the days . that were before the flood,

they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in mar

riage, until

the

day that Noe entered

into

the

ark,

and kne-w

•

.11ot,until the flood ~ame, and took them all away; so shall also

the coming of the Son of Man be'' (Matt. 24 :37, 39'). Again:

'' And thou, Capemaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt

be b,rought down to hell: for if the migh ty works, which have

been done in thee, had been d

1

one in

Sodom,

it

would have

remained until this day. · But I say unto you, That

it

shall

he··

mor ,e

t

1

olerahle

for

the lan

1

d

of Sod,om in the

day

1

0

1

f

jud.g-

.ment, than for

thee'~ (Matt .

11

:23,

2

1

4 ). These utterances,

every one feels, lose their weight and

solemnity,

if

there

was

•

•

•

•

•


6/27

•

•

•

..

••

Testimo1iy

of Clirist to

the Old

Testame, ,it

51

•

no flood such as is described in Genesis, a11d

if

the destruc-

..

tion of w·icked ,Sod,om 1nay be,

o nly

a :myth .

Illustrations a11d

parallels

may,

f·or certain purposes, be

,adduced from

fictitious

literature, but wh ,en

the

Lo

1

rd would awaken the cons

1

cience

• •

of men and alar1n · their

fears by reference

to

the certainty

of divine judgment, He

will

not confirm His

teaChing

by

instances of

·punishn1ent which

are

onJy

fabulous.

His

argu

ment that tl1e

Holy

and J 1,st

God

will do as He has done ·

wil1

make

bare His

arni

as

i11

the

days

of old is

robb·ed,

in

this case, of ·all validity. ·

A view frequently

urged

in the present day is tt1at, as

with other natio1ls,

so witl1 the

]

ews,

the

mythical period

precedes the historic ,al, an ,d ·thus the ear]ier narr ,at .ives of ·; he

O ld Testa1nent . must be tal


7/27

•

52

The

Fundanientals

•

pretensi ons much above the others, .. far less claim exclusive

divin e sancti ion; ,all of them

being the

prodt1ct of man's spirit

ual naturet

a.s molded

by

his history and ' environment, in

different

nations

and ages ..

This is the

view

under

which

the

study .

0

1

f

comp ,arative religio

1

n is pros

1

ecuted

by many

eminen t seho

1

lars. A

la·rg,e

and generous

.s,tudy of

religions,..,....

their characteristics and

histor ,y

tends, it is

held,

to bring

~hem into closer

fellowship with

each

other;

and

only igno

rance or p,reju ,dice (

say

the,se u·nbiased

'thinkers)

c-an isolate

th,e

re]·igion

0

1

£

the

O·ld Te ,st,ament or of the

New,

and refus ,e

t.o .ackno1wled,ge

in other religions t.h

1

e

divine ,elements which

entitle them to take rank with Judaism or

Christianity -

The ut.terances of Jesus Christ on thi

question

of the

di·vinjty

of the

0

1

ld

Test ,ament r,eligi

1

o·n and

1

cults are unmis

takabl 1;

and

not les .s

clear

and decided is His language

respecting · he writings in which this religion is delivered.

God is the source in the

directest

sense, of both the religion

and the records ,

of

it. No man can

claim

Christ's authori ,ty

for c·tassing

Judaism

with

Confucian ·i,sm,

Hinduis,m,I Blud

dhism,

,and

Parse

1

eism. Tl1ere is

nothing,

indee,d, in

the

•

Lord's teaching

whicl1

for

bids

us to

recognize

anything

that

is good in ethnic religions any of

those elements

of spiritual

truth

which become the com·m 0

1

n

property

of

th

1

e

race and

which were not .

completely

l

1

ost

in

the

night of· heathenism;

b

1

ut, on the other hand, it is abundantly evident that the Jew

ish faith is, to our Lord, the one true

fait 'h,

and t'hat tI1e ·

Jewish Scripture ·s have a place of th

1

eir own a place whi

1

ch

cannot b,e

shared

with

the

sacred

books

of

othe·r

people:s.

Sam ,aritanism, even though it had appropriated so l.argely

from t.he religion of Israel, He

will

not rec,ognize. ''For sal-

vation is of the Jews.''

Almost any ref e:,ence of our Lord to the Old rf est.ament

will

support the

statement ·

hat He regards the

Dispensation

and its Scriptttres as from God,. He shows, e.g. that Old

Testament prophecJr is fulfilled in Hi1rnsef , or He ,

1

inmicates

• •

•


8/27

•

•

•

..

Te.stimo iy of Christ to the Old Testament 53

His

teaching

and His

claims

by Scripture, or

He

e11joins

obedience to

the

Jaw (as in

the

case of

the cleansed lepers) ·,

o,r He

asserts the inviolability of the law till its complete

fulfillment 0 1

He

accus.es a bli.nde·d and self·-righteous gener-

•

at1on of

superseding

and

vacating a law

which they

were

bound.

to

obs erve. A few instances of explicit recognit.ion

of the

Old

Testament

Scriptures

as proceedin .g from God

· and having divine authority, may be

here adduced. In Ii:is

Sermo n on the Mount the Lord mal


9/27

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

54

•

•

•

Tlie Fundamettta s

We are not forgetti11g that the Lord fully recognizes .the

i1nper ·f ect

and provisional

chara icte ·r

of

the

Mos.ai

1

c

·. aw

and

of tl1e

Old Dispensation. Were the Old

f ault]ess,

no place

would have

been found

for tl1e

New. Had grace

and

trutl1

come by Moses ., the advent of Jesus Cl11·istwould have been

unneces sary. So

when ,

tl1e

Pharisee

put the

question

to

Chri st why Moses commanded to give to a wife w110 has

fottnd no favor with her

husband

a

writing

of divorcement

a11d to

pttt her away, I-I

e

rep _ied: . '' Moses, bec·aus ·e

of the

hardness of your

hearts

suffered you to

put away your

wive s :

but fro m the beginning it was not so'' (Matt 19 :8). The

: 1oaic legislation was not in every part absolutely the best

that could be given, but

it

was

sttch

as the divine wisdon1

saw

best

for

the

time being and

11nder the

special circum

s,tanc es of tl1e

Heb 1ew pie,op,Je.

Not

onl.Y

clid the

1

0ld Testa

ment set forth a typical econom .y, whicl1 must give place to

anotl1er, but it embodied ethical elements of a provisionaJ

kind which must pass away when the incarnate Son had .full y

1·evealed the Father. Tl1e Old Te sta ment is conscio us of its

own im,perie

1

ctions, for J remial1 thu s writes : ''Beheld t11e

days

c,ome,

saith

the

Lord,

that

I will

make

a

new covenan .t

.witl1 the house of Israel, and ,vith the house of

J

1dah: not

· according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in

tl1e

day that I took them

by

the hand to bring

them

out

of tl1e

land of Egypt.'' But in all thi s there is

nothing

to modi£

y

the proposition wl1ich we are illustrating,

viz.,

that

our

Lord

accepts

the Old

Testament

ec1.>nomy

and

its

Scriptures

as

from God, as stamped with divine authority, and as tntly

making known the divi .ne mind . and will.

•

• •

Marcion

and

the

Gnostics

did not receive

any

part of the

Old Testament Scriptures, and the Old Dispensa tion itself

they held to be of evil o,rigin . So

decided

were

they

against

the ·Old Testament that they would not admit into their

NeY.

Testament

canon the

books which

especially

bear

witness

to the Old. Bttt tl1e Christian Church ·ha .s followed its Mast

1

er

•


10/27

•

•

Testimony of

Christ to the

Old

Testament

55

•

ta

regarding

the

Old

Testament

as

the

Word

of

God,

as

the

Bible of the

ages

before

the Advent, a~d

as

still part of the

Bible for the Christian Cl1urcl1. Not

unLil

the days of devel

oped rationalism was this position called in question, except

among unbelievers. But

it

is obvious that

tl1e

style

of

criti

cis1n

which

1

in our

own ti1ne, is freqtiently applied

to

the

Old

Testament (not to

say

anything

about the

New),

touch

ing its histories, its ·taws, its morality, is quite ·inconsistent

\~.rith the recognition ·of any special divine characteristics

or authority

as

belonging

to it. The

very

maxim

so

of

ten .

repeated, that criticism 1nust

deal

with

these writings

precisely .

as it deals with

other

writings is a refusal to Scripture, in

linii1ie of

the peculiar character which

it claims, and

which

the · Church has ever · recognized in

it.

If a special divine

authority can be

vindicated

for

these

books,. or

f

9r

any of

them, this fact, it is

clear,

ought to be

taken

into account

by tl1e

linguistic

and

historical critic. Logically,

we

should

begin our study of them by investigating their title ·to such

authority, and, should tl1eir claim prove well founded, it ·

should never be forgotten in the subsequent critical proc

esses.

The establishment

of this l1igh claim will

imply

in

these writings moral chara .cteristics ( not to mention

others)

~hich

should

exempt them

from a certain suspicion which the

• II • •

critic

may

not

unwarrantably allow

to

be

present

when he

begins to

examine

documents of an

ordinary

kind. It is

not, the ref ore, correct to say that criticism, in commencing

its

inquiries, should

know nothing

of the alleged

divine

origin

or

saCred

character

o·f

a

book. If

tl1e book has no good

\ ouchers for

its

claims to

possess a sacred character, criti-

•

cistn must proceed unhindered ; but correct conceptions of

critical

methods

demand

tha t

every important

fac t

already

ascertained as to any writings should be kept faithfully bef Olie

the mind in the examination oi them. Science must here ·

unite with reverential feeling in requiring right treatment of

•

a book which claims special divine sanction, and is willing

•

•


11/27

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

56

•

to have

its

claims dt1ly

investigated.

The examination of a

witness

of establi shed veracity

and rectitude would 'not

be

conducted in precisely the same manner

,as

that of a

witness

wl1ose

cl1aracter

is

unknown orunder suspicion .

Welll1ausen s

style of treating the history

0£

Israel can have no justification

unless he

sh,oul-d first show

that the c1aim so often advanced

in ''Thus saith the Lord is entirely baseless. So far f ron1

•

admitting the validity of

the axiom

referred to, we distinctly

hold that it is unscien,tific. A just and t tUe criticism mttst

have r.espect to everything already know11and settled regard

ing the producti ons to which

_t is

applied, and assuredly so

momentous a clain1 as tl1at of divine authority demand s

care

ful preliminary exa1ninatior1,

But critici sm,

it

may

be urged, is the

very

instru1nent by

which we must

test t11e

preten sions

of

these

writings to

a

special divin

1

e origin and characte1· an

1

d, h

1

en

1

c

1

e,

it

cannot

stand

aside till

this question has been considered. In requiring

criticism

to

be silent till the verdict

has been

rendered, we

a.re putting it

under

restrictions inconsistent with

its

func-

tions and

prerogatives.

The

reply, however,

is that the prin -

cipal external and

internal

evidences for

the

divine

origin

of the Scripture s can be weighe


12/27

•

..

•

•

Testimony

1

0/ Ch ist to the Old

Testamen t .

-·-

:JI

no acquaintance with crit ,icism.

Shoul,d t'he i 'air applicatio11

of criticism, when

its proper

time

comes, .·

end to b,eget

doubt

as to tl1e

general conclusion

already

reached

r

1

egarding the

. Bible, it

will

doubtless be right to review carefully the evi

dence on which ·our conclusion de,pends; but

the

substantive

and dire ,ct proofs of the Scri ,ptures being from God should first

be handled,

and.

the decision arrived at should be kept in

mind, ~while critici sm is oc,cupi

1

ed with its proper

task.

T'his

see

1

ms to

tt 'S

tl1e true ord ,er of the procedure.

•

•

•

GOD SPF..AKS

Our Lord certainly attributes to th

1

e 01d Tes ,tament a far ·

•

higher character than 1nany have supposed. God speaks ,

in it through

1

out; and

w.hile

He

will mor·e

per ,fectly reveal

Himself

in

His

Son, not · anything

Contained

in the

older

r

1

evelation shall fail of its end or 'be convicted of

erro1·.

Chris ·t

does no,t

use

the

term ''inspiratio ,n''

in speaking of

the

Qi]d Testament, but when we have adduced ·His , words re

garding the origin and auth

1

ority o·f these writings, it will

be evident that to

Him -

they are

God-given

in

every

part.

It

will

be

seen

that

His

testi1nony

falls

not

behi11d

that of

Ris Apostles who

say: ''Every .

Scripture inspired of God

(2 Tim. 3,:16), and The

p,rophecy

came not in old time

by

the

will

of man;

but holy

me11

of

God spake as they were

moved by the Holy Ghost'' (2 Pet. 1 :21) . .

•

•

•

In

s,peaki,ng

of'

Christ as

teaching , that

the,

Old

Tes,tament

is from God we have referred to passages in which He says

that its

w,ords an ·d

comm,ands are

the

words and coinmands

of God; e. g., ~'God

1

comm ,and

1

ed, saying, HQn,or tl1y father

a,nd

thy

mothe ,r: and He that

cursleth f

ath ,er or mother, let

h.itn

die the death'' (Matt. 15 :4). Again: ''Have ye not read

that which was spoken

unto

you

by

God, saying, I am

tl1e

God of Abra_ham, 'the Gofl

of

.I . aa

1

c, and the God of Jacob?''

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


13/27

•

•

J

•

•

58

Tlie utidamentals

'

•

t . .

In a comprehensive way the laws of the ·P-entateuch, or

of tl1e

Old Testall1ent,

are

called ''the comman ,dmeh ·ts of

•

·God.,, ''In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines

the

comn1andments

of m·en. For

laying

aside

the command

ment of God, ye hold the tradition of men. * · * * Full

well ye reject the comma11dment of God, that ye may keep

yoar own

tradition'' (Mark :8, 9); and in the

context

of

this

last quotation the

com1nandment

of God is

identified

with

what ''Moses

spake, showing

that the words of

Moses

are

also the words of God.

Passages like

these

do mor

1

e

than

prove that the Old

Testament Scriptures

express

on the whole

th

1

e mind of God,

and, therefore, possess very high auth

1

ority. If it can cer

'tainly

b,~ said that G,od

spake

c,ertain

words, or

that

certain

•

words and comm,andm

1

ent.s

are

the

w

1

ords and

comman

1

dm,ents

of Go1d, we have mor

1

e than a ge,ner ,al endor

1

sement ; as

when,

.

e. g., the edito,r .of a

periodical

states that he is respo,nsible

for the general character and

tendency

of articles

which he

admits, but not f:or, every se11timentor expressi

1

on of opinion

containe ,d

in the1n. · .

•

It

n

ee,ds,

1

0£

1

c,ourse,

no

proof tl,at

·the

words

quoted

i11

he

New

Testament as ·S

poken

by

God ar ,e

not

the only

parts

of the Old whi,ch, have direct

divine

authority. The same

thing

might evidently

be said of

other

parts

of

the book.

The

impression

left, we think, on every unprejudiced

mind

is that such quotations as the Lord made are only speci

mens of

a

book

in ·

which

God

speaks

throughout. There

is

not encouragement

certainly to attempt any analysis

of

Scrip,

ture into

its

divine and

its

human parts or

elements

to

apporp

tion the

authorship

between God and

the

human penman,

for,

•

as we

have seen, the same

words

are

ascribed

to

God and

to His servant Moses. The whole is spoken by God and by

•

•

Moses also. All i,s divine and at the s,ame time ·all is human .

•

The divine

and

thle

human

are so related

that separatio ·n

is

impossible

1

•

• •

•

•


14/27

•

t

Tes ,timony of

Ch.1ist

·to the Old Testament 59

-

ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY OF

SCRIPTURE

Attention

may

be special ly called to three passages in

whicl1 .

the Lord refers to the origin and the absolute in falli bility of

Scripture. Jesu s · asked the Phari sees, ' 'Wh at think ye of

Christ? Whose Son is He ? TI1ey say unto Him, The Son

of n ,avid,. He saith unt o the·m, Ho ,w the·n dotl1 David

in

spi·rit

call Him Lord?' '' The ref e1·en,ce is to Psalm 110, which

t~e

Lord says David spake or wrote ''in spirit;',

i.

e., David

Was

co1np1etely

under tl1e

Spi rit's

influence in the

production

o,f the Psalm, so that when he calls

tl1

e Mes,siah his ''Lord''

the word has absolute authority. Such is clearly the Lord's

.

meaning, and the Phari s,ees ha,ve no rep,ly to His a,r·gument.

l'he Lord does not say that the entire Old Testament Vt "as

•

Written '' in tI1e Spirit ,"' nor even

tl1at all the

Psalms were

so

Produced ; He make s no direct state111et of this nature ;

yet

·the

pla.in reader would certainly regard this as implied.

His

hearer s

understood their Scriptures to have been all written

by immediate

inspiration

of God, and to be tl1e word ·of ·God;

and He merely refers to Psalm 110 as having the character

Which

belonged to Scripture

at

large. ·

In Jol1n 10 :34-36, Christ vi11dicates Him self from the

charge of blasphemy in claiming to

be

the

Son.

of

God:

''Jesus answered them, Is it not writ ten in your Jaw, I said,

Ye are gods. If he called them gods

t1nto

whom the

word

of God came, and the Scripture cannot be b,roken ; say ye of

llirn

whom the Father ha th sanctifie d, and sent into the world,

1'bou

blasphemest ; becau se I said,

I

am

the Son

of

God?''

1 be

Scripture cannot be b,roken ou dunatai luthenai. ~he

'lerb signifies to loose, unbind, dissolve, and as applied to

Scripture means to subvert or deprive of authority. The

author ity of Scripture . is then so complete so pervasive---

as to extend to it s individual term s. Gods is the proper

Word

because it

is

used

to

designate the Jewish rulers.

If

this

is not verbal inspiration, it comes very

near

it.

One

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


15/27

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

\

Tlie itndamentals

•

•

my, of course, allege that · the Lord s statement of inerrancy

implies only that the principal words of Scripture must be

ta,ken precisely as they

are,

but

that

He ,does not claim

th,e

like auth ,orit ,y for all its words. With ·ot1t ,arguing this point ,

we merely say that . it is, not cert ,ain

1

or obvious that the way

is left open for tl1is distinction.

In

face of

Christ s

utterances

it devo ,lves on tho se who hold that inspiration

e~tends

to the

thought ,of

[Scripture :

,only,

but

not to

t he

words,

1

or

to

the

leading words but not to ·the words in g,eneral, to adduce

~ery

cogent arguments in support of their position. The

•

onus proban

di~ it seems to

us,

i,s here

made to rest

on them.

rhe theory tha t inspiration

may

b

1

e affirmed only

of

the main

•

views or

p(?si·tions

of Sc,rip ,ture, but neither of

the

word,s nor

of

tl1e

development

of

the thoughts,

cannot, it

seems clear,

be harmonized with the Lord s teaching. Before adverting to

a third text we

may

be allowed

to set

down these words of

Augustine in

writing to

1

Jerome ::

For I ackno ,wle ,dge

with

•

,high

esteem for ,

thee, I

have

lea.rn,ed to ascribe

such

reverence

and honor to those books of the Scriptures alone, which are

.. . .

now called can.onical, that I

believe

most

firmly that

not

one

0

1

f

their

a,11thors

h,as

made

a

m,istake

in

writin ,g

them.

And

should I tight

upo,n

anything

in

th

1

ose writing s,

whi

cl1

may

.

seem opposed to trut h, I shall

cont ,end

for nothing else,

than

either that the manuscript was full

of

errors,

1

0r that the trans ...

lator ha,d not comprel1ended what was

said, or

th,at

I had not

•

understood it in the le,ast d

1

e,gr,ee. ·

In His s,ermon on the Mount our Lor

1

d thus ref

1

ers to

His own relation to the Old Testament economy .and its

S,criptures: Think not that I am come to destroy the law,

or the prophets : .I am not come to

destroy

b

1

ut

to fulfil. ,

For

verily I say unto you,I Till heave ,n and

earth pass, one jot

ot

one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till . all be fut,

filled (Matt. 5 :17, 18). No stronger words could be ettl

ployed

to affirm the divine authority of every part of the Old

Testament; for

tl1e law

and

the prophet s mea11

the

en.tire

() ld

•

•

•

•


16/27

•

•

•

•

Testament Scriptures. If

t11is

d,eclaration cont

1

emplates

the

11zo1 al 1ement of' tl1ese ,Scriptures, it means

tl1at

no part of

tl1cm

sl11l]

be

set

aside by

tl1e

Ne\V

,Dispensati

1

on,

but

ful-

fill1d'' i.

e.,

fil]e,d

ttp and

comple,ted

by

Jesus

Christ

a,s a

sketch

is filled

t1p and con1pleted b

1

y the paint

1

er . .

If, as others

naturally interpret, the

typ·ic l f

ea tu res

of the

1

0ld 'Testament ·

•

. are incJu,ded in the state1nent,

tl1e

term

f

ul·filied,''' as

regards ·

t11is elemen,t,

will be taken in the

more

ttsual meaning, In

either case the inviolability and,

by implicat :ion,

the divine

origin of the

Old

T'estament could not be more impressively

declared. Mark how

comprel1e·nsive

and absolute the words

are: , ''On

1

e

jot .

or

on,e

tittle.

''Jot''

(iota) is

yod~

the

smallest

letter of the

J-I,ebre ·w

alphabet; ''tittle, ,'' lit

1

erall1y lit

tle horn or apex, designates

the little lines or projectio11s

by

\vhi,ch Hebrew · letters, similar i11 other respects, differ from

each

other. We

l1ave

here, one might say,

the

inspiration of

letiters of the Old Testament. Everythi .ng contained in it has .

divine authority, and must, therefore, be divine in origin; . for

it

is unneCessary to show that no

such authority

could be

ascribed to writings 1nerely human, or to writings in which

the di.vine and the human interests could

be separated an-

a.lytiical]y. ·

Sl1ould ·

it be said

that the

''law,''

every

jot and tittle of

•

,vl1ich.must be f

u'lfilled,

mea11s here the economy itself,

·the:

ordinances of Judai ,sm,

bt1t

not tl1e rec,ord of

tl1em

in writing,

the reply is that we k110,v notl1ing of th.ese ordinances ex- ·

cept tl1,r,ough the reco,rd, so that what is affirmed must 1pp,ly

to the .Scriptures as well as to, the Dispensa ·tion,

The only

qttestions

wl1ich can be well

1·ais

ed are, firs't,

\vhether th

1

e '')a ,w and the proph ,ets'' designate the entire Scr 'ip

tures

or two

great divisions of them only;

and,

secondly,

•

\\rhether

the Words

o,f Jesus can be taken at their full

mean--

.,

tng, or, for some reason or , other, must be disco,unted.

The

- .

first

question it is hardly worth

while to discuss,, for, if

•

neitl1er jot nor tittle of the ''law

and the

prophets,' shall

fail,

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


17/27

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

62

•

•

•

it

will hardly be contended that the Psalms, or whateve1'

parts

of the Old Testa ment are ·11otinclu

1

ded, l1ave a less stable char

acter.

The

latter que stion, of

momentous

Import,

We

l1al1

co11sider presently. ··

•

•

17ULFILMENT

1

0F PROPI-IECY

•

•

•

•

. · T .he inspiration of th

1

e Old Te stament ,Scriptur

1

es is

clearJy

in1plied in the 1nany dec]aration s of ottr Lord respecting the

£111film.ent of

prophecies . contained

in·

th em. It i.s Godts

pre ,roga .tive to know,

and to

make

known,

the future. Hun1an

presag 'e cannot go beyond what ·is fo

1

reshado

1

we,d in eve11ts

which have transpired, or is wrapped up in

causes

which

we

plainly se

1

e in opera ·tion.. If, · ther

1

efore, the Old Testament

reveals, hundreds of years in advance, what is cdming to

pass, · omniscience

·mLtst

have direc .ted the pen of the writer ;

i.

e., these Scriptures, or at least their predictive parts, must

be insp

1

i·red.

•

The pa ·ssage a.ready quot .ed from the Sermon on the

i

ou nt may be noticed as regards its bearing on prophecy :

''I ·an1 not com·e t,o d,estroy the law or the prophets, but to

•

•

f

t1lfil.''

\Vl1il.e

.Plerosai

a.s

re.ferri11g

to tl1e

law~

has the

special 1neaning above poi11ted out; as

referring' to

tl1e

p1~opliets

t has its

mo1·e

common import. We

have

here,

•

then, a .general

Statement

as to the Old Testament

c.ontairi-

ing prophecies which

w

1

ere fu]filled

by

1

Christ

.and

iµ

Him .

•

Here

are

examples.

Tl1e rejection of

Messiah

by

the Jewish

.

authorities, as well as the ultimate triumph of His cause, is

announced in the 118th Psalm,

in

words which Christ applies

•

to

Himself : ''The stone which

tl1e

builders rejected is be-

come the head of the comer. The desertion of ·Jesus

by

1

His disciples when He was apprehended fulfils the prediction

of Zechariah : ''I will smite the shepherd,

and

the sheep shall

all be scattered'' ( Matt. 26 :31).

Should

angelic interventiori

rescue Jesus

from


18/27

•

•

Testimony of · h·rist to the Old

Testa ie it

63

betrayal, apprehellsion, and death took place, ''tl1at the ·Scrip

tures of the prophets might be fulfilled'' (Matt. 26

:56).

'Ha cl .

ye believed Moses,'' said our Lord,

''ye

would have believed

Me, for

he wrote

of Me'' (John S

:46). The 41st Psalm

pre

announces the treachery of Judas in these word s : He that

eateth bread with Me hath lifted up his heel against

Me;

and the defection

1

f the

son ·of · percli.tion takes place, ''that

the

Scriptures

may be

ft1lfilled''

(John 17 :12). The

persist

ent a11dmalignant opposition of His enemies ful fils that whiclt ·

is written:

''.They

hated Ivie withot1t a cause'' (John 15

~25).

Finally,

in


19/27

•

•

..

•

•

•

The Fundamentals

•

•

wer,e: merely an ideal pe.rso,n,ag·e,, ther ,e:

woul ,d be

little ,

f

o,rce

in saying that the Lord opened the understanding of the

disciples

that

they

might

see His

death

and

resurrectiOn ·

to

be set

forth

in

the p,rophecies. But

to

teach

that

the

Old

Testament contains authentic predictions

is

as we have said,

to teach

that

it is inspired. The challenge to heathen deities

i~ Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may

know that ye are gods (Isa. 41 :23). · ·

We

thus

find that our Lord recognizes the same Old Tes

tament canon as we have, that so far as He makes reference

to particular books of the canon He ascribes them to the writ

ers whose names they bear, that He regards the Jewish re

ligion and its sacred hooks

as

in

a

sp·ecia1 sense

a

sense not

to be affirmed of any other religion from God, that the

writers of Scripture, in His

view,

spake in the Spirit, that

their

words are

so

properly

chosen that an

argument may

rest on the exactness of a term, that no part of Scripture

shall

fail

of its

end or

be convicted of

error, and

that the

p,reclictions of Scripture are genuine predictions, which must

all in their

tin1e

receive fulfilment.

•

We

cannot here discuss the doctrine of inspiration ; but

on the ground of the Lord s

testimony to the

Old Testament,

as above summarized, , we may surely affirm that He claims

for it throughout all that is meant by inspiration when we

use that _ erm in the most definite sense.

No

higher author

ity

could well

he

ascribed to apostolic teaching,

or

to any

part of the New Testament Scrip ,tures, than the. Lord attrib

utes to the more ancient Scriptures when He declares that

jot

or

tittle

shall not

pass

from them till all he fulfilled;,,

and

that if men hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will

they be

persuaded though one rose from the.

dead (Luke

16 :31 -, . . -

•

II, THE VALUE .OF

CHRI1ST rS

TESTIMONY

It remains tbat we should briefly advert to the value, for

~e ~cientific

student

of the

Bible,,

of

Christ s

testimony to

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


20/27

•

the

Old Testament. The very announcement

of such a topic

Illa

y

not be

h

1

eard without

pain, but

in

view o,f

theories

with

Which Biblical students

are .

familiar,

it

becomes necessary

to look

into

th .e

question. Can

we, then,

accept the

utter

ances of Christ on the matte1·s ref erred to as having , val·ue ..

as of authority in r·elation to the Biblical scholar ship? Can

W

e take

t11em

at the·ir face valu.e, or must they be discoun ,ted ?

Or again, are

these, w

1

or,ds

of Jesus

valid £or criticis ,m

1

0n so1ne

question s,

but

not on

others? .

The .1·e are two w,ays in

which it is sought

to

invalidate

Christ's testimony to tl1e

1

0ld Testament. ·

•

1.

IGNORANCE OF JES ,US ALLEG ·ED

•

It is

alleged

that Jesus had no knowledge beyond tl1at

of His contempor .aries as to the o.rigin and

literary

character

istics of the

Scriptures. The Jews

believed that Moses wrote

the Pentateuch,

that the

narratives of tl1e

Old Testamen .t .

ar e

all

authentic

history,

and

that the words of .Scripture

are all

inspired. Christ shared the opinions of His

countrymen

on

these

t

1

opics, even when they were i11 error. To holcl thi s

View,

it

is

maintained,

does not detract from

the

Lord's quali- ·

fications for His proper work,

which

was

religious

and

spirit

Ua], no·t

literary;

for in

relation

to he

religious

value

1

0£ th e .

Old Testament

and its spiritual

uses

.and applications

He

may

confidently

be

accepted

as

our guide. His

knowledge

wa s

adequate to the delivery of the doctrine s of His kingdom, but ·

did

not necessat·ily extend to

questions of scholarship

and

critici sm. or· these He spe,aks

as

any other man ;

and

to

seek

to arrest, or direct,

criticism by

appeal

to His authority,

•

1s procedure whicl1

can

only

recoil

upon

those

who

adopt

1t.

This view ·is

advanced,

not

only

by

critics

who reject the

divinity of Christ,

but

by

many

wh.o profess to believe

th at

,doctrine. In

tl1e

preface

to

his first volu1ne ·on the

Penta

teuch and Joshua, Colenso

thus

writes: ''It is

perfect ly

Co11istent ,i\i.th the ·tnos t e,ntire .and sincere belief . in 011r

'

•

•

•

•

•

•


21/27

•

•

•

•

r

•

•

•

•

•

•

66

Tlie Fundame itals

•

Lord'

1

s divinity to l1old, as 1nany do, that wl1en He vouch ..

safed to become a 'Son of 1nan' I-Ie took our nature fully, and

vohJ,nta ,rily

entered

into

all

the

conditions of humanity,

and,

among others, into t11at ~rl1ich makes our growth in all

or din ,a:ry l{nowledge g1·adual an

1

d lin1ited. * * * ·It i,s not

sttpposed that, in His h·un1an nature, He : was acquainte ,d more

•

than any Jew of His age with th e myst eries ,of all

m.odern

scie,11ces.,nor * * * ca11 it

be

seriously maintaine d

tha .t,

•

as an

.infan ·t

or

young

child, He

pos sesse d

a

knowJe,dge

sUfi ..

· passing that of the most piou s and learned adults , of ' His

nation, up,on the subject of tJ1e authorsl1ip and age of

the

different portions of the Pe ·ntateuch.

At

what period, then,

of His life on earth, . is it to be supi,osed that He had granted

to Him as the Son of man , stt}le.rnatu1·ally, full and accurate

infO:rrn,ation on

tl1es

e

points?'' etc- (vol.

i.,

p. 32). ''lt

should also

b e

0

1

bserved,

says

Dr~ S. Davidson, ''that

l1istor...

ical and critical ques ,tions C

1

ou 'ld only belong to His

human

culture, a culture stamped with tl1e characteristics of Flis

age and country.' j

The doctrine of the Kenosis is invoked ·to explain the

ill1'

perfection of our Lord's knowledge

on

critical questions, as

evidenced

by

th ,e

way

in

,¥hich He speaks

0

1

f

the P'enta'

teuch and of various Old Testament problems. The general

subject of the Iim.itation of Cl1rist's knowledge during His

life on, earth

is,,

of

co

1

urse , a

very

difficult one,

but

we

do

not ne·e

1

l1ere to consider it. Tl1e G,os1pe,l of Mark d.oes

speak of the day and hour when tl1e heaven and earth shall

pass away as being known to tJ1e Fath

1

er · only; and· n ot to

the :Son; but

witho ·ut

v·enturin g

any opinion on a

subject

so

mysterious, we may, at

least,

affirm that th ·e Lor

1

d' s

l


22/27

•

•

Testimonj 1 of

Clir ist

to the Old Testanietit

7

•

•

pre ,sent ti,me absolutely

requi1·es,

the traditional opinions

regarding the authorship of tl1e Old Testament books and

the degre ,e . of ' authority which attaches to several,

if

not all

of them, mttst be

r,evised.

In ordei·

to

save , the ship

1

,

we must

throw overboard , thi s cumbrou s

a11d

antiquated tackling.

Mu ,ch n1ore, we are assured, than points of scholarship are

involved; for int

1

ellige11t and truth-loving men cannot . retain

their confidenc ,e in the Bible and its religion, unless we dis

card the opinions

wl1ich

have prevailed

as

to

the OJd Testa

tnen ,t, ,ev

1

e,n th ,ough the se opinions can apparently plead 'in

their favor

tl1e

authority of ·J ,esus Christ.

Now mark

the

position in

wl1ich

the Lord,

as our

Teacher,

i

thus p'laced. We have f0Il0wed Him in holding opinions

•

which turn out to be unscientific, u,ntrue; and so necess

1

ary

i

it

to relinquish these opini ,ons that neither the

J

ewis11

nor

the Christian faith can be satisfactorily defended if

W

1

C

cling to

them. Is it not,

the1·efore, quite clear that the Lord's

teaching is, in something material, found in error that His

propl1etical office is as~ailed? For the allegation is that, in

hol

1

ding fast to what I-Ie is freely allo

1

wed to have taught,

we,

lare

imperiling the inter

1

sts of religion. The critics whom

We have in view must admit either that the points in ques-

•

tion are of no importance, or th,at the Lor.d was imperfectly

qualified for I-Iis

prophetical

w

1

ork. Those

who,

have rever

ence

£01·

tl1e

Bible will not admit either positio11.

i)r

why

.

shquld scholarship so magnify the necessity to apologetics ,of

corre ,cting the traditional o,pinion as to the age and author-

hip of the Pentateuch,

a11d

other questions of Old T,estament

criticism, unless it means to sl1ow that the Old Testament

require ,s more exact, more e,nlightened, handling than the

Lord gave it? Should it be replied that the

Lord .,

had He

been on earth now

1

would have spoken otherwise on ·the

t,opics conc

1

erned, the obviou s answer ·is, that the Lo~d's tea,ch

ing is for all ages, and that His word ''cannot he broken. ,"

•

•

•

•

•


23/27

•

•

•

68

2. THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION

t

The theory of accommodation is brought forward

iJ1

explanation

o,f

those reference s of

Christ

to the Old Testa

ment which

1

endorse

wh,at

ar e regarded as

inaccuracie s 01~

•

popular errors. He spake,

it

is

said,

regarding the Old T e·sta~

ment, after the current opinion or belief. This belief would

be sometimes right and sometim es wrong; but where no in

terest of religion or moral ity was affected where spiritual

•

truth was

not

involv e·d He allowed

Himself,

even

where

the

co1nmon

be lief was

erro11eous, to

spea,k

in accor

1

dance

•

with it.

Some extend

the

pr inciple

of

accommodation

to

the

interpretation

of the Old Tes tament as well as to, questions

of canon and author ship ;. and in fallowing it the Loi-d is

•

declared to have acted prudently, for

no good

end

could

have bee:n

se,rve cl,

it is.,alleg,ed, by ,cr

1

oss,ing t he vulg,ar 0

1

pi,nion

upon matters of little importance, and thus awakening or

strengthening

suspicion ·

as to His

teaching

in general.

As

to the

,accommod ,ation thus supposed to

have

beeJl

practiced by our Lord , we observe that if it

implies, as

the

· propriety of the term requires, a more accurate

knowledge

on His part than His language reveal s,

it

becomes difficult,

in

many

ins,tances, to vindicate His per£

ect integrity .

In

some cases where

accommodation

is

a1leged, it

might, indeed,

be

innocent enough, but in

other s

it would be inconsistent

with due regard to truth ; and most of the statements of

the

Lord touching

the Q ]d T

1

estam,ent t

1

0

wl1ich attentio

1

n l1as

been directed in this d,iscu ssion s,eem to be of this latter

kind. Davidso n himself

says.:

tAgr

1

eeing as we do in

the

sentiment that our SaviOr and H is Apostles accommodated

their mode of rea soning to · the habitual notions , of tl1e

Jews, no authority . can be attribu ted to that reasoning e~:cept

when it takes the form of an independ ent declaration r

statement, and so r,ests on the :speaker s credit. Now

th,e

tateme nts of Chri st respecting tl1e Old Testament

Scriptt1r,es

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


24/27

•

•

Testimotiy

of Christ to t/1 e

Old

Testament 69

I •

•

to which we desir ,e

speci,ally

to direct attention

are, p1·ecisely

of this nature. Are not tl1ese ''indepe ,ndent declarations''?

' One jot or one tittle shall not pass, etc. ; ''The

Scripture

cannot be b,roken ;'' ''David in spirit

calls him

Lord;•' ''All

tl1ings

must be fulfilled · ~hich

are

written in the Law of

lvioses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concern-

.,

1ng Me.'

1

Fttrther,

we

may say as

before ,,

tl1at if

our . Lord's

state-

111ents

His

obite r

dicta

if

you will

about

·the authorship

of

parts , of Scripture giv

1

e a measure of count

1

enance to opinions

wJ1ich ar

1

e ,standing in the

way

of both

genuine

scho]arship

and of faith, 'it is hard to see 11ow they can be regarded as

instances of .a justifiable accommodation. It seetns t

1

0 us

(may

we reverently use

tl1e

words) that in this case

you

canno .

vindicate

tl1e

Lord's absolute truthfulness except

by

imputing to Him a degree of ignorance which would unfit -

lii1n for His office as

pe1-n1anent

Tea ,cher of the Church.

l-Iere is the dilem1na

f

01· 'the radical critic

either he

is agi-

tating the

1

Church about trifles, or, if his views have the

apoiogetical · importance which he usually attributes to them,

he

is censuring the

Lord's dischat·ge of

His

prophet ·ic

office;

fat th~

allegation

is that Christ's w9 ,rds prove perplexing and

1nisleading in regard to weighty isstt ,es which th

1

e progre .s,s

of

knowledge

has

obli,ged

us to face.

St1rely we

should be

apprehensive of danger

if

we dis

1

cove1· that views

which

claim our adl1esi1on, on any grounds whatever, tend to depre

ciate the wisdom of Him who1n we call ''Lord and

Master_''

l1po11

whom the

Spirit ,vas bestowed '

1

'without measure,'' and

\Vho

''spake

as never

man spak

1

e.''

I_

is

.a

great

thing in

this

controversy to

l1ave

the Lord on our side.

-

Are, then, the

Lotd's

references to Moses

a,nd

the law

to be

regarded

as

e,videnc·e that

He believed

the Pentateuch

•

to be written

by

Moses,

or

should

they be

classed as

inst.ance.s

of

ac,commodation?

When we take in cumulo all the pas

sages in which the legis lation 0£ the Pentateuch and the

•

•

•

•


25/27

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

,vriti .n,g of it ·are conne ,cted with Moses, ,a very str ,ong case

is made out against mere acco1nmodation. The obviou s ·accur-

acy of spe ,ech observed in some of tl1:ese ref er,ences

,canno,t b,e

•

overlooked; ,e" g., '' Mo ses, tl1erefore, gave you circumcision

(not because it is of Moses, but of

the

fathers) . · Again,

''There is one that accu seth you , even Moses in whom ye

trust; for had ye believed Moses ye would have believed

Me, for he wrote of Me; but

if

y,e believe no ·t his writings,

how shall ye believe

My

word s? '' This

is

not the style of

,one· who does not wish his word s to be taken st.rictly ·

•

•

•

TWO POSITI ONS c r..,EAR

•

Two positions may, I thinlc, be affirmed 1. The Iegis]a...-

tion

1

0£

the Pentateuc .h is actually ascri 'bed

to

Mo ,ses by the

Lord. If this legislation is, in the main, long sub~equent to

Moses, an

1

d a g

1

ood ·deal of it later than the ,exile, the Lor

1

d~s

language is positively misleading, and endorses an error which

vitiates the entire con structi .on of Old Testament history

and

the development of religion in Isr ,ael. .2.. Moses is to sucl1

extent tl1e writer of the law that it may, with propriety, be

poken of as ''his writings. ,' J\11ad ·mit that tl1er,e a1~epassag,es

in

the

Books of Moses which were

written

by another hand

or other han .ds, , a:nd shoul .d even

a.dd.i.tio,ns

,other

th,an

c

1

ertai11

b,rief explanatory interpolations and tl1e last chapter of Deu-

t ,eronomy have to be recognized ( which has n,ot yet been

.demonstrated) the Pe .ntateucl1 would remain Mosaic. Should

M,o.s,es have dictated ·much of his writings, as Paul did, they

would, it is unnecessary to s,ay, be not the less his. The wor ,ds

of Jesus we

consider ,

as evide·nce that H·e r,egar;·d,ed

Moses

as,

sttbstantially, the writer of the boo,ks which bear his namt.

Less than this robs several of · our Lord ·ts statemen .ts oi l their

point and propri ,ety.

It is hardly necessary to say that we have no desire to see

a true ,and re·verent

1

criticis .m of the Old

Te,,tame.nt,

and of

the N'ew as

wellt

arrested

in

its progress, or

in

the

least

hin~

•

•

•

•

•


26/27

•

•

Testimony

of hrist to the Old

Testametit 71

dered.

Critici sm

must acc,ompli sh its task, and eve ry lover

of tttt th is

more ·

than willing that it

should

do

so·

Reluctance

to see truth fully investigated, fully ascertained a,nd estab

lished, in

any

department of thought

and inquiry, and

IDost

of 1ll

in

tl1ose

d

1

partme ,nts vvhich are

highest,

is

lamentab

1

e

evidence of

mora l

weakness,

of

imperfect confidence

in Him

Who is the God of

truth. But

criticism

mu,st proceed .

by

legitimate

methods and . in a

true spir it.

It

must

steadf~tly .

k:eep

before

it

all

the

£act s essential

to

be taken into

acef:>Unt.

In the case of its application to the Bible

and

religion,

it

is

•

lllost reasonable

to demand

that full

weight

should

he al'lowed

to all the teachings, all the word s of ~im who only ws

the

Father, and who

came

to reveal I.fim to the world,

and

Wl10

is Himself the Tru th . If

all

Scripture

be,ar ls testimony

to Christ, we cannot ref use to hear Him

when

H ,e speaks .of

its characteri stics. It is folly, it is unutterable impiety,

to

de

cide differently from tl1e Lord any que stion

regarding the

Bibl e

on which we have

His verdict; nor

do,es it improve the case

to say that we shall listen to Him when He speak~ of spiritual

truth, but sha ll

count

ottr selves f re e when

the

question

is

one

of scholar ship, Alas for our schol ar ship wh

1

en it brings , us

into

controve1·sy

with Him who

is tl1e

Prophet, as

He i·s

the

P'riest and King of

the

Church,

and

by whose Spirit both

Prophets and Apo stles spake I .

N Othing

has

be,en

said in

t .ti paper respecting

the

proper

method

of interpreting the

different

books and

parts of the

Old Testament, nor

the

way of dealing with specific difficulties.

Our object has been to show that

the

Lord

regar ,ds

the .

entire book, or

coll,ection

of book s, as divine,

authoritative,

•

Infallible. B,ut in the

wide variety

of ~th

1

ese writings there

are

many forms of compo sition, and every pa ·rt, it is obvious

to say, mus 't

be

understood and expla ·ined jn accordance with

the rules of interpretation which

apply to

·literature of its

kind. We have not been trying in advance to bind up the

•

tnterpreter to

,an unintelligent

literalism

in exegesis, wl1ich

•

•

•

•


27/27

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

72

- The undamentals

•

should take no account of what is ·peculiar to d iff erent species

o·f writingJ treating .poetry and

pros ·e,

history and

at·tegory,

the symbolical and the literal, as if all were the same. T he

consideration of this most important subject of interpretation

with which a.pologetical int

1

erests are, indeed, closely connected,

has ·not been before us. But nothing

which

we could

be called

upon to,ad .van

1

ce re,garding the interpreta ·tion of

the:

0] ,d .Testa ...

ment ·cottld lriodif

y

the · re·sults here r

1

eached in relation

to

tl1e

subject of

which

we

1

h,av

1

,

S1pok

1

en.

Our

Lord s

testimony

to

th

1

e·

c·haracter of the 01

1

d Testament must rema ·in unimpaired .

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

I

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

...

•

•

I

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

the fundamentals: volume 4, chapter 2: the testimony of christ to the old testament

Documents