the fundamentals: volume 4

8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fundamentals-volume-4 1/127

RICHARD LINDAMOOD

27

00 GLE:NWAY AVE.

ClNClNNA1 1 4, OHlO

The

undainentals

estimony

Volume IV

ompliments of

Two hristian Laymen



RICHARD L tNOAMOOO

Gl.ENWAV

AVE

2700 · HlO

ClNClNN~TI ~ O

l

To the Law and to the Testlmony

Isaiah 8:20



The undamentals

Testimony to the Truth

Volume IV

Compliments

o

Two Christian Laymea

TESTIMONY PUBLISHING COMPANY

• Not Inc.)

808 La Salle Ave ., Chicago, 111, U . S. A.



•

•

•

•

•

•

,

..

•

•

•

FORE ORD

•

•

The

Committee, to

V\

1

hom

the two

Christia11

laymen

entrusted

th e editing an d publishing

of

this

series

of ·books, have been great ly

encouraged

by

.the more th an 25 ,000 let ters of appre ciation , which

have come from all p ar ts of the world; and the ad-

verse

criticisms,

although fewer in numbe r, ha, re

be en almost equally encou rag ing , be cause they in~

dicate that the books have be en re ad by some 110

need the trutl1

they

contain, and th eir criticism ill

attract ·

the attentio11

of

others. Al l

we desire

is

t l1at

the truth shall be known, and we beli eve that the

God of Truth will bles

1

s

it.

•

This volume goes to about 250,000 pastors,

evangelists,

missionaries,

theolog ical professors,

theological students, Y.

M.

C. A.

secretaries,

Y. · .

C. A.

secretaries, college professors, Sunday

School superintendents, and religious editors in the

English speaking world; and we earne stly reque st

all whose ,f,.ith is in the G

1

od ,vh

1

0

1

answe rs p rayer, to

pray daily that

the truth

may run

and be glorified.

•

1

(

See Pub lisher s N

1

otice , Page 127~)

•

•

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

'

•

•

•

•

•

CONTENTS

•

•

•

C li ..\PTR R

PA.GE

I. T I-IE TABERNACLE T

T 'HR

VVILDERNESS:

DID IT '

'

ExisT

?• . . . . . . . . • . .., .. , ... . . .. . . .. . . • , .. . . __

7

By Rev.

David

Heag le, P h . D., D. D . . ·

Professor of

Theology

arid Etl1ics, Ewing

1

Coll

1

ge,1

Ewing,

Ill .

•

• •

•

II . . THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST TO THB OLD TESTA@f

•

•

MENT ...••.. . . . . .. ._ .. . . .. . . . • I .......... iii • 46

t

'

By Rev~

Willian1

Caven, D. D·., LL. D.,

Late Pr incipal of Knox College,

Toro11to,

Canada.

III. .

TI-IE

BIBLE AND

1

MODERN CRI T lClSl\tl • • • F 'I • •

6

•

-

- -

By

Rev.

F.

Bettex,

D. D.,

73 ·

.-

Pro

1

fessoi Em eritus, Stutt 2ar t,

Germa11y.

(Translate ,d from

the

original

German

by Da""id

Heagl .e,

D. D.)

•

'

IV. SCIENCE

AND CHR[S i'"fIAN

FAIT 'fI ... .. .. ... " . . •

91

•

By R ev . Pro f. Ja ,mes

Orr,

D. D.,

United ·Free

Ch1urch

College,

G1asgovv,

Scotland. ,

•

•

•

•

•

•

V.

A

PERS ONAL TES ''fI~l ,ONY , . . . .. . . . . •

•••• • ·• •••

105

n·y

Pl1ilip M ,au1·0, ·

Attorney -at -L aw,

New

York City.

•

•

•

•

I

•

•



THE FUNDAMENTALS

VOLUME IV

CH APTER I

THE TABERNACLE IN THE WILDERNESS: DID

IT EXIST?

A QUESTION INVOLVING THE TRUTH CR FALSITY OF

THE ENTIRE HIGHER-CRITIC THEORY

BY DAVID HEAGLE, PH. D., D. D.,

PRO FESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND ETHICS, EWING COLLEGE; TRANS

LATOR BREMEN LECTURES ; AUTHOR OF KORAL

EDUCATIONt THAT BLESSEJ;:> HOPE, ETC.

INTRODUCTORY

The question as to whether or not the old Mosaic Taber

nacle ever existed is one of far greater consequence than most

people imagine. It is so, particularly because of the very. inti

mate connection existing between it and the truth or falsity of

the higher-critic theory in general. If that theory is all that

the critics claim for it, then of course the Tabernade had no

existence ; and this is the view held by at least most of the

critics. But if, on the other hand, the old Mosaic Tabernacle

did really exist, and the story .of it as given in the Bible is

not, as the critics assert, merely a fiction, then _he higher

critic scheme cannot be true.

The question, therefore, to be discussed in the following

pages, viz., whether the Mosaic Tabernacle really did or did

not exist, is certainly one of great and wide-reaching signi

ficance ; which significance will become more and more appar

ent as the discussion goes forward. With this brief intro-

7



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

duction ,ve talce up the s.ubject; 1nerely prernis ,ing furthe1·, that

tl1is

article

was

originally

prepared

as

a booklet,

in

which

shape

it co11tain ed a considerab]e a1nount of matte1- not appearing

•

he1-e.

THE DISCUSSION

One peculiarity of the high

1

er criticisn1 is what may be

called its unbounded audacity in attacking and attempting to

clestroy 1nany of the most solidly established faCts of th e

Bible . No matter with

wl1at a1nount

of evid ,ence any partic-

. t1lar cripture fact n1ay ·be capable of demon st1at ion , if it

happens to oppose any of the more fund ,amental notions of

the critica1 hypothesis, away it mt1st go as unworthy ,of acc,ept

ance h,y so-calJed · science, 01 at all eve11ts, the entir ,e atm·ay

of critica] doubts and imagi11ings is b·ro

1

ught to beat .. in lorde ·r

to cast susp

1

icion upon it, or to get rid of it in some ,vay.

I. THE

BI,BLE SID

1

E

OF THE QUESTION

A stril<ing illustration of

st1ch

p,rocedure is furnished by

the pe,culiar tr eatn 1e11taccorded h) tl1e c1·itics to tl1.a.t. old relig

i1ous str uctt1r

1

e whicl1, being bt1ilt

b,y

l\lloses near Mt. Si11ai

is usual1y named the

·Tabe1·nacl

1

e,

01..

the

Tabernacl ,e

i11 tl1e

VVilderne ss. That sucl1 a structu1·e 11otonly existed,

bt1t

\Vas

for some

·five

hundred years

a

very

conspicuous

object in ·

ancient Isra ,elitish histo

1

ry, is a

f

a

1

ct to wh icl1 the Bible it self

lends no sma 11an,ount

0

1

f evidence~ For examp]e , there are

found in

tl1e

bool<

of

Exodus alone some th irtee11 chapte1.. ·

devoted to a minute descrip ·ti on

o,f

the plan

and

construction

of

t11at

building. Then, as explanato17

of

the Tabernacle

ervices, its dedicati ,on, means of

t1·a11sportation,

tl1e

work of

the

p,riest

and Le vites

to

s.ome

extent

1

·and

\rariotts

ot11er

1nat-

•

tei-s conn ected with the structure, the enti1 . book of Leviticus

witl1 son1 ten chapters in Numbet·s 1n.ay be cited. Besides,

scatte1·ed

a]l

t11rot1gl1

oth the Old and New Testaments there

•

are

many

allusions and notice s some of them 1nerely inci-

•

dental, bt1t others more hi storical in natur ,e all of which go

tov\rard

estab lishing the Tabernacle s historicity.

An,d

finally -



•

•

•

•

. g

•

•

which is per haps the mos t convincing tes tim ony of all v1e

have

~iven

tis

in the

N

e·\lv

T

1

esta111e11t,ne whole

book,

t.he

Epis

1

tle to

tl1,e

Hebre, tVs,

·\,rl1icl1

co11cern s,

especiall)r

exp lai11-

ing from a Chri stian l)oint of ,,ie¥.' , tl1e t)

1

pology a11dreligio11

significan ce of

tl1at

olcl

buildi 11g

•

.II. TH E HIGHE R-CRITIC VIEW

With so mucl1 evidence, therefore, to be adduced, even

f ro1n the Script11res, in support of the Taber11acle'i histor icit; r,

one wou ld thi~k that it requires at least some literary br ave ry,

11ot to say

presumptuous audacity,

for

any individual

or class

of 1nen,to assail, with the expecta tio11of

overthrowing,

a fact

so

solill ly

established as

vould

seem to be that of the

Taber

n,acle' s

real ex iste11ce. Nevertheless, difficult

as

sttcl1

task 1nay

appear, the critics have not hesitate d most · vigorous ly to

undertake

it.

According to

t l1eir

notion the whole story of

t11e Taber nacl e, as record ed in the Bibl~, is

simJJly

a fiction,

or , mor e

properly

speaking, a literary forgery a co11cocion

gotten up pe rhaps by sonie of those priestly scribes ,;vl10

retu rned with Ezra from the Babylonian -exile; thei1· spe cial

purpose

in

devising

sucl1

a

story

being

to h elp,

in the introduc·

tio n of a new temple ritt,al at

J

ert1salem , or perhaps it was

also to glorify the distant past in the

l1istory

of the Israelites .*

III. TI-IE QUESTION :htIOREFULLY S'TATED

Thus we have presented to

11 two

widely differe nt and

opposing views re spect ing the Tabernacle's

existence. One

of them, which is the view of .at least most higher critics, is

that this old structt tre never existed at all; whil ,e, on tl1e other

. hand, the orthodox

and

Biblica l conception is

that

not only

in the days of Mo ses bltt long afterwards this fabric had a

most interesting

and

important history. Whic h, then, of these

t\vo so

widely

different doctrines are we

plea sed

to accept?

•

*~,\sexp

1

lained

by N

1

odell{e, anothe r purp

1

ose of this forgery was ••to

give p1

1

e, 'x,istenc:e

to. th e

te111ple

an.d to the t1nity

of

,vor·shiptl''

Bt1t t.his

is

v:ir:tt1allt in

1

c1uded

in

tl,e t,v·o

p,11rpose:s above

11amed.

•

•

•

•



•

..

•

•

10

•

The Funda nentals

•

IV. IMPORT 'ANCE OF THIS

DISCUSS 1ON

•

•

· 1. Whichever on

1

e

is

accepted

by

us,

certain

it is

that

an

earnest discuss ,ion, su

1

ch as we hope to effe

1

ct, of the question

above

stated,

is a

n1att,er

1

of

no

little

consequ ,ence. Such

a

discussion is important, first o,f all, because of the light which

it will throw

upon

all

the history 0

1

f God' 's

first

chosen

people

the

Israelites. , It ,vil1 at lea.st tell

us

s,o·n1ething

about

the

kind

of civilization this

1

ancient people 1nust have h.ad; and more

particula1 .. y will

it

tell us whether that civilizatio

1

n was, as the

higher cri ·tics r

1

epresent,

1

on

1

e 10,v· d

1

own on th

1

e scale, or whether

' these

Is1·aelites

had

already

made

a

good degree of

progress

. \in all

the

arts, dis,ciplines, and branches of knowledge

which

u.sually

belong

to

a mod

1

erately

l1igh

st·ate of civili .zation. ·

•

•

S1urely, then, there is at least some benefit to be d·erived from

the study before us.

2. But

anothe1·

advantage whicl1 will ,c,ome

from this

same

study is that

it

will help , us to a solution of a somewhat

curious, but yet important, historical problem; viz., whether

as,

a

matter of

history

tl1e Ten1ple preceded

the

Tabernacl .e., as

the highe1· critics claim, and, ther ·e·fore,

that

·the

Tabe ,rnacle

n1us.t

be

regarded

as

O nly

''a

diminutive copy'' of the Temple;

or vice versa,

whether,

as is taught

by

the Bible,

th ie Taber

nacle we.nt first, .and hence that

tl1e

Temple was in. it .s Construc

tion patterned ,after the Tabernacle. To be sure, at firs t

sight

this does

n,ot appear to

be

a

ve1~ importan t

ques tion ;

yet

when

the his·torica .l,

literary

and

ot .her

connections

i11volved in it aire

•

cons ,idered, it doe,s after all

b,ecome

a question of no

litt le

sig-

•

nificance. .

•

3. But · the most ,determinative and the ref ore the m.o st s,i,g-

nificant i·nterest we

'hav·e

in a

discussio ·n

·of

the q·ues,tion as

proposed,

is the

bearing which it

has

upon the truth

or

falsity

of the higher cri ·ticism. As is known to p

1

ersons conversant

·with,

that peculiar method of

Bible

study,

one of its main ·

contentions

is that

the whol ,e

Levitical

or ceremonial law-



•

•

•

•

11

•

•

that is,

tl1e law

of

wor ship as recorded especially in

Ex ?d us,

Leviticus and Nttmbe rs did not

ori,ginate ,

or at all events did

not make its appearance, unti l some,, rhere ne ar the close of

tJ 1e Baby·lon ian

ex.ile,

or

about

th e

time

wh

1

en

Ezra

first

appear s in

J ewish

hi sto ry. By

thus

ren1oving

all

that

part

of

th e ·P entateu cl1 down

the

ce,ntur i

1

es, f

ra m

the time

,of

M oses to

•

the t ime of Ezr a, the criti cs, are ab le not only· to deny tl1e ·

Mos aic

author ship

of

this Pentateuch al lit era tu re,

but

also

to

• •

construct a scheme of their o,vn

by

which all tl1e separ ate

documents , into wl1ich they are accu sto,med to divi de the

Pentateuch can be put together in a kind of whole; each par

ticular document being

singled

out and designated according

to its date,

author ship,

and other

peculiarities,

such as the

_critics suppose

belong

to

it. Moreover,

in thi s way th e P

1

enta

teuch is al.I toirn to piec ,es, and in stea ,d of its b,eing really a

•

co11lected, organic whole, such as the ortho ,dox world . has

always conceived

it

to be,

it

is

b y

thi s p,ecu.liar higher-critic

metl10,d

tran .sfo ·rmed int o

a

1nere patch-wor ·l< a dis,jointed

affair,

having no

more divine authority

or

inspiration

con

nected with it than any

other piece of human lit

1

erature

that

has come in·to being thr

1

ough

the law of evolution. ·

Such .,· however, is

exactly

what the critics would make

of

the Pentateuch, ,

and indeed

of

mucl1 else

in the Bible,

if

they

cou1d have their way.

But now suppose that

after all the old

Mosaic Tabernacle

did really exist, what effect would that have upon the suc

cess of the critical hypothe sis ? It would ab,solutely frustrate

all attempts to

carry this hypothe sis successfully

through.

SUch would necessarily be the re stllt, because, first of a.II,

if

that

portio ,n

of the Pentateuch which

contains the ceremonial

or Le.vitical law is tran ,sferred

down

to

Ezr .a·s tin1,e, the

old

Tabernacle, for

the services of

which this

law

was d.esigned,

must necessarily come with it. But then, in the

.second

place,

a really existing Tabernacle so far

down

the

centuries~

or

long

after the Temple at Jeru sale1n had been b

1

ttilt an ,d was regarded

•

•



•

•

•

•

12

T lie

u1ida11ie11 tal.s

•

•

•

•

by the Jews as their gr

1

eat central place

1

0£ ·wor,sl1ip, would have

been not only an arcl1itectu1·al

curiosity, but

an anachronism

such as e.ven

the critical

imaginati on

cottld

sca1 .

ely

be

,accuse ,d ·

eit]1er of devisring 01·

accepti11g.

rfhe only way, tl1eref ore, open for the critic s, if they are

still to hold fast their theory, is for them to , do precisely what

they b,ave undertaken; namely, t.o

blot

out or d.estroy the

Tabernacle as a real existence,

and

then to 1·econstruct the

e11ire·

story

of

it,

as

given in

tl1e

Bible,

in

tl1e form

of a

fiction.

1 his th

1

ey have

really · atte1np,ted .

•

B ttt by so doing tl1e

c·1~itics n1ust,

aftet·

all,

confe ss th at fl1e

foundation

upon

which tl1ey

build

is

very

insecu1·e,

because

it

is

sf111ly

an ,ass11mption .

If,

therefore, in

opposition

to st1ch

as:;un1ption,

this a1-ticle s11ll be able

t

1

0

demon strate that tl1e

old Mo .sai c Tabernacle actua lly e,xisted, th en the underp

1

inning

of the critical

h)rpothesis

is

at

011ce

removed, and the entire

e,(lifice·

with ,all

of

its

1n1ny sto1;oie 111l1st c 0

1

llap1e.

And if all

tl1is is , true, then it is not too much to

S

1

ay, as is affirmed

ir1

tl1e sub-title of tl1is

article,

tl1at the wl1ole t1·uth or fal sity

of tl1e critical sche1ne depe11ds upon what may he pt·oven

· t1~1e tespe ,cting tl1e Tabernacle s 11on-ex ist ence or existen .ce.

And thi.ts, moreover, . is made to appea1· the exceeding·

ih1portance of the discuss .ion ,ve have undertaken.

•

V. QUOTATIONS FROi\tl THE HIG ·HER

1

CRITICS

. But

wl1at

do the

higher

critics

tl1em,selves

say with regard

tio

t l1,s

111atter

of tl1e· Tabernacle s real existence? To quote

f

ro1n only a few of them, Well hau s

1

en, e.g., who is the great

corJrphreus of the

higl1er-critic

doctrine, vvrites as

follows: ,

TI 1e

Tetnple ·, whicl1

in

reality

wa,s no

1

t

bttilt until Solomon

ti111e, is

by

this ,docum ,ent :[ the

so-called Priest ,]y

C,ode] r

1

e

garded as so indispensable, even for the troubled days of the

•

,~ilderrtess before the s

1

ettlement, that

it

is made portable,

•

and in ·

tI1e

form of

a

taber11acle set up jn the

very begi,nning

•

•

of

tl1ings.

For the truth is that tl1e Tabernac]e is, a

copy,

not-

•

•



•

•

•

Tab ernacle· iti the Wilderness

13

•

the prototype, of the temple at

J

ntsalem'' ( P roleg .1 Eng.

trans ., p. 37) . . So also Graf, wl10 preceded Wellhausen . in

l1igher-critic

work,

affirms

that

t l1e

' f

abernacle

is only

'a

dimintttive copy of the Ten11Jle,'' and that "al l that is said

,a.b,out this1 s·tru ctur e in the mid .dle bool{s of the Pe11tatet1cl1

is merely post-exi lic accretion.'' 011ce more, to l1ear from a

1nore recent autl1ority, Dr. A. R. S. I<ennedy, in Hastings'

Dictio1zary

of

the

Bible

has these words : "The

attitud e

of

n1odern Old Te sta1nent

scholar ship to

t l1e

priestly legislation

as

110\v

forn1:ulated in

the Pe11tateuc}1, and in particular to

thos ·e sectio ,ns of it which ,deal ,vith the

sanctuary

and it

wors hjp, is opposed to the hi storicity of P's [tl1at is, the old

viosaic] Tabernac le." The same or a similar representation

is given by Be~zinge ·r in the Encyclopaedia Bibli a; and in

fac t th is is, a11d 1nust necessarily be,

tl1e

attitude of all

con

sistent higher .critics toward the matte r unde r consideration.

For it would never clo for th

1

e adhere11ts. of the cr.i,tic theo1·y

to admit that away back in t11e old Mosaic

ti1nes

the Taber

nacle,

with

all its

elaborate ritual , a11d

with the

lofty mora1

and spir itual

ideas embod ied in

it,

could

have exi sted;

becau se

that

woit1Id

be equivalent to admitting tl1e falsi ty o,f

their oiv11

do,e:trine. /-\cco,r dingly

with

one

voice

the critics

a1], or

11early

all, stoutly proclaim tl1at no hi storiclty whatever must be

allo \ved ·to Moses' Tabernacle.

VI~ CERTAIN GREAT PRESUi\1PTIO NS

To come tl1en to

the

actual discu ssion of our

subject, it

111ig11t

e said, in

the first

place, that tl1ere are certain great

presu mptions

which

lie in the

way

of

our

accepting

the

high er-

c1itic t'l1eo1·yas true. .

1. One of these pre.sumptio,ns is, tl1at

this

whole

cr itic

hypothesis

goes

on

the

assumption

that

\vhat the Bible tel ls

us regarding the real exi stence

of

tl1e Tabernacle is not tr ue,

or, in other words, that in a large part of its teaching s the

Bible speaks false l)r. Can v:e belie, re

that?

Most assttr edly

•

l

•

J



•

•

,.

•

•

•

t

..

•

14

I

,

•

•

•

not, s~ lo11g as we l1ave

any

real apprecia ·tion oi

the

lo:fy

system of

moral truth

which

is

taught

in

this wonder£ ul book --

a book which, more than any

other

ever produced,

has

taugl1t

the entir

1

e worl .d com1non hones ,ty, whether in literary work

or

other acts. Therefo

1

re we say, regarding this whole matter

of the Bible's speaking falsely, Judaeus Apella credal) non ego

Let the hi.gher

c·ritics

h

1

elieve tha .t if they wi11, but s,urely

not we

1

· . .

~obert Burns has a

poen1,

iri'

hich he says of lying in

genera]: .

•

•

•

•

''Some books are lies. frae end to

1

end,

And some great lies were never penned;

E'

e·n minist ,ers,

they hae

been kenned,

In holy

1~apture, .

A rousing whid at times

to

vend,

An' nail

it wi'

.Scrip,ture ·.

I

•

•

•

•

S·urely ,

the. h~gher

critics

would not

·u,ndert .ake

to

.reduce

our

Christian Scriptures

to

the

level

of a book that

has

1

·in it

no

•

trµth from beginning t ·o end;

and

yet

it must

be confessed

'

that .on.e, serious te,ndency of their th

1

eory is greatly to les,sen

the .general credibility of this sacred volume.

. .

2. But

another presumption

lying

against the

truth£ ulnes ,s

of this hi.ghe~ c:ritici s,m is, th.at it

m.ake .s

all the

civilize

1

d.

agels

from Ezra down to the present time t ,o

be

so utterly lacking

both in

hist

1

oric

knowledge and literary sagacity, that,

except

ing .. f ~w higher crit ,ics, no o·ne eve1· sup,pos

1

ed the _whole wor]d

was l being

de,ceived

by

this

untrue story of

the Tabernacle's

1Jieal xistence ;

when, if the

facts were told, all these n1uner

ous age ,s have not only been thems ,elves deceived, but have

been a1so, i.nst ·rt1mental,

one a ·f

ter a.~oth.er~ in pr ,opaga ,ting

•

that same old falsel1ood down

the

centur ,ies Again we say:

Judaeus

Ape[lu, credat, non

·ego

The µ-igh,er-cr.itic preten

sions

to

1

·having a

greater

wisidom

and knowledge thlan is

pos

sessed by a11the

rest

of the world,

are very

w

1

ell kn ,own ; but



..

•

Tabef ~ -iacte n tlie Wi .der11 eJs

15

•

this

ill·ustration

of tha .t peculiarity

.see1ns to

us 1·ather

to

1

cap

· the climax.

3.. An ·d here,

if'

we choo

1

se

to go ·fa1 .

ber,

it

might

be

sh

1

own that, ·i.£ this pe

1

culia1· doctrine is true, then .tl1e S

1

avior

a11d all of his Apostles were mistaken. For cer·tainly Christ

( see Matt .. 12 :3, 4.) and perhaps all the Apostles without

exception, did believe in the Tabernacle as. a real existence;

and one of the Apostles, or at least an aposto lic writer, went

so far

1

in the Book of Hebre,vs, as to ,compose what may be

termed an extensive and inspi1·ed commenta .ry on that sacred

structure s on its apartments, fut·niture, priesthood and serv-

ices; bringi11g out particularly, from a Christian point of view,

the rich typical significance of all th

1

ose matters. Now that

all tl1ese inspired 1nen

.a11d

the Savior I' 'limself should either

ha, re be.en themselves deceived or should try to deceive ot hers

with regard

to

an

important

matter of Old Te stam ,ent histot ·y

is surely incredible .. ·

• •

. VII. , EXTERN AL EVID

1

EN CE

1. Just beret however, we desire to introdt1ce soine con

s,i,derations of a

different 1iature.

There exists,

eve:n

1

ou·t.side

of the Bible, a sma ll amount of evidence in support of ·the

•

Tabernacle's

existence, arid although

we have

already alluded

to a part of ·this testimony, . under the head of favorin .g pre

stunptions , yet it will bear repetition or rather a fuller consid- .

eration. Now, as w

1

e co,nceive of this evidence, it cons ists,

in the first pla ,ce, of various notices or even of

ft111

descrip

tions o,f the Tabernac l,e as a real existence, which are found

in very ancient writings, some of these writings being quite

differe ·nt

from

Tur

Christian Scriptt1res.

To

be

sure,

a

]arge

•

part of this lit

1

rature is c

1

pied in one

way

an

1

another from

the Bible, and none of it dat

1

S1anything lil<e so

1

far back in

time as do at leas,t .tl1e ea1·lier bool<s of the Old Testa ·men·t ;T

an.d yet., .·as we shall see, .some of it is ve·ry old,, su·ffi~ientl,y

so to , giye it a ki11dof confirmatory force in suppo ,rt of what

the Bible has to say

concer11ing

th.e

m.atter in hand .

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

..

The

undamentals

...,.- --- • ' rt

p zFot. • ....... .

1.:-t .

The first

testi111ony, tl1en,

of

this sort

to

whicl1

we

all\lde,

is a full descrip ,tion of tl1e

Tabernacle

in all its

parts,

services ,

.priesthood and

history,

very

nearly the same as

t11at wl1i

l1

is give,n in our n1odern B,ibles, vv

1i,ci1

clan be fottnd i11 tl1e

,earliest

translation eve·1· made

of the ·old Tes ,tan1e·nt that

is

the Sept uagin t.

This t1-anslatio11appea1·ed some

two

or

tl1ree ce11turies before the time of Cl1ri. t, and tl1erefo1~e it

I

ou,gl1t to be pretty go,0

1

d evidence of .at least .wl1at its cot1 ..

temporarie s, or tl1ose

far-off tin1es,

l1eld

to be trLte

,vith

regard t,o

tl1e

1natter t111der

co11sderation.

Th

1

en

a11otl1er

testimony of lilce cl1aracter comes

f

ro1n tl1e

Greel<: .

'\.pocrypl1a

to

·the

0

1

ld

Testatnent, la wo1·l{ wl1icl1 appear e

1

d, 01·

at

least

ffi0,St of it, bef

1

ore tl1e ti1ne of Cl1rist ;

i11

whi

1

ch productio n

there a1. found

vari ,ot1s

allu si,ons to tl1e Tabernacle, and all

1

of tl1em

to

it ,as a real

exist

1

e11ce;

as,

e. g., in Jud. 9 :8 ;

Wis .

of Sol. 9 :,8; E,ccl. 24 :10

1

, 15; and 2 Mac. 2 :5. Moreov er, in

l1is

Atitiqu ·it·ies

Jo sepl1us, wl10

wrot

1

e tov.r,ard the , end

of ..

l1e

first

ce11tury, gives anot 'her

full

description

of

tl1at old s,tt~uc~

.

· ture in

its

every part,

including

also so1netl1ing·of its his,to1·y.

( See

Antiq., Bk. III.,

CI1s.

VI.

to XII.;

also

Bk. V.. Ch. I.,

Sec, 19; Ch.

II., ,Sec.

9;

Cl1. X,,, Sec.

2;

Bk. VIII.,

Ch.

IV.,

Se·i. 1.) And finally, 'in that v,ast c

1

ollection of ancie,11tJew

i·sh traditions, connnents, laws,

speculations,

etc.,

which

goes

under tl1e name of the

Talmt1d,

there are no,t

infrequent 1·ef

ere11ces mac;le to

this sa,me ,old st1·ucture; and

one of tl1e·

tr

1

eatise :s

(part

of ' tl1e

Bereitha)*

in tl1at

collection 'is

devot ,ed

exclusively to a

c,0

1

nsideration of this buildi ,11g.

With

so

much

literature,

there£

01·e

of

one kind

and an

other,

all telling

us

something about

the Tabernacle,

and

all

or .at

least

n1os,t

1

0£ it going

back

f

o,r its

origin to,

ve,ry

near

· th

1

time

when

at

least th

1

last

part of the

Old Testament

wlas

bi1t i,t is

very

old, and

embodies about

the sa:me

quality of

t,raditio ,n

111

,g·eneral as ,does. the

compilati .on

made

by Je ,hu.dah

h,a,-Nasi, ,wl1ich

is 1.suaJly co,nside ,red the gent 1ine, Mish·n.a,, Or basis

1

of the Ta.mL1d.

-



•

•

•

•

17

,v1·itten, we 'ha.v

1

e

in these various so

1

trces,1

considered

as a ·

,v11oe, if n

1

ot

an

in1dependent

or direct

·te,stimo,ny

to, tl1e

Tab,e1. acle's .

existenc e,

certainl) r ..on1etl1ing

tl1at

points

clearly

in that (lirectio

1

n. Or, in other

wo1·ds, inasmuc}1

as the se

0

1

ld

\\rr~itng s, co,n·taining the va1·ous

11otices

and descriptions ,vl1ich

we have m·ention ed, existed

away

back so near to Old Tes

tan1ent times, these 1nust l1ave been acquainted with

tl1e

best

t1,.aditions of

their day

1egarding

wl1at

is

taug ·ht in that part

of our

Bib·le;

and,

tl1erefore, they n1ust hav ,e known 1nore

about the truth of

thi11g~s

s

connect ,ed

,vith the Tabernacle

and its real exi stence than any authorities existing in these

late ti1nes of our s possibly could. Or, at all events, tl1ey

knew mo,re about th ose 1natte1·s than any of the me .re gtte ss

\\ro·rk

spec,ulations of

111odern

hig he 1~

c:ritic s p·ossibly

can, or

a i·e

i11

a

cond.ition

to k110\v.* ·

2.. Bttt

tl1e1·e s

anothe1..ki11d

of

evidenc

1

e, of this ,external

na·t·u1·e,

whic'h

is

1no1·e di1·ect ,a:11d

ind

1

epende11t,1land

t 'he1~ef

ore

n1or

1

e significa11t witl1. 1·egard to

the T .ab

1

e1·nacle's

exis ,tence l

Tl1at evid,ence is

what 111ay be called th

1

e ,a1·cl1reological

con~

tri bution to our argu1ne nt. Part of it will be

give11

ater ;t bttt

here ,ve

will simply call

attention,

first,

to

the fact

that

in

all

tl1e

region of Mt~

S,i·11ai

h ere

are t

1

0

be

s.een at

least

some

evidences , of

t11e

possible presence ther e, even as

is 1·eco

rded

•

*The value of this ·evidence is of course only tl1at which belo

1

ngs

to tradition;

still

it

should be re ·membered that this

tradition is a

\vrit ...

ten one,

dating

away back

to near

the times of th.e Old Testament.

Moreover, it could be shown th .at this same kind of written tradition

reaches back through the lat er books of the Old Testament. at least in a

negative

way,

even

to

the

time

of

Ezra;

who surely ought to

kr10,v

-:w:hether, a.s the crit ·ics say, th

1

e sto ry of the T 'abernacle as a fact of

history

was inv ente ,d in

his own day

and gen

1

ration ,. But inasmuch a1

Ez ra does not tell

us

anythi ·ng about that matter, it

stan ,ds

·to reason, that

as .

11as

~ince been reported by thi s long line of tradition, most

of

it

being O'f a ,po.sitive nature, no such invention ever took place, but that

this s,tory is simply a n,arrative of a,ctual fac·t. At all events, a,s sai ,d in

~ ~ text, it. is far more likely that th1s ,ol,d

a;nd

1ong-cont ,inued t.radition

1s c_orr

1

ect 1n w.hat

it

assert s, than · is an,y of the denials

1

0'f t,he higher

cr1t1cs ' .

· i' See

pp.

41-43. ·

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

18

The -Fundanie ;itals

•

in

t

1

h

1

e

Bible~ of

tl1e

Isra.

1

eli,tes,

at the time whe11t11ey

bui]t

the Tabernacle.*

1

'.Ioreover, the1·e

l1ave rece11tly

been

1na<le

some discoveries in the Holy Land ,connected with

the

dif

fer1nt places wh

1

re the Bible locate s

the Taber 11acle

duri 11

the

1011g

period of its

history

in that

cou11try,

wl1icl1, to say

the least, are not contradictory, bt1t

ratl1e1·

confirmatory of

Bi-hlical statements.

t 011e sucl1

discovery,

as \Ve ·

will call it,

is connected with a fu ller exp loration recently made of · tl1at

old site

where

for

so1n e

365

years,

according to Jewish

tradi -

. tion , the old Mosaic

Tabernacle stood,

and whe1~eit u11der we11t

the most

i11teresti11g

of its

exper ience .s

in the Holy La nd .

That

site

was, as

i well

l<nown,

the little

city

of

Shi loh,

located

11ear tl1e 1nain thoroughfare leading

up fro1n Beth

1

el

to Shechem. In the year 1873 the Englis h Palestine Exp lora -

1

tion Fund. through some of its

agents,

made a thorough

examination of this o]d site, and among · other of its very

interesting ruin s

was

found a place which

Co

1

lo,nel Cl1a·rles

Wilson think s is the

very

spot

where, once

and for so long

a time,

the

Tab ,et"nacle

stood. That

parti ,cular ·p

1

lace is

at

the

north of a rather

low

''tell ," or m

1

oun d,

upon

which the

ruins

are located; and, to copy from Colonel Wil son' s

descriptio11

this tell ''slopes down to a

broad sh,ottlder,

across

which

a

sort of local court,

f'eet

wide

and

412 feet Jong,

has

been

aut out. The rock is in places scarped to a height of five

feet, and along the sides are several excavations and a few

small

cisterns.'' '

This is

the

locality wher

1

e,

as

Co

1

lo,nel

W'ilson

thinks, the Mosaic Tabernacle once really

stood ;

and as con

firmato lry of his conclttsion he

farther

says that this

spot

is

Ji1eon]y one connected

with

the ruins which is

lalrge

enougl1

to receive a building of the dimensions of the Tabernacle.

Therefor

1

e his judgment

is

that it

is ''not

improbable'' that

t·his

place was originally ''p

1

repared'' as a site for

that

struc ,ture.

*See pp. 12().121.

t See

pp.

122, 125.

•

•



•

•

•

r \

J ;

Tabe nacl 1 in tlie Wild.e·r·ness

19

f

•

Now whether th~ general judgment of men either at pres

ent o,r in the

f

utur 1 will

c.oincide with Colonel ·

Wilson as to

the matter in hand

We

do

not

kno ,w; bt1t we will

simp

1

ly

1·epeat

Colonel Wilson s w~rds, and say that

it

is

not improbable

that this site, as indicated, is a real discovery as to tl1e place

where the old Tabernacle once

stood.

We

ne·ed

not dwell

longer here on the matter, but ,vill only ob,serve that if the

,v

1

ery ruins of the old Tabernacle, S·O far as its site is con

cerned, can still be seen, that surely ought to be

pretty

good

eviden ,ce

tha:t

this building

once existed.

•

VIII. POSITIVE BIBLICAL EVIDENCES

But to co,me n

1

ow to the more positive and co·nclusive

evidences regarding ~he matter under conside ,ration, we may

. observe that these ,

consis .t

particularly of

various

his,to

1

·rical

niotices scatter

1

ed

throt1gho

1

ut the Old Tes ,tament;

a11d

1o

n·umerous and cl

1

ear

in

th .e:ir

t.estimo

1

ny ar ,e these

·no·tices

that ·

they wou]d seem t<J

,rove,.

beyond all

possibility

of doubt,.

that

·. he ol.d Mosai .c Tabernacle r~ally

1

existed.* H

1

owever, th

1

e

\critics claim

here that it is only the

earlier

hi,storica ·t books

9£ he 01~ Testament that can be legitimately Used for proving

· matter so

far

in the past · as was this -

structure.

j

1.. TESTIMONY OF FIRST KINGS

,Corriplying then with that requirement, at least in part,

we b;egin our investigation with the First Book of Kings.

Thi is a

piece

of literature against the antiquity and general

ere .ility of which the critics can raise no valid objection ;

hence it should

be considered

particularly good

ev.idence.

Moreover, it might be said of this book, that having probably

been

constructed out of ea·rly court-records as they

wer

1

e kept

*Acc

ording

to

Bishop

Hervey,

in his Lectures on

Chr

1

onicles (p.

171), mention is made of the Tabernacle some eighteen

times

in the

historical books following ·the Pentateuch that

is, in

Joshua, J·u(t,ges,

1

and 2

Samuel, 1

an1d

Kingst an4 1

and

2

Chronicles ;,

and

in

the

Pentateuch jtsetf. , which the high

1

r criti

1

cs, h.ave by no me1ns proven to



•

,

•

•

20

by

the

different

kings of J11dal1and Israel, tl1ose original

doct1ments,

or

at

least some of

the1n,

take us

away back to

tl1e

very times

of

Solotnon and David,

or

to the period ·when,

as ,~e shall soon see, the J\tlosaic Tabe1·11acle vas still

stan

1

ding

at Gibeon.

Tl1is.

was

also,

it

may b,e obse1·vecl, the

general

p eriod during whicl1 tl1e Tab

1

e1. acle, having been taken do,vn,

was r ,emoved from Gibeon a11d stored a,v ,ay in · .S0lon1o11's

temple

at

Jerusalem; and

it

is

to tl1e

accottnt of

this trans

f eren .ce that our

at ·tention

is no,v, first of all,.

directed.

I n

1 King s, ,chap. ·8, v. 4, we 1·ead : ''An ,d they brought up tl1,e

ark of ' Jehovah, a11d tl1e tent of 1neeting, and .all tl1e . l10Iy

,ress,els tl1a.t were in the tent; even these did th

1

e prie ·sts and

J-Jevites bring u.p. A mere ct1rsory reading of the se words

• •

gives

one

the

impre ssion

that

the

('tent

of meeting,

1

which

''as brottght up from

so1newhere

by

the

pr iests

and Levites,

1

vas nothi11g else than the

old

Mosaic

Tabernacle; and

as to

the place from

·wl1ich it

was

b1 ot1ght,

hat i.s

not

told

u.s

in

the [Scriptures; but a

compari s

1

011

of texts (

see

2 .

Cl11·on.

1 :3 ;

l

l(ings, 3

:1, 4) woi1ld seem

to

indicate that the Tabernacle

,v·as .first

transported £1·01n

Gibeon

to

Mt.

Zion,

wl1ere

the

ark of the

co·vena .nt was at tl1is time, and tl1en afterwards it

,vas,

with

other

sacred

matte1·s,

carried

t.1p

to Mt.

Morial1,

,vl1ere it was put

away

in

tl1e temple~ ,

Al l

tl1is seems to

be sufficiently clear; only now the q·ues- ·

tion arises . w·hether, afte1~ al.l, tl1is was real ly the old Mosaic

stru .iture or some other tent, as, e.

,g.,

the ·on,e b

1

uilt

by

David

in J rt.lsalem, and

which

seems, at this time; to have been

stil1 in existence.* Most of the critics, including even Well

l1a11sen1 are agreed t'l1at the wo1·ds, ''tent of meeting''

orhel

moed), as used in tl1is and various other text s o,f Scripture,

do really signify the old Mosa·ic str u

1

cture; a11d one 1·eason

for ·their so holding is tl1at tho .se words for~ a lcind of t

1

ecl1-.

nical

exp ·ression

by

w11ic1

that old structure was c.onunon.ly,

*'Se1

2 Sam. 6

:.17

a11d

7

:2;

1

Cl1ron.

15 :1

and

1

6

:1. Cf~

1

Ki.ngs

1 :29. -



i

•

•

21

or at

least often,

de11oted in the

Biblei

*

Only

one other

te 1·m

is used

as f reqt1ently

as this is

to

indicate tha t str ucture; ·

this

other

ter111

being,

in

Hebre, -, 11iislil?a1i

l1ich is usua lly

translate d,

i11 our

English

versions,

''tabern ac1e,

a11d

mea n

dweJ ling -place .

Now

if

thi s

re11deri11g of

those

,vorcls

is

correct, ,ve ,vot 1ld see1n to

l1ave

al1·ead )' reac 11ed

the g·oal

o f

our e11deavor . ' fl1at is to say' ,

v\te l1av e

actually found tl1e

T.abernac le in e,~istence. It e:,i sted, as an t111deniable

reality

i 11 the

tin1es

of David

a11d

S0l,on1o11,or at least

in

th oce of

Solo1non ; arid a posit ive proof of tl at

1natter are

these

v.rc.1cls

we l1ave j t1st quoted fr om 1 Kings 8 :4. ·

B,ttt

tl1e

'higher

criti

1

cs.,

or

especially \N ·ltl1au,sen,

a re

110

1

t

so

easily

to b,, ca,t1gl1t ,:vith an

ad111issio11 as

to an interpr eta

tio n of

word s ;

fo r

eve11

t hot1gh

VVellhause11

does

concede

•

th,at

·tl1e ,:vo1ds

''te11t

of

1neet ia.g''

signi fy

as we

l1ave

stated;

.

nevertl1eless l1e u11dert akes to get

rid

of

tl1eir real

force by

asserting

that in

thi s pass age

they

are

a11 interpolation, or

•

tl1at they do not

belong

to the origina l Hebrew text.

How-

ever , neitl1er

l1e

nor a11yothe1- l1igl1er

critic

has

ever yet

be~n

able to give any textual auth ori ty

for

such an

assertio11

tllley

only

try

to arg ue

tl1e 1natter from internal evidenc e.

But inter ·11alevidence alone, and es,pecially such s1im evidence

of that

ki11d

as

the c·ritics

have

been

able to adduce in this

connection,

is

in sufficient

to establish tl1e end desired. B -

sides, those \1\,01·ds, ''tent of

1neeting,

are

certainly fot111cl

in

our

present

I-lebrew text, as also in

tl1e Septuagint version;

both of whicl1 items being ·so,

it is,·

not at all lil{ely

tl1~t

\ \ clll1at1sen's

ipse dixit

will

have the effect

of

changing

the111.

~tt cl1 be ing tl1e

case,

we

n1ay conclude that

tl1e strt1ct.. 1·c

*The words

ohel 111,oed

e,em

to

have been used fir.st

to designate

the

smaller tent

(see p .. 37

with

footnot e) ,which

Moses

used

as

:1

place of communion

betwe en Jehoval1

and l1is

people; hence

it v.:':1

called the

'·'tent

1

0£ meeti11g.''

But

afterwar

1

ds,

'lien

tl1e regular

taber

nacle

became

such a place, th,e

,11ord ·s w

1

ere applied

,also

to

tI1at

structure.

..

•

•

•

•

•



•

..

•

•

•

22

,

The

Fundametital1S

•

•

which was caT riedby the priests a11d Levites up to Mt. Moriah

. and stored away in the temple, was really the old Mo ,saic

.Tabernacle. . .

•

We quote only one Other passage from this

First

Book

0£ Kings. It is a part of tl1,e accoun ·t ef Solomon,s going to

Gibeon, and of his offering saerific ·e tl1ere.

T11e

words are

found in v. 4, Chap~

3,

and read as follows: '' And the king

we11t to Gi'be,on,

to

1

sac1

ifice the1·e for

tl1at

·wa .s the great

High

place.''

Then

in the second ·werse

o,f

this

same

chapter

the king's conduct ·

in

thus

goi11g

to

·Gibeon

is farther ex

plained by tl1e statement

that

th

1

e p

1

e,ople sacrificed in

the

high

places, i>ecause ''there was no house ifiUilt for the name 0£

Jehovah

until

those days.'' The

''days ·' . here indicated are,

•

as is explained by the preceding verse, ·those in whicli ''S0lo -

mo11 made an end of building his ow~ , house a.nd th

1

e house

I

of Jehovah;''

and ythe

entire

p

1

assag

1

e tl=i~·n wou .l.d

.signify

that

at least one

r .eason why Solomon off

1

ere ,d

sacrifice in

Gibeon

• •

was

because this was

the

customary way

.among .

the peop

1

le .

~hey offered sacrifice ·s in the high places before the , temple

at

Jerusalei:n was built, but ·

not ordinarily,

or,· legitimately,

•

aJterw.ards. Then t11e1"e is another r·easo,n indicated why

•

·Solomon w·ent

particu]arly

to

Gibeon

because this

was

th

1

e

_great

high place.'' Why it was so called, mtlst have

~een

because of some

special fact

or

circumstance connected with

· t ;

and

among

tlie

explanation ,s

giveg

.none appears

so

natural

·or to accord so well with

othe1--tea.chings,A,

f ·Scripture

as

the .

suggestion

that this

distinction

was

applied to Gibeon ·

tiecause the old Mosaic Tabernacle,

witl1.

the .br.azen alta ,r, was

still there ~

Tka ·t

w

ould certainly

be .a

suffi·eient

r

1

eason

for

accrediti11g peculiar ·eminence to . this one, of all the many

•

high places

wl1ich

at that time

seem

to h~ve existed

in

the

Ho1yBand.

Accordi11gly,Solomon went

o-ver to

Gibeon, and

off er,ed

sa·crifice,

there ; and

then

we read that, in the night

following this devotional act, the

king had ·

a· dream in which:

l10,rah appeared unto him and made to

him

very

extraor-

•

•

•



•

f

•

•

•

3

•

. dinary promises. Now this , epip hany of · Jehovah at Gibeon

is reall y another reason for one's believi11g that the Tabernacle

was

located

at

this place.

For it is 11t to

be

sttpposed that

any

J

ewisl1

author, " rriting

afte1-

the

temple

was built (

when

tl1is acco11nt

of Solomon's

dream

·,vas .

ritte n),

would

allow

it

to be said

that the great and idolatry-hating

God of the

I r,aelites had macle a gracious and

extraordinary

revel ,ation

•

of l1imself at any

of

the common high places in the

I-Ioly

Land, half-heathenish and largely devoted to the service of

idols, as these places

gene1·ally

were.

But if

it

must b,e acltnitted that the Tabernacle

,:vas r,eally

l,oc,ate

1

d at Gibe ,on, then all

becom,es

clear, both why Solomon

,vent there to offer sa,crifice, and

why

Jehovah made at this

p'lace a

gra ,ciot1s

revflation

of

himself; also why

tl1,is,

of all

the

l1igh

pl,aces in

tl1e

Holy Land ,

was

cal,led ·

,empl1atic,ally

''g1 eat~''

Then, moreo ,ver,

it

might be said, that we have

sttrel,y

demonstrated

tl1e

existence

of

the

Tabernacle, not

only

as taught by this passage

fro1n

Fir st Kings, bt1t a1so by 'the

,other on,e which we l1ave 11oticed. · ,

•

.

•

2. TESTIMONY OF CHRONI

1

CLES

,

•

. ...

But now turning ove1· to

tl1e

two

books of

Cl1ronicles,.

we

finld

here

quite a

number

of

passag ,es wl1ich teach

in

the

., clearest and most positive manne r that the Tabernacle existed

at Gibeon

not only

in

the

time of Solon1on,

but

also

be ore.

Tl1ese ·two

book ,s of · Ch1·onicles, it sl1ould be

remembered,

are really a

lcind

of commentary, or an

extensio11

made, up?n

Samuel and Kings.

Such

is the opinion of

many

competent

cholar$; and

one reason

for tl1eir

o holding, is that

very

,eviden,Jy the books of

Sa111uel

and Kings were

atnong the

p~incipaJ sources from which the

author of

Chronicles ,drew

his

info1·mation;

although it

must

be

acknowledged also that

he

used

still other

sources besides

those

named. Writing

•

then

at

a somewhat distant

date,

say

on

1

e ,or

two

hundred

years from the time of the final composition, or redaction, of

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

24

Tlie Futidame,itals

•

Kings and Samuel,:,: and doub t1ess

l1aving

at his

con1mand

a

co

1

nside rab le an1ount of tradition, bes

1

ide,s his written sourc es,

tl1e Cl1ro11icler

n1us·t

l1ave

bee11

n

very good condition

'to write

,vl1at 111ay be co,11idered a 1,ind of interpre 'tiv

1

e con1mentary .

upon

not only ·

l1e

books

of Sa1nuel,

bttt also

upon

the

Fi1·st

Bo

1

ok of Kin ,gs, two pass ,ages f rom whicl1 we have j11st ·

no,tice.d., If tl1at was so, and the two. bool.cs of Chronicles are

'to

b

1

e

unde rsto

1

od. tl1e11 ,as giving u,s some

additional i.r1f

rma ...

tion as to ,,~I1at

is found in Kings,

th ,en

the

historical

notices

i11 First Kin ,gs which ,ve have exami11ed become as

it

were

i11un1ina ted

and m,ade stro nger a11d mo1·e positive in

tl1eir

nature tl1an wl1en co·nsidered alone. Fo r instance, in Fir st

4

l'{ings we we1·e told

tl1at

Solon10,11 vent to Gibeon and

Offered

sacr ifice there, because

1

'' tl1at was the great high ·p

1

lace ;'' bt1t

110w in

·1 Chron. 1 :3

,ve l1a

ve it all

exp·tained, ,

both ho,w 'G·ibeon

ca1ne ·to

be so· called,

a11d ,vl1at w,as

Solomon's special

reason

£0

1

1· going tl1e1·e

o offet·

sacrifice . It

VJ.as, a.s i.s

taught very

plain ly here i11

Cl1

ornicles, becau s,e ' '

t,he tei

1

it o.f

nieeting

of

G,01d

whi,ch Z.fose,s ,tl·ie .se1 v1a·n·t of Jeli,ovali had made in tlie

wilde1-11:ess w,a1 at

that

time in

Gibeon.

Tl1us

the

ratl1er

unce1·tain me11tion of matter s

at

1

Gibeon which

is

given in

Fi rst

Kings i,s n1ade cleat.. and positi ve by what is said

i 11

Chro11icles. s.o also in 1 Chron. 21 :29, which is a part of

the account given of David's

offe1·ing

sacrifice o~ the thres 'h-

j

ing-floor of Ornan, we hav ·e

agai11 t1-011ger

language used

than is found in Kings, telli11gus of tl1e )existence of the old

Mo,saie Tabernacle. For i11 e,cplaini·11gDavid' ',s c9,ndu

1

ct the

Chronic:le,r says as follows : '''F 0

1

1· the tabe,rnacl e of l elio

1

vaih

•

*It is claimed

by the crit ics that

a11 l1e l1istorical 1Jooks

0£

the

1

0ld

·Testam ient

u11derw

1

ent a

r1vision

du .ring

·tl1e

exile; and :acco ,rding

to

the b,est authorities, Chro

1

nicles was composed shor tly after the

Persia11

rule,

or

.about 330 B. ,c.

S,electing,

then, abo ,ut the mi ,ddle.

C?f the

exi1ic

period (586

to , .444 B~

C.)

1

as

the

d,at

1

e

for

th ,e final

rev1s1on

of

Kings and

Samuel, this w,ould. IJlake

the con1position oi Chronicles .·fall

near

200

years after tl1at . rev1s1on. But of co

1

u1·se Samuel and

Kings

we·re originall~ composed, o·r compiled ., at a

1nuch

e3:rlier date ;~ the

former

appearing

probably

abot1t

9CXJ,

nd the latte ·r about 600 B. C.



•

•

l

Tabertiacle i1i

tJie i,Vildcr1tess

25

•

which .iv ses ttzade i1i tJie wilderness a,1d the altar of b~t1~nt

offering

we1"e

at that

tinie

i ·1i

t/1e

liigli place at Gibeon.

1

rv'hat

ever of u11certainty, therefore, o r lack o,f posit ive indication,

may exist as connected ,vith the passages we have · quoted

f ro·m l{ings,

there

is no sttch uncertainty

or

lack of positive-

•

ne ss .]·1ere in Cl1ronicles. ,on tl1e Contra1

4

y, tl1es

1

e t,¥0 books,

which give u.s quite an amou11t of informatio11 respectinP-tl1e

1 abernacle, are

al,1Vay,.

or at least g·enera lly, very clear

a11d

· pos iti, re ; and on

tl1is accot11t,

·it

111il1t

be

added,

tl1e

sta te

me11ts made in Chronicles ·h:ave some ·times bee11 taken as a

•

kind of

guide

to the study of tl1e Tabernacle l1istory in general . .

But l1ere agai11

tl1e

critics mal<:e tl1eir appearance, a11d are

''all ttp i11 arms'' against any use to be 1nade of tl1ese t,~-o

bool(s of Cl1ronicles for qetermin ing ,a n1atter of

ancie11t

history+ Of

all

tl1e

t1ntru st, ,vorthy hi storical

lite·rature to

be

found in tl1e Old Testament tl1ere is notl 1ing qu ite so bad, so

the cr .itics tell u s, as is in ge nera l Chro111icles; and W

1

ellhau sen

goe s so ,far as to say t·h,a't one specia 1 p·urpos

1

e serv

1

ed

·b,y

tl1ese

t ·,,o boo

1

ks, is tha t they

shovv horV

an au.thor , ·may

use l1.s

origin al sources with su

1

ch freed

1

0111 as to make them say

abou ·t wh,at h

1

e pleases, or anytl1ing ac

1

cording to hi s own

ideas. ( See Pro1eg., Eng. trans ., p. 49.)

So

also Graf, .

DeWette, and otl1ers, have very e11ergetically attacked the

credibili ty of the se

two

book s.

Bttt

over against all

that

is

said by the critics as to the

Chronic ler's lack

of

veracity and

his violent dealing with l1i,s sou rces, ,ve will simply, or first,

put the testimony of one of the l1igl1er criti ,cs the111selves.

It is what

Dill1nan,

who

i·n

{>oint

of learning and

reliab ,ility

is aclcnowledged to be among the very

f

o.ren1ost · of a]l the

critics,

says with regard to

tl1is

very matter

i11 l1and: · 'It

is

now reco,gnized,I' affirms that e.minent critic, '' 'that the Chron

icler has . worked according to soiurces; .and th ,ere can be no

talk,

witl1

regard

to

him, of fabrications

or

misrepresenta tions

of tl1e

history .'' So

also

Dr. Orr observes that

there

is no

•

•

•

•

•



•

f

,

•

•

•

•

•

26

•

·TJie F und amentals

•

-

.

Chronicles;

rand

Pr

1

of. J me,.

R

1

obertson, of

Glasgow Univer-

sity, farther

adds

that all

such

matters

.as

the

critics

have

urged ·

ag,a·i . .st th,e Chr

1

oni

1

c.l

1

er 's veracity or misusie and even inven ,

tion of sources, are ''superficial and unjust;'' and

that ''tl1e1e

•

is no reason to doubt the

ho,nesty

of the author .in the use of

such materia ls as lie has command of, nor is there any to

, question the e~istence of the writings to which 11e refers.''

t We take it, therefore, that

tl-iese

two books of Chro

1

nicles

embody

not

only

the best historical

know ledge,

but also the

best traditions still in existence at

tl1eir

date; and

.such

being

•

the: case, it is clearly in

1

c

1

ontrov ,ertibl

1

e that, . as is so unmis-

takably taught in these books, the old Mosaic Tabernacle

must have existe

1

d.. And so

lo,ng

as the critics . are unable to

· impeach the testim ,ony of these

books,

which would seem to .

•

·be

impossibl

1

e,

that te stim.ony

must

stand~* .

•

•

3.

TE 1STIMONY OF SAMUEL

ti •

••

· Now,

ho,wever,

let us give

attention

to

tl1e

books

of

Sam-

uel.. Here is c

1

ertainly a~other piece of lit.e~·ature against

the

general credibility of

which

tl1e

critics can l1ave but ljttle ,

to say. And what do th

1

es

1

e bool<stell tis resp

1

ecting the Taber-

* t

is,

cla ime

1

d by the critics, and especially by

w

ellhausen, that

during . the exile the

J

ew·is·11notio11s

·re~pect:i11g tE1epast

of their .na.t.ion.a1

and tribal .history underwent a radical change, so much so th .at nearly

al l the religious f e.atur ,es o,f that history were conc

1

eived of ,as h,aving

been very diff

1

erent

f r·o,m wha·t th ,ey really

were., Or

in ot·her . wordrs,

the J ewish writers of the exilic period were, so the critics te11 us,

a,ccusto ·med to project religious and priestly matters belonging to the ir

his·to·ry in a much ]at.er pe·rio

11

d away ba

1

ck

t,o

h ·e: earlie :st times.

Con.s.e

quenily the general ideas of the

te111ple

and of the temp]e service were

thus project~d back even to th e days of Mos ,es; and in this , way, it is

ex 'plained, . the notion of a Mosa .ic Ta .bernacl

1

e with an i]ab .0

1

rate ri·tua'J .

istic service came int ,o b,eing. But · really there is no evidence in all

the Ol1d Test .amen t writings, or at all events no evidence that the Jew.s

kne ·w anyt .h1~g

ab·o

1

u·t,

that

sttth a c'hange ever .too ·k place. Henc ·e

the

critics

are

decidedly wrong

when

they

represent

that the autho ,r of

Chroni

1

cles was only influenced by the spirit of his age when he under

took to misrep

1

res ,ent, a.s it is claimed he did, numerous matters con -

nected

with the

past

history

of

this people.

The

truth is tl1at

the

Ch.r1on.icler was either a base

falsifier,

or

what he

tells us in bis

history



•

•

•

•

•

•

7

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

nacle 's history? Very n1uch, indeed; far more than we shall

have space here fully to

exa111ine.

In

the

first place,

these

books tell

us that

during

at least

part

0£ the .

times which

they

in g·ener ·al describe, tl1e Mosaic Tabe1·na,cle was loca·ted at

•

Sl1iloh, up in the Ep

1

hraimite district. Then next we leatLI

tl1at .at l

1

east one of the

gr·e·at

fes itivals connect ·ed with

the

Tab ,ernacle

s.ervice,s

tl1e ''y

1

ea·r·ty

sacrifice' '

it

is called w·as

still b·eing o,bserved. Also

1

w

1

e learn

that

this

is

t.he place

,vl1ere

Sam.uel' ,s

pare11ts,

Elk.anah

an

1

d

Hannah, . went

up

1

eTery

,yea1·, in or·der

t

1

0 take p,art in th .at sacrifi

1

ce. Moreover,

it

was

i11

th,e

sanctttary

at Sh.i .ol1, o,r in

son1e

Qn·e

of its apart .

ments, that Samuel slept at th ,e .time when lie had those ·

extraordinary revelations of Jehovah talking with him, a:Od

where also he cam,e into

st1ch.

inti111ate and important relations

with the aged Eli and

his,

house. . . .

. And among still otl1er items report .ed

ir1

those book,s the ,re

is one

that

invites

our

special attention.

In 1

Sam., Chap. 2,

v. 22,

111ention

s n1ade of certain ''women that did servic ,e at

the door of the tent 1neeting. ' ' And it was with

these

women,

•

.

as we farth ,er learn, that Eli's two sons, H ,ophni and PlUilehas,

comniitted at least a part of their ,vick ,edness, for

Y1hich

they

wer re so severely conde1nne,,d, a11d af ter ·ward punished

by

Jel1ovah.

Now whatever else this

p,assag ,e

may

signify,

it

ce1--tainly t1tends to teach, by it s use of the words ''tent of

tneeti .ng,'' that in the time of .Samuel

tl1e

1

old Mosaic

Taber

na .cle was in ,exi stence at Shi]o ,h.

For, as ,ve

h,a,re already

•

seen, th~s

1

e wor

1

ds, · 'tent

of 1ne,eting," forn1ed a characteri .stic

expres ,sion

by wl1icl1 in Q,d

Testament

times

the

Tabe

1

rria

1

cle

was, quite often at

1,east;

designated and

k11own,

·This

much,

as we have a .lready noticed, even

Wellh .ause .e.

is willing

to

admit. · · ·

However, the critic .s 1·aise

he1·e

two

ob

1

jections. On~

of

them is that

the

sanctt1ary at S,hiloh

w,as

not realJy a tent

or tabe.rnacle,

b,ut

rather

a

solid

structure, built

petl1aps

out



•

•

•

•

l

•

••

I

28

•

•

The Fundamentals

•

•

given

by

the critics

for this

view is

tl1at, in Samuel's

accottnt

of tl1e

.st1·uctur·e

at. Shilo·h, there

,are

''posts," '''doo1·s,''

a·nd

some other matters usually indicativ

1

e of .a solid struct11re

mentio11ed. But - tl1is, difficulty can be very easily explained

from a statement

1nade in

the Je"visl1 Mishna,* which is, ·tl1at

the lower part o·f tl1e sanctua ·ry at Sl1ilol1 ,,·was o,f stone,''

bt1t

that above

tl1is there

was

a tent. Or

a

1nore decisive

a11swer to

thi s

objection is

that

in various

Sc1·iptures (such

as

2

Sam. :6; Psa. 78

:60;

1 Kings

8

:4;

Josh .. 18 :1, and

still oth

1

ers .)

the

structure

under

consideration is positive]y

called ''a tent''

a11d

'a tabe1·nacl

1

e,''

Then the

otl1

er

1

b

1

j ection 1·aised

by t11ecritics is that these

words, ''te11t of 1neeting," as found i11 1 S.a1n. 2 :22, a1·e a11

interpol :atio11, or

that

the

whol

1

e passage

cont .aining

tho se

words . is spurious, The reason which they give fo

1

r such an

assertion

is

that this passag ,e·

is not

f

011nd i11

th

1

e Se·ptuagint ..

But in reply to

1

such o,bjecti

1

on

it may

be said,

first,

that this

is not t'he on1y pas.sa.ge

in

the

Bib le

in which mention is made

of thes .e women ''at tl1e.

door

of the tent of

meeting.''

In

\

Ex . .38 :8, li.ke 1nention is made; and, as Dr. Orr has obse-rv·ed,

it

is inconce ·~vable even on the supposition, which he d

1

oes

not

accept, of a po

1

.st-exilic .

origin of

the

last

indi ,cated

passage,

tl1at just t

1

his one mention of tl1e mat ·ter allu

1

de·d to sho·u]d

occur, unless ther ·e was behind

this matter

som.e

1

old and we11-

established tra ,d.ition; or, in

other words, the

genuineness

of

the

tex ·t

in Exodus argues

for the genuineness of

th

1

e text

i11

Samuel. B

1

esides,

as.

Dr .. Orr h,as again

Sltggested, tl1ere 1nay

have

bee11

son1e

special

1·eason

of

delicacy

or ·of rega ·1. for

the

good moral · repu ·tation

of the

Israelites, on the ac.count ,of

which the makers of the Septuagint versio11 threw out this

item respectin ,g the

Wickedness

of Hophni and Phinehas , as

co,nn·ected

with

these women.

Then, 1noreover,

as

an

offset

to tl1e Septt1agint's

authorit ,y wl1icl1,

owing to

t11e k·nown

•



•

•

•

29

•

f

aultin

1

ess

of its pr

1

esent

text and

its gene1·al inexactness as

a tt anslation, is su,rely no

1

t great it can be urged that the

,entire clause

containing the

words ''tent of n1eeting''

i,s

fot.1nd

,alike in tl1e old Syriac or Peshito version, in the Vulgate,

and in the only ,extant Ta1·gt1m (that of Jonath an Be,n Uzziel)

•

on this pa ,rticular pas~age ; all of which very ,ancient

,autho1,.-, .

ities* 1e11der

it

as certain as, an ,ything of a

textual

natl1re

•

co,uld well be made, that the old original text in 1

S arn.

2 :22

\Vas

exact 'ly

as

it

is

now in ottr present-d .ay·

I-Ie,brew

Bible.

Ai1d,

finally,

as

pet:haps

tl1e

c1·o,vning f eat'tt,re

of

th is

a1·ray

of evi

1

dence

for the

ge11t1i11eness f

th ,e text

tinder

conside1-a

tio11, it can be affirm,ed that, for En.glisl1 r

1

eaders at least,

·t11ere exists on,e

authority, easy to be· consulted, w11ich_wo11ld

· seen1 to put beyond all reaso ,nab le doubt

tl1e genuiner1ess

of

this text~ That authority isl ottr R

1

vised Englisl1 Version of

the Scriptures a

literary

work that in poi11t

of

scholarship

. and general r~liability stands perl1aps second to none prodttced ·

i11 1~ecent

years. And now, if anybody wi'l'l take the ti.. ub'le

to

const1lt· tl1is Revisecl Versio

1

n, he wil'l see that this enti

1 .e

disput

1

ed pas,sa,ge is ret ,ainecl,, or

that , the many

,em,inent scho,1-

ars, both Englis h and An1er ican , who

wrought

on this

t1·ans

lation are agreed tl1at tl1e vords,

' 'te11t

of

n1e

etllJg,'' or

oli l

IJ'n Oed, as in Hebrew, are g

1

e1111i11e,nd p1·operly belong to

thi,s pa,ssage..

Sucl1 being

tl1e

case, the critics are pttt in bad

plig-11t;

and anyway it does not argtte much to the credit 0

1

f ·

heir

hypothes ,is when, in ordet· ' to car ,1~y it th1·ough, it becomes

ne,ce~s,a,ry so often to, 1nake the clain1

0

1

£ interpo

1

latio11. Of

co,urse,

a11yone

can make what l1e please

of any

pas,sage of

Scripture,

provi

1

ded he

0

1

nly

has the privilege o,f' doctoring it

•

_ *The Targum on Samuel, whi,ch is att ·ributed to Jonathan Ben

Dzziel, is commonly ·believed to hav 'e 'be

1

en pr ,odu,ced some t ime during

tl1e first century;

the Peshit ·o version

of

the Scriptures

i,s

thought

to

l1ave been made somewhat Jater, pr·o

1

bably in tl1e second century; while

tl1e Lati11,

Vulgate,

by Jerome, was complete ·d between

the

years

390

a11d

405

A D ·

•

•

•

•



•

I

...

•

•

30 The Fundametitals

•

•

sufficiently beforehand. And with regard to this particular

•

passage it

may

be, said ' that neithe .r

Wellhausen

nor

an ,y

other

higher critic ,can

do

anything

to

alter

it;

becaus

1

e

s9

Jo,i1g as

t11ose

wor ,ds

1

o,he,J

moed

or ''tent

o,f

meeting,

1·emain n1he

various textual

authorities wh ,ich we have

quoted~

so long

it will be impossible to expunge them from our present Hebrew

Bible ·; and 110 matte 1· wl1at authorities

the

critics may be ,able

to

quote

as omitting these

1

wo1 .

s, the preponde ·ran

1

ce of author

ity, as matters now s.tand, will always

be

in favor of their

retention.

We

,claim

then a

re,al.

victory here, in being able

t·O

substant ·ia,te so

conclttsively,

as

we

tl1ink we hav

1

e done, tl1e

genuine11ess of this text in Samuel. ·

But ,vhat now is the gener ,al

1·esult

0

1

£ ottr examinations

with regard to the testimony which

1S,amuel gives us?

If

our c,onclusio11 with regard to the, pas,sage just

examined

is

correct, and we are

fully persuaded that

it i,s,

then we

sure 'ly

have demonstrated in the clearest

wa,y

that not

only

in the

days

of S,amuel, . but

·p,robably

long befor ,e, the Tab 1rnac]e

did exis ·t, and was lo

1

cated at Shiloh.

4.

TE.S,TIM0

1

NY OF JEREMIAH AND PSALM

78

-

.

•

An,d

h

1

er

1

e,

if

we ,care to

go,

.still further in

this

investigation

of pass,ag,es,, we might find some very int1re

1

sting testimony

to the Tabernacle's historicity in Psa 'lm 78 and in tl1e prophecy

of Jeremiah. But since we ·wish to be as brief as possible,

•

while not neglec.ting the r

1

eal str

1

ength of

our

argument, we

will simply

indicate, or

quote,

the

Scriptur ,es re,· e1~red 'O, and

leave the discussion or jntelpr ,etation of' them

to

the

reader

himself. One of these

passages

is

found,

as said, in Psajl 78,

vs. 59 60, ,and reads ,as f,o,llow,s : ''When God heard this , he

was wr

1

oth, and gr·e,at1y· ,abhorred Israel; so that he forsook

the

tabernacle of Shiloh the tent

which he placed among

men~'' Ano.ther pa,ssage, from Je ,r., 7 ,:12-14, read,s thus: ''But

go )

e now unto

my

place

whi cli

Was i1tt

Shiloh

where l cau s.e d

1



•

•

•

31

•

the wickedness of

my

people Israel. T.herefore will I do

unto

t·be house

wl1ich

is

called b.Y

my

nam

1

e,

where ·in

y·e

trust

1

[·tl1e

temple at Jerusalem], and unto tl1e place which I gave to you

and

t,o

your fathers, .

as

I have done to Shiloh~'' Still another

passage may be found in J r~ 26 :6

,

a11d reads : ''Then will

I make this house like Shiloh, and ,vill 1nake .this city [Jeru

salem] a c·urse ·to a.II natio ,ns

0£

the

earth~''*

All these p

1

assages, it should be observed, compare

th·e_

Temple at Jerusalem with the Tabe ·rnacle at Shiloh; and they

express

the thr ·eat,

that, unless the Israelites

r·epented, ·

God

W

1

oul~ destroy the Temple at

J

e·rusalem, as he had long before

1

destroyed, or remov

1

ed, the Tabernacle at

rSh.iloh.

•

5. TESTIM ,ONY 0 ,F JUDGES AND

JOSHUA

Yet once mor

1

e, in

0

1

rder to .make

1

our sto

1

ry

of the ·Taber

nacle comp

1

lete,

it

is necessary for us to go back somewhat

in history ; and SO· we n.ow qttote from th,e books of Judges

and Joshua. 111

Josh.

18 :1 we

·read: ''And the

whole

con

gregation

of

the children of Israel

as.sembled tl1emselves

•

together .at Shil

1

oh

and S

1

et up the

te11t of

meeting th ,ere.''

Then, turning over to Judg. 18 :3,1, we again read, about

the

. idolatrous

image ,s

set up in Dan,

that

the ·se continued

there

•'all the time that

th

1

e

house of God was . at ·

Shiloh.'' .

Fr ·om

these two

passages we learn not only how

the

''house

of

God''

1

c.ame to be

l.ocated

at

Shiloh

because the childr

1

en of Israel,

p

1

robably under the

·1eadership

of Joshua, set it up

th,er·...........

but

we

l

1

earn also that the two descriptive terms, ''tent of

tneeting't and

·'house:

of

God,''

signify t.he sam .e

tl1ing ;·

.£or it

*These passages in Jeremiah are very important as evidence in favor

of the Tabernacle's real existence, since even the higher critics must

.admit

that

the chapt~rs

1

containing

them

were

written

a con,s'iderable

time before

the

exile;

and

there£ore these passages

c·ou1d

not, exc .ept

upon the violent theory of redaction, have been

affected by

writings

appearing

ei·ther during or after

the exile. And

as to P.salm

78,

whic.h

is

even

more expli ,cit

a·bo

u·t

th.e s.t·ructu .re

at

S

hi1o1's

bein,g

the

c,ld .

Mosaic

Tabernacle. I it

is much easier to say, as

the critics

do.

that

this

P

1

salm

is

post-exiiic,

than it is to

prove such assertion.

•



•

•

32

The

Fundanie1itals

•

•

is hardly possible tl1at the ''tent of meeting' ' erected at S11ilo

in the

da.ys

of

Joshua had been replaced in

tl1e

time o.f

the

Judge s

by

another structure , different in kind, and now called

the ''ho use of God.,, .

•

•

6. ARGUM ENT FRO?vI HISTORY 0 1F THE S1-\CRED ARK

•

•

But now yet, before we gi, re the entire story of _he

Tabernacle, we desire to notice another kind of ai gumenti

w.l1ich is drawn from the history of th

1

e sacred ark . Ther

1

e

, does not

see1n to

be

any

notice

of

tl1e Tabe1·11ac1e as a

struc

ture by it sel f in the book of Deuteronomy; but in the tenth

chapter of this book, verses 1 to 5, there is given an accottnt

of the constr ·uction, not of tl1e Tabernacle, but of wl1a·t must

be considered as its most i1nportant piece of furniture, that

is, the Ark of

tl1e

Covenant,

as it is

usua lly

called, or

as the

critics prefer to term it, the Ark o Jal1wel1 (Jehoval1). Now,

although the critics take a ve:ry different view regarding the

date

and

authority

of

Deuteronomy

from

that

wl1icl1

has

always been accepted by orthodox scholars, yet especially

upon the

ground

of

tl1e

passage ref erred

to,

they are

wiiling

t

1

0

admit that .at least so.me kind of a sacred ark wa .s con

st1·ucted ev

1

en

in tl1.e

,days of Moses ,.

Mo·1·eove,·,

if

cons,.ste11t

with tl1e facts as recorded in the Bible, the critics can11ot

deny ihat this same sacred ark, whatever was its form

or

pt1rpose, was not . only carried by the Isr ,aelitesl o,n aJ,l tl1eir

journeys through the wilderness, but was also finally located

by

them at Shi1o11;

whe11ce,after undergoing various f

ortu11e

j

it was deposited in the holy of holies of Solomon's T etnJ) c.

This the critics in genera l admit ; and they

are

compelled to

do so by their own accepted documents of ''], ''E,' ' etc.

· Now,

t11at

being the case, it iollows that if the history

of the sacred arl<:can be traced all the way through, or ratl1er

all the

way

back

fro1n

the days of Solomon's Temple to the

days

of Moses,

somewhat

the same tl1ing can

be done

also



•

•

•

•

•

33

•

from what the critics call tl1e Priestly Document, ·was built,

among other purposes, for the housing · of this sacred ark;

and the same documentary evidence which establishes that

fact establishes also t11e farther fact that for a long period

such was really the case. · That

is to say,

the

sacred ark

and

tbe old Mosaic Tabernacle went together,

according

to Biblical .

history, down to tl1e times of Shiloh; and tl)ey were, after

some period of

separation,

even brought

together again at

th.e

dedicatory

services of Solomon's

Temple,

To, be

sure,,

not

all

of

this is

admitted

by the

critics;

but

they

cannot deny that

the same old ark, which,

according

to

Deut.

10 :1-5,

was built

by Moses, was finally deposited in Solomon's Temple.* W itl1

this n1uch conceded, all the rest that we have ·cla,imed m11st

necessarily follow; or, in other words, the admitted history

of the Ark

of

Jehovah establishes

also,

the historicity

of

tl1e

Mosaic T}1bernacle, or at least helps to do so.

IX. EN T IRE ST0RY

OF

THE TABERNACLE

•

Now then we are prep ,ared to give

the

entire stocy

o,f

that

0

1d structure which was built at Mt. Sinai; only one item

,

11

eing still lacking. This we can learn from I Sam., Chaps. 21

and 22;

and it is, that

for

a

brief

period

the Tabernacle

see111

t.o have been

lo,cated at Nob, some distance south of Shilo

11.

.

0

uched for by the different historic notices we haVebeen con

sidering, it is as fallows : .

Built by the Israelites near Mt. Sinai, it was afterward

carried by

that

people all through the wilderness. The11,

th -w~11hausen positively

states

that a~cording. to the Law,

that .

is,

a

e ark,u ~nd th.at "The two things neces.sa~1lybel_ong o each other. "

the also

admits,

o~

the

ground of other Bib.he.al evidence, that toward

~ ~ e.11d f

the

period oi Ju~ges there are d1st1nct

traces

o,f the ark

as

l)oi~tting?mor eover, that this same "ark of Jehovah'' was finally de-

81

ed

1n

Solomon' s

Temple.

(S ee

Pro eg., En g.

Trans .,

pp.

41, 42.) .

•

•

..

•



6

And finally, there is still one class, or a single objection,

which makes bold to affirn1 that in all the earlier historic

books of the Old Te

tame11t,

even

f

ro1n

Judges to 2

Ki11g

there is no sure mention ma.de of the Tabernacle as a

real

•

existence. ·

Now, if we were to try to answer all these objections, it

might be · said of the last one, that it is already ans,verecl.

We have a11swered that objection by showing not only that

there is mention

made

in

those ea1·lier

historic books of

the

Old Testament of tl1e Tabernacle as a real existence, but al o

that this mention is both sure and abundant. The many

historical notices which we fuwe exami11ed, all telling about

the Tabernacle's constrttction and l1istory, is positive proof

to that eff cct.

•

Tl1en. furtl1ern1ore, with regard to tl1e alleged fact that i11

the earliest sources, . out of which according to the critic

theory the Pentatettch was constructed, there is mentio11

made of another or second te11t, different from the Mosaic

strt1cture, we have to say ,vit11. espect

to

this

objection, first

of all, that it is far from being proven that there are in

tl1e

Pentateuch arty such oldest sourcee as the critics allege.

That item is only a part of the still

unproven

theory of

tl1e

higher critics, in their interpretation of tl1e Old Testament.*

And tl1en, secondly, we might say, respecting this objectio11

. that it is a difficulty which orthodo scholars have often

noticed and which they have explained in various wa

1

~ .

Perhaps the best explanatiori is

to allow the reality of the

difficulty and to attribute it to so1ne obscurity or even seem

ing contradiction existing in the Pentateuchal notices. Bt1t

*The fact of the higher-critic theory being as yet in an unprove11

state might be urged as one important co11sideratio11 in favor of tl c

Tabernacle s real existence; and especially could such an

argume11t

be legitimately made, inasmuch as the proof of the ·correctness of that

theory does not all come from an assured non-existence of the 1'1osaic

tructure. But since an argument of that kind would be, to ome

extent at least, ''reasoning in a circle,'' we do 11ot make use of

it .



•

•

•

•

Taber titJcle in .th,e Wilderness

•

,vi1atever the real difficulty may be,,

it

certainly is not insuper

al>e ; and

a very

good

expla11ation

of

it

is

that

there were

1

leallyW O tents, . but

one

of

them, ,

that is, the smaller tent, was

only a

kin,d of provisional structure, perhaps the dwelling

place of Moses, whi

1

cl1 w·as us

1

ed also

for r·eligious ,

purposes, .

While the .la.rger or ·

Sinaitic

Tabernacle w.a.s bei.ng

prepared.*

~'ith some al1owa11cefor on,e or two stat

1

ements made in the

Pentateuch which seem not fully

to

accord with this view,

it

will answer all the real exigencies of the case.

Or,

at all

events,

neari 'y any

explanation which preserves th

1

e integrity

of the Pent ,ateucl1al lite·ratu1·e, an

1

d tries to reconcile its seem- · ,

•

tng diff e,rences of state1nent,

on

the

ground

that

th·i.s literature

deals with f

ac.ts, and ·

is not in large

sha ·re

pure

fiction,

is

Vastly .Pref erab ,le to

any

of the the

1

ories which the critics

have

thus far advanced with regard to

this

matter.

There

remain

then

0

1

nly

two classes

of

ob.j e~ions

which

need still

to be answered. And

with

regard

to

one

of these

classes, that

is,

the first

in

our list,

it

may be stated that

although

the

objections p,ut forward under

this head

are

quite num

1

erous,

yet ·

a single illustr ·ation of t'hem will show

how

utterly

lacking

in

substantial

character

or reaso,nableness

N

*Noti~es

.of

~uch

sma11er

tent se.em

to

.be made in Ex.

33

:7~11;

urn. 11.16, 12 .4, 5, and Deut. 31.14, 15, and from these various

Passage,s t'he critics claim

·th.at th

1

ey

can

dis ,cover

at least

three

points

e·v1t1cal one. These

d1ff

rences are as

follows : (

1)

The smaller

tent 'wasalways pitch ,e:d

1

outside

th,e c·amp ,;

but

acco,rding to the

priestly

Levitical history the larger tent was located ,,within t~e

camp1 . (~)

:.1.he smaller tent wa

1

s only ,a place of

]

ehovah's revelat1011

1

or of hts

~o~muning with his people ; bu.t the ]a~f{er or priestly struct~r~ was,

es1des.,

a

place

of most

elaborate worship. (3) In the

Lev1t1cal

or

larger tent

the priests and Levites re,gularly served,

but i.n the

smaller

strttcturc it was only Joshua, the ''servant'' of Moses, who had

charge

of t he

b1uilding. · ·

. All these diff

er,ences,.

how

1

ever, are easily expl,ain,ed by th

1

e theor ,y,

t

1

ven above, of there having heen really two tents. Besides, it

sl1ould

.trtptures of this smaller structure; which fact would seem to be a

ittong

Pl <?Of

hat the smaller one of the two tents was, primarily at

east a

p.r.1vate

structttr ,e

ttse,d by

Mo,ses.

•

•

•

•

•

,

•

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

,

•

38 · ·

•

•

•

Tlie Funda nentals

•

ea,cl1

~11d all

,of

them real ly

are.

The illustration of whicl1

we will make use is

ta .k,en

f1·om Bi .shop Co,lens ,o s

fan10,11

at ·tack upo ,n· the

t ruthfulne ss

of the Pentateuch an~ the B,ool.;

of Joshu ,a. In tha t at·tacl< l1e puts £01 ..ward th·e s,ingu lar

objection that tl1e Tab ,ernacle was, in its dimensions ,· fa .r too

sma ll to accommoidate all the· vast ·host 0

1

f the Israe li·tes sta11d

ing before its door, as tl1e Scriptt1res seem to indicat~ was tl1e

•

case with the1n ori a f·ew occasions.* Th at vast l1ost 1nus t

•

.

have numbered, accordin g to th ,e data giv.en in the Pentateuch ,

a s many at least

as

so,me two

111il1ions

of people ; a11d n,ow

Cole11so

makes the ob,j

ection

that thi s

great

host, st an.ding

in ranlcs, as he would m,ake it, of nine, one rank behind

•

anoth .ir, in f ront of the Tabe1~11-a,cle d,oor, would have form e

1

d

a

proce ss·ion some sixty niles

long ;

whi

1

ch, sur ,ely, woul

1

d h,ave

been

11ot

only a practical

imp oss ibility

so far as their g?:th

e1-ing at the doo

1

r of the T ,aberna ,cle was c,oncerned, · but

,vou1d have been also a

1

Co1npete

d

1

emo11stration of the

·u11-

t1;5tl1fulne~ss or un·reliabili ty of

tl1is

P

1

entatet1cha l reco rd .

•

But ther e is one thing connect ed with this, record whicl1

Bishop Colenso seems

n,o·t

to

I1ave

under stood. It

is

t hat

,vhen the author of it was speaking of the whole congre gation

of Israel as

standing,

or

gatl1ered, in front of the Tabernacle

door, he wa~ speaking only in genera] terms . His langua ge

th en would imply, not that every individua l belonging to the

va .st Israelitish host stood at . the place menti .oned, but 011ly

that a large . an .d repre ,sentative multitude of these people

\,ras thus gathered. Or the words might signify that

eve11

the wl1ole congre ,gatio 1n of the Israelit ,es was, o.n a few occa ..

•

sions, gathered about the Tabernacle, as

it

had

been

gathered

around Mt. Sina~ when the law was given not all the peop]e

ne·ar ·the ·Tabernac]e door,

h Ut

only the leaders, while the

gr ,eat

b,ody

1

of

t~e

congregation

stood

behind them,

or

around

~Vi<t~ I ..

v.

·8:35;

Nttm.

10:3,

and 27:18-2.2.

Al.so

comp. Num.

16;

16~19.

•



•

J

•

•

•

•

•

40

•

in such e.xt.reme poverty. The Bible tells us that when the

children ,of Israel left Egypt they went ou ·t ''every man

., a1·t11e

d ;·' and they carrie

1

d with them all their herds and flocks,

leaving ''not a hoof behind.'' Mor -eover,

by

means of the

many gifts, or exactions of ''jewels of silver'' and ''je\\

1

els

of '

go

1

ld

2

·which

they received

from the

Egyptians,

tl1ey ''utterly

· spoiled', that peopl .,. Such is

the

representatio

1

n given in

the Bible. And then, too, when

these Israelit ,es

came

to

Mt.

Sinai, here

also, according

to

the reports

of

modern travelers

and explorers, they

could have found various

mate rials 11eces

sary f·or constructing the

T'abernacle,

such as an

abundance

of copper existing in ~lines, var iou s kinds of preciotts stones ,

as

well as,

growing

in

this

regio11

in

considerable abundance.,

t·he shittim-wood or acaci .a tr ·ee, out of

wl1i

ch

tl1e

boards

and

pillars an.d most of ·the furn iture of tl1e Ta 'bernacle were

act ·ually· constructed. So far, tl1eref

or

1

e, as possessing,

9r

being able t

1

0 get, the 1neans necessary £01' a constrt1ction of

the Taberna

1

cle was concer·11ed, these

people would seem to

have been pret ·ty well sttpplied.

And then, with

regard

to the

other

mistake made

by the

critics, viz., that these Israelites were intellectually incompetent

to build

the

Tabernacle,

this a.ssertion

also is

not substantiated

by

f acts.

F 'or, in

th e fi.1·st

plac

1

e,

it shoul

1

d be remembered

that all these Hebrews had from their 'birth dwelt in Egyp t,

a

country

w'hich, of all

la11ds i.n

t 'he

world,

was

at that time

th

1

e most advance

1

d in all kinds of mechanical, architectural

•

and industrial

art Th is,

e.

g.,

was the

country

,vhere th

1

e

•

great pyramids ha

1

d been produced, and where

existed,

at

that time, at

least

most of the magnificent

temples., to1nbs,

obelisks,

statues

and palaces, the ruins of which still remain. · ·

Accordingly, wh

1

en

the

1

children of I srael came out

of·

Egypt,

they must have brought

with them

a

good

amount of the

archit

1

ectural

and mechanical wisdom peculiar

to

that

country.

Moreover, we are taugh ·t in the Bible that these people, while

in

Egypt,

dwelt

in

houses; \vl1ich, of

course, they

mt1st

have



•

•

4.1.

•

•

•

•

bu.iJt for thetnselves; also that, .as slaves, theic lives had been

rnade b,itter

by

'',all ,manner o,f

servi

1

ce

in

the

field,,-' and by

'

1

hard service in brick and :in mortar,'' and taat they ha:d

built ''store-cities,''

such

as Pithoin

and

Raamses.

Plltting,

therefore, all these experiences whicl1 the Israelites had in

l gypt together, ,it can be easily seen how tltey could have

leamed, even

from

the Egyptians,

sufficient wisdom

to con-

truct and tran ,sport the Tabernacle.

· But

if

we

are

required

yet

to name

any one

particular

achievement,

ever

accomplisl1ed by these

peop'le, that

was

gr

1

eat

,eniough t

1

0

warrant tl1e

belief

of

the ,ir

bei11g

abl

1

e to

tons

1

truct and carry with them all th,rough the wilder11ess the

Sinaitic Tabernacle, then, both with promptness

at1d

high .

appreciation, we point to that very extraordinary conquest

Which

they made of the Holy La11d, and also

to

the almost

e,qually

extraor ,dinarily long march made by them through

the

Widerness; and we wisl1 to say that any people wl10 could

•

accomplish two sucl1 prodigious deeds as were these cou·ld

easily·

have

accomplished

the

so much easier task of building

and

transporting

the old

Mosaic

''tent of meeting.'' ·

. Our conclusion, therefore, is that, all teachings of the

h

1

gher

critics to the

co11trary

notwithstanding,

those

Israelitish

People were

abundantly

competent , both in poi11tof

intellectual

ability and of

material

st1pplies, to accomplish each

and

all of

the works which are accredited them in the Bible.

•

XIII. MARICS OF EGYPT AND THE DESERT

.

Bt1t

tl1is line of argument is one that can ·be pursued to

a 111uc]1r1ater exten ,t,

a,nd

,it can

b

1

sl1own

'tl1at

instead

of

the conditions surrounding · the Israelites

at

Mt. Sinai and

While they

were

in

the

wilderness

being

against the tr.uthful·

l1essof the Biblical record appe,rtaining to those matters, such

co11ditionsare

really in

favor

of

that record's truthfulness,

as well as of the Tabernac1e',s real existence ,. For illustra

tion, we

are told in

the

Bible that the wood out of

which

a

..

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

42

•

•

•

.

The Fundame itals

•

/

. large part of the Tabernacle was constructed,

was not

taken

from tl1e

lofty ceda1··s

gr

1

owing

in

Lebanon, nor fro

1

m

the

sycamores grbwing in the Palestinean valleys, but from the

.

l1ttmble acacia or shittin1-wood tree, which, as we have

•

alrea:dy seen,. flourishes quite pl

1

entifully in

the Sinaiti .c region;

all of which

particulars accord

fully

with

the topographical

facts in the case. So

also, . if

we are to believe

in

the ·

testi~

•

monies of ancient Egyptian monuments and the results of

mode:rn

Egyptian explo ,rations,

the1. is

many

a re,semblan

1

ce

Which

can b

1

e

found

to

exist between matters , conne

1

ct.

ed

w.ith

old Egyptian temples, their structure, furniture, prie sthood

•

and ser,,ices, and other lik

1

e matters ap,pertaining to the Taber ..

nacle. Indeed, some of these resemblanc

1

es go so far in their

minute

details

as to an ar _angement of

buildings

acco1·ding

to the

po,ints

o,f

1

c,ompas,s a p,eculiarity which was found both

in

Egypt an,d in co·nnection with the Tabernac]e; diffe1·ent

ap,a:rtmen,ts in

the, S1·1·uctl1t·e,

g:1·ad

ed

a,c

1

c

ording

t,o

sa,n~.tity; the

possession of a sacred ark or chest, peculiarly built . and

located;

strange

winged fig11res, w hich as existing i11 the

Tabernacle w,ere calle ,d cherubim; a gradation of the pr .iests;

priestly

dress and orna1nents ; the breast-plate and mitre

worn

by the .

l1igh-priest; different

animals offered

in

sacri ..

fice; the burning of incense·, etc., that tl1e impression left

ttp,on . the mind of a p·erson who knows a.bout these

thin.gs

as exi .sting

in

ancien·t Egypt and then

reads in

the Bible about

similar

matters

connected w.ith the Tab

1

ernacle is, tl1at

\\J·ho-

ever wrote this Biblical acc

1

ount mus ,t himself have

been

i11

Egypt and have

seen

the old

Egyptian

worship and

temples,

••

in order to make his reco,rd conform in so

many

respects

to

wh,at was found in that country.*

•

*P

1

rOf

• Sayce u.nd

1

erta .kes

to

show that the f

1

oreign inft·u.e·nces. ,affect-

.

-

i11g he structur

1

e of the Tabernacle and the nat ,ur ,e of its, services

came

rather from B,ab,yionia and Assyri .a than f ro

1

1n Eg)

1

pt, y.et, so far as

all the topogra ,phical items mentioned abov

1

e a·re concerned, ·they caJ1

at·t be

abundantly .substantiated by

f a,cts from

l1ist,ory

and archaeology .



•

•

43

So also if ·we give attention to the pecllliar experience s hall

by

the Israelites

dttring thei1-

march

through th e wilderness ·,

we shal l see from what th ,e Bib]e tells us about tl1eir set ting

up . and taking

do1vvn

he Tabernacle;

about

the wagon fur

nishe,~ for its transportation; about the pillar of cloud going

before it or resting upon it, in c

1

onnection ,vith their long

march; also about the nec

1

essity of going outside of tl1e camp

in order t,o perform so1ne of the Tabernacle services, from

all these

and

various

other indication s given

in

the Bible, we

Can surely perceive that the conditions of these people were

such as to

war1-ant

tl1e belief that .they did indeed, a~ he

Bihl~ represe11t ,s,

journey

through a .wilderness, an

1

d

that

they

carried with them their · tent of worship.

In his book,

,entit 'led ''',Natur ·e

and the Supernatural, Di· .

•

Horace , Bus.lrineII teJJs of an important le,gaI case that ,onc ,e was.

gained b1y one of the J,awye,rs not .icing ., in the ,veb of a s,hee·t

of

p,aper

which h,e: hel

1

d in

his,

'hand,

certain .

water -marks

1

which h,a

1

d, been made in ·the , p

1

ap

1

er during the pro,cess of j,ts

ll1anuf ac,tttre.

The ,se water-ma ,rks

1

being

indelibl ,e, they

s,erved

as the best kind of ' proof o ·f ·Ce1§tainfacts which it was de.si,r,ed

to establish. And so we would chara .cterize all t11oe

1

evidences

coming

from a correspondence

1

of the

Bible

a,ccount . witl1

arc ,hreologica1

£acts, which

have

to do

with

the .Israelites being

in Egypt and their j o,urn .eying through the Sinaitic desert, as

so m.any

water-marks

left indelib,y,

not upon,

but

in the

very

,veb of the Bib lical record ; proving not only the undeniable

truthfulness of this record,

bt1t

a]so th e real existence of the

·Tabernacle.

•

XIV. SUM

~--y

OF

THE

ARGUMENT

To

su111

up tl1en the different points which we have

en

deavored to make in our argument, it will be · remembered

that, in the first pla

1

ce, a .fter having outlined ottr gener -al

Proposition, and after havi ,ng from vari

1

ous considerations

sl1own

th

1

e importance of

its

discttssion,

we

affii-n1ed

that

t

1

here

•

•

•



•

· The und ·ment ls

•

are certain great

presumptions which

lie in the ·way of our

accepting the higher-critic theory as true. Next we intro- ·

duced S<.lme archreological and other

testimony

1

external to

the B

1

ible,

which we found

to

be

helpful

in

proving

the ·Taber

naclets historicity. And then, by quit

1

e an exten

1

ded examina -

•

tion of the many historical

notic

1

es

respecting

the ,

Tabernacle,

or respecting the sacred ark as connected with it, which

are

found

in the

Old

Testament, we established, we think, as a

matter

beyond

lall

r

1

easonable doubt, tl1e

actu ,al

historic ,ity

of this structur

1

e; showing how it was built n

1

ear

Mt. Si11ai

and then ,was known to exist

,conti,nuous :ly

for some five

hundred yea ,rs, or from the ti.me 0

1

f Moses unto the time of

Davi

1

d and

ISol,omon ,.

And then,

finally,

to

1

make our argument

as complete las

po,ssible,

we

n,ot.ice,d, s,omew'hat

bi'ie,fly

and

y

1

et

with

1

cons·:derab ,Je ·full :ness,,

the many

0

1

bjections

which the

h'igh

1

er· criti.cs h,ave

raised

aga,inst the

T.abe~acle's

exi.,,tence,

sh,ow,ing that none of .

these

1

obje

1

ctio,ns is

rea·11y vali

1

d,, and

turning the :a:st ·0

1

ne· i:nto a po

1

sitive proof on. 0

1

ur .side , 0£

1

t'he

4

question~

•

l

xv§ CONCLUSIO N

And

now,

if

t.l1ere

r

1

emai11.

yet anything wl1ich needs to

be

*

said,

:it seem·s,

to us

it is q·nly 'tl1e asse·rtion that,

w'hether the

highe ,r cri.tics

will

admit it or

·no,t,

the

old Mosai

1

c

Tabernacle

surely did exist.

Or

if there are persons who,

in

spite

of

all

the nttmerous important testimonies ,

\V

hich we l1ave adduced

front the Bib)e and other sources to

tl1e

Tabernacle's

1

histo

1

r-

•

icity, still persist in denyi ,ng such evidence, . and in saying

that the whole ma ,tter was

o,nly

a

p,riest1y

fiction, then what

th,e Savior

says,, with

respect

perhaps to som,e

of

the skeptics ·

Jiving in his day, is quite applicable: ''If

tl1ey

believe not

Mo,ses and the prophets, neither would they

believe

though

. one i:iosefrom the -dead.'' Or; to state the case a little differ

ently and somewhat humoro~1sly, it might be said that the

fact of any

pe,rson' s

denying

the

real exi stence of the Taber-



•

-

•

\

•

•

Tabernacle in tJie

U ilderness

•

45

nacle, when

so

much

positive evidence ·

exists

in

favor of

·it,

reminds one of wh .at Lord

Byron says

with regard

to

Bishop

Be·rkeley s

p

1

hilosopl1ical denial

of ·the

exjstence of matter :

Whe11

Bishop

Berkeley

says

it is no matter.

Then tis no m,atter what

l1e says.

,.

But if

the

1~abernacJe

i11 tl1e wildernes ,s.

did

really exist,

•

then

what

becomes of th

1

e

peculia1· theo1·yof th ,e

higher

critics

? ·

Tha ·t necessarily

falls

to the ground,

or

is

proven to be

untrue ;

for, as was shown . i.n the earl .Y part of this

discussion, the . .

entire

critic

hypothe ,sis re·s·ts upo

1

n, o,r has for

o·ne

of

its,

main

pillars, the assumed non-existence of the Tabernacle, or what

amounts

to the same thing ,

the

alleged late

1

origin of ·

the

Mosaic ri·tua1istic law. Both of these

pr

1

emises b·eing now

demonstrated

to be unsound,

the

.Tabernacle

which Mose

1

s

•

rnade in

the

wilderness

will very

likely remain where

the

..

Bible puts

it

among the great

undeniable

facts of the

worldJs ·

history, and not,

as the critic s would

have it,

among fictions

or for ge·ries.

* · ·

:

11

For Ad de11da to thi s art jcle, see pp. 120-125.

I

•

•

•

•

•

•

'

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

'

• •

•

,

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

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. . . .

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

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.

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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



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.''

•



•

,

•

•

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



•

•

•

..

••

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<:enaccording ·to tl1eir, true char ~

acte1·. In

later periods

of

the Old Testament

we

have

record ,s

which,

o,n

the whole,

are

historical;

but in the

very

earliest .

times ·we must not look for authentic history at

all.

·An ade-

•

1

qua ,te cxaminatio

1

n of this theory (whicl1 has, , of co

1

urse, .

111omentous exegetica ·l consequences) ca11nothere ·be

attempted~

We merely

remark that

our Lord s brief references

to early

Old

Testament

narrative would not

suggest

the distinction

so often

made between earlier and

later ·

01d

Testament

rec ....

•

01-d

on the sco1·e of

trustw ,orthiness 1, •

THE OLD TES.TAME .NT

FROl\f GOD

We advance to

1

s,ay that Christ accepts , the 01,d .Di.spensa~

tion and its

Scriptures

as, in

a

special sense, from

God ; as

having special, divine

authority.

Many who recognize 110

peculiar sacrednes 1S

or aut ·hority in

the

religi,on of

the

J

,vs

above other

religions

of the world, would readily admit

tl1at

it

is from God.

But

their contention

is

that all religions ( espe

cially what they are pleased to call the

great religions

have

elements of

truth in them,

that

they

all f

umish

media

through

\\thich devout

souls have

fell

ow

ship

with the

Power which

rules

the universe,

hut

t hat

none

of

than

should exa~t

its

•

•

•

•

•



•

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

1



•

•

•

..

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<es this strong and co1n

prel1ensive

statement: ''Verily, I sa.y unto you, Till heaven

and earth pass, one jot or one ti

tt1e shall in

no

wise .pass

· from tl1e law, till all be fulfilled'' (Matt. :18).

In ·the context the law is

distinguisl1ed fro1n

the

prophets

and desigi1ates, the ref ore, the

Pen tateuch ;

and surely tl1e

divine

orjgin of this

part of Scripture is

unquestiona .bly

implied . No such inviolability could be claimed for any

tnerely. human institution or prodt1ction. When the hypocrit

ical and heartless son

prete11ded

to devote to

God what sl1ould

.have gone to sUpport his indigent parents, . he ''made the com

lllandn1ent of God of none effect,'' ''for God commanded,.

say

. ing, Honor thy

father

and

mother'' (

Matt. 15

:4).

In

purgi 11g

the temple the Lord justifies His

action

in these words : ''It

is written, My house shall be

called the house

of prayer

(Matt. 21 :13).

Again: .

''As

touching

the

resurrection

of

the dead,

have ye not read that which

was

spoken

u·nto

you

by God, saying, I am

the

God

of Abrah .am,

and the God of

Isaac, and the God of Jacob?'' (Matt. 22 :32).

Aga in:

''Lay

ing aside

the

commandment

0£

God,

ye

hold

the

tradition of

men, as the washing

of

pots and

cups :

and

many

other such

like things ye do'' (Mark 7 :8). So

many

passages of tl1e

Old Testament

are quoted or alluded to

by the

Lord

as

haV,ing

received, or

as

awaiting fulfillment, that

it

is scarcely neces-

ary to make citations of this

class.

These all most certainly

imply

the divinity

of Scripture;

for .

no man~

no

creat ure.

can

•



•

•

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

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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<;lwith sufficient accuracy

to

detei 1nine the general character and authority of these writ

ings before critici sm, either higher or lower, requires to app ly

its hand. ''The heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the

doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts ,

the scope of the ·

whole (

which is to give

glory

to God)

1

tl1e

full

discovery

it makes of the

only way

of

man's

salvatio11

the many other incomparable excellences, and the entire per

fection

thereof,

are arguments

whereby it

doth abundan tly

evince

itself

to be the word of God'' ( Conf. of Faith I

:5).

Bt1t all of these considerations can, in alt that is materi al,

be weighed

and estimated

before technical

criticism

begi11:

its labors, as

they

have

been estimated

to

the entire

c

1

onvicti on



•

..

•

•

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

•



•

•

•

•

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



•

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

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

\

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 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,

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

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

<leath, how

thea should

the S,criptures

be, ft1lfi]led,

tha.t

th·us it mu,st be?'' All

that related

to His



•

•

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

<Jiscoursing to the two disciples

011

the

way

to

Emtnatis, the Lord, ''beginning at Mo ses and all tl1e p·ropl1ets,

'

expounded unto

tl1enl in

all the Scriptures tl1e things con-

cerning Himself. ''And

He said

ttnto them:

Tl1ese are

the ·

words

wl1ich

I spal{e unto you,

,vhile

I wa~ yet with

you,

that

all things

must be

fulfilled which were written in the

law of Moses, and in the prophets, a11d in the Psalms, co11:.

•

eeming Me. Then opened He their understanding that

tl1ey

.might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them: · 'Thu s

it

is written, and thus it behooved Chri st to suffer and to

rise ft om

the d.ead

the ·third day''

(~ttke 24 :44-46). .

. It is not denied that in some instances the word ''ful fil

is used ·in

tl1e

New Testament merely as signifying that so1ne'

•

event or condition of tl1ings corresponds

with

or reali zes

something tl1at is written in the Old Testament; as when tl1e

words in Isaiah, By hearing ye sl1all hear a.nd sl1all not

understand, are said to be fulfilled in the

blind obduracy

of

the Pharisees.

NOr, again .,

is

it

denied that ''fulfil', has

tl1e

meaning of

fillini, or expanding,

or

c.ompleting.

But clearly

our Lord, in the passages here cited, employs the ter111

in

another acceptation. He means nothing

Jess

than tllls : that

the Scriptures

which I-Ie says were

''fulfilled''

were intended

by the ·Spirit of God to have the very application

whicl1

He

tnalces

of

tl1em; they were ·

predictions ·in

the

sense

ordinarily

rneant by that tei-m. If tJ1e_Messiah of the Old Testament



•

•

..

•

•

•

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

•

•



•

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

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

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<nowledge

w1s entirely adequate to th ,e perfect discl1arge of

His

p

1

o-

phetical

office.

To impute imper fection to Him as the

Teac 'her

of the

1

Cht1rch were indeed

impiott S.

Now the case

stands

• •

tl1u:s: By a c

1

ertain class of critic s we are assured that, 111

tt1e,

inte ,re sts

of

truth,

in order to

an

ap ,ologetic

s,t1ch

as

the



•

•

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. ,"

•

•



•

•

•

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



•

•

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

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

,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~



•

•

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

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



•

C~IAPTE ,R III

THE , BIBL E AND MODERN CRITICISM

--

BY F. BE~fTEX, D. D.,

•

•

PROFESSOR EMERITU

1

S, STUTTGART, GERMANY

TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINA .L GERMAN

:BY DAVID HEAGLE} D. D.

•

•

•

It is

undeniable

·that tl1e univ,ers

1

e, .including ourselves,

exists.

Whence comes it

all? For

any clear-thi ·nking,

,mind

th

1

ere are

only

three possibilities. Either th ,e univ

1

e·rs

1

e

has

existed alway .,

it

produced

it,self,

or

it

was created

by

a

Divii:ie a S,t1preme Being.

•

THE UNIVER :SE NOT ETERNAL

I

•

The eternity o,f the universe is

1nost

clearly disproved by

its

evol.ution ..

F,rom a scientific

point

1

0£

view

that h.ypothesis

is no

1

w

discredite ,d and virtua lly abandoned.

Astronomers,

physicists, biologists,

phi losoph ,ers,

are beginning to r

1

ecogniz,e

tno,re

an

1

d mo

1

re, an.d men like Secchi,

D·ubois-

Reymond,

Lo rd

l<elvin,J Dr.

I(lein

and

1

others,

unanim ou,sly affirm tha,t

creation

l1as

had

a

beginning. It always tend s towards

an

entropy,

.

tl1at is,

toward a

·perf

1

ect

equilibrium

of

its,

forces, a

complete

sta11dstill;

a.nd the

fact . that

it

l1as

not yet

reach,ed such a

condition is proof that

it has

not

1

always existed .. Should

cr

1

eation,

howe,v

1

er, _ver come

to

a standstill, it could never

agai11put

itself

in mo

1

tion.

It

has h

1

ad

a

beginning, and

it

will

have

an

end. That

is demonstrated most

1

clearly

b y its

still

U

nfinished

evolution. Sh

1

ould anyon

1

e sa.y to· us, of a g·rowing

tree or of a

young

child, that either

oi

these forms of life

has exi.s,tcd

forever,

Vtr e

would at·

once r

1

eply, Why

has it not

then long ago; in the past eternity, grown up so as to reach

•

•

73

•



•

•

•

•

I

•

7

the

heaven of heaven .s? In like manner, reasons

that

great

astronomer, William H erschel, with regard to the Milky-Way,

that ju st

as

its

breaki11g

up

1

into

different

parts shows that

it

cannot

alwa,y,s,

endure, so we hav,e,, in this siame fact,

proof tl1at

· it has not

eternally

existed.

G0

1

D THE AUTHOR ,QF ALL THINGS

•

•

• •

The1·e rem.a1ns,

therefore,

o·nly

this alternative: either the

world produced itself,

or

it was created. That all thing s came

•

i,nto

existence

spontane .ously, and

therefore th a t

we 1nust

uppose an origination of

immeasurably

great

effects . with ...

out any cause, or believe that at some: tim,e.a ·nothing, . wi·thout

either willing or knowing it, and without the use of , means,

became a something this is the mo,st unreaso ,nable assumption

that could possibly be attributed to a

l1uman

being. How

could

anything

ac·t bef

1

ore ·

it

existed? or a thi ·ng not

ye·t

cr·eated

produce something

?

Th~re is nothing more unreas

1

onable

than

the creed

of

the

unb,eliever,

notwithstanding all

his

prat~

ing

about the excellence

0

1

f

rea son. ·

B.ut if this wo1·lddid· no,t

produce itself,

then

it-

must have

•

. been created by some

I-Iighe1·

Power, some Ca,use of all causes,

•

such as

was that First P rinciple upon whicl1

the

dying Cicero

called. Or, to use the

word s

of

Dr. Klein,

that originating

cause m,ust have · been a Suprem

1

e I11telligence th a·t has at its

command unlimited

creative

power Kosmologische Briefe,

p. 27)

1

;

Hence

w·hat

that

Inte ,Jligence

does is

both illimitable

and

unfathomable,

and

it

can

at·

any time either change this

world or n1ake a new one. It is

there£

ore prima facie silly

for

us,

with

our

prodigiously

narrow

experience, to

set

any

kind of ·

bounds

to

the

Supreme Being;

and

a God who works

no miracles and is the slave of his own laws implanted ~D

· nature, such a God as the New Theology p

1

reaches, is as

much

lacking in being a true Divinity as is the unconsc~ous, but

all-wise cosmic ether of Spiller, or the ·eternal stuff of

ether

1naterialis.ts . · · .



•

•

•

•

•

The Bible aiid M od,ef n Criticism

7

•

C We concli1de, then, that the universe was created,. or that

God is the a11thor of all tl1,ings. .

•

•

REVELATI0

N IN NATURE

•

But

now

the question

ari ses whetl1er

God,

who

is both. the

Creator of all things and the Father of spirits, has revealed

li imself

to his

creatures, or to

I..Jis

own children, the

wor.k

of His l1ands. Such a question

might

surely

provoke

one s

laughter.

For what

is the ent: :-e

universe?

what

is

this created

na:ture of which we form a part? what is air? and water?

and fire?

what

are all organized beings,

tny

body with

its

ltlany parts put together in such a highly artistic and inscruta

ble fashion; my soul with its infinite capabilities so little

llnderstood

by myself ? Wl1at

are ·all these matters but a

Progressive revelation of God, given to us, as it were, in a

series of concentric circ]es rising one above another

toward

thei1oSource? Fo,r this purpose it was that God created the ·

visible,so,

that through it

we might perceive the invisible,

and

~or

tl1is

purpose

the whole creation was

made,

so

that

through

it might be tnanif

ested the

invisible things of

God,

even .

his

ttemal

power

and godhead (Rom.

1 :20).

Creation

is

orily

the

language

of

the

Word that was in the beginning, and

Was with God, and was God, and by Whom all things wer

tnade (John 1 :1-3). What does this

Word

declare? at

,Ise

but

the

great infinite name of God

the

Father, the

primal

source of all things, the name that must be hallowed ? There

Wasa time, however, even before the world was, w·hea ther e

t,cisted nothing but God

and

l1is name.

All the

different

works ·

of

creation are only

letters

in

tl1is

great

name. .

REVELATION IN THE BIBLE

•

But

there is

another revelation which

God

has given

of

liimself to men a more definite and persollal

one. · Thus,

t.

g.,

he cleclared Himse lf to Adam, and

through

Enoch

and

Noah

to

the antediluvians,

and

again after

the

flood to other

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

76

The Fundarnentals

ge:nerations , thro ,ugh Noah and his ,sons. But becau,se at the

building of

the

tower of Babel men turned stubbornly away

f1·01n

God, He

gave

them

up to

the

th ,oughts

o,f

their

owD

heart, and selected ,one man, Ab,raham, t,o go out from h'iS

f ri,ends and kind1·ed, so that in his seed all the nations of the

,vor]d might be blessed. Then, first, out of Abr ,aham cam,e the

p

1

eople of Israel, 'to, Who,m w

1

ere ·committe ,d the oracl 1es of

God; and from tl1is period began the history of

the

written

Word. Moses narrates the beginning of things, also

records

the laW, and

holy

men of God speak and write

as .

they

are

moved by the Holy Spirit. That is inspiration-a ,divine

in breathing. ·

But her

1

e a distinctio11

n1,ust

be mad ,e. Th ,e

Bi'ble, reports

matters of history,

and

in doing,

so

includes many genealogies

vl1ich ,vere composed, first ,of

all,

not for

us, but ior

those

•

1nost

immediately concerne ,d,

an,d

for

the angels

1

(

1 C'o,r. 4 :9),,

Also

it

reports

many

sins and shameful deeds;

for

just

as

th,e su:ri

fi.r,s,t

illuminates

h,imself

,and

then

sheds

his

radiance

u,pon the ocean and 'tl1e p·uddl

1

e,, the eagle , and the worm, s,o

the Bible undertakes to represent to us

not

only God, but

also ·man just

a,s l1e

is. In

giving

us these narratives

it may

be

said, moreover, ·that

God,

wl10

numbers

the

v,ery, hairs of

our hea ·d, exercised

a

providential

control, so that

what was

reported

by

His cho~en

men should be the

real

facts,

and

nothing else. T ·o what extent He in ,spired those , men with

the very W0

1

rds used by

them,

it is not for US

to

know, but

.

p1·obably more fully than we

suspect.

But

when God, , after

having communicated the law · to

Moses

o,n

Mount

Sinai and in the Tabernacle, communes

with

· him as a friend with friend, ,and Moses : writes , ''all 'the \\ ord9

of this law in a book'' (Deut. 28 :58; ·31 :24), then

Moses

really becomes the pen of God. When God speaks to

tl1e

,pnophets, ''Behold, I put my wo,rds in thy mouth,,' ,and ''aJl

•

the words that, 'hou heare ,st thou shalt say to

this pe,op'le,'t tl~erl

these

prophets

become the

very

mo

1

uth of God.

When Christ



•

I

•

•

'

•

The ible a id Modern Criticism

77

•

appears to John on P 'atmos, and says, ''To the angel o,f

the

church w·rite these · ·things,',

this

is an instanc

1

e of

verbal

dictat·ion. · ·

But

just

here we are

amused at those

weak-minded critic s

•

Who, with

hackneyed phrases, talk so

glibly about ''mecl1a11

. -

teal

ins.truments''

and

''mere verbal dictation.'' Does then a

Self-revelatio11

o,f

th

1

e Almighty

and a m.akin.g known of

His

counsels,

a

gracious

act

which

exalts the

human

agent

t,)

be a c

1

0-worker

with .Jehovah,

annihilate personal

freedom?

Or

does it

not

rather

enlarge that freedom,

and 1ift it

up to

a

higher and more joyous

activity

? Am I

then

a ''mechanical

instrument'' whert

with deep devotion

and .

with

enthus .iasm

l repeat after Christ, word for word, the prayer Which He

taught his disciples? The Bible is, con sequently, a book which

originated

according to the

will and

with the

co-operation of

God; and as such

it

is

our

guide to

eternity,

conducting

man ,

seemingly

without

a plan

and

yet

with

absolute ·certainty,

all

the way

from

the first

creation

and f roin Paradise ·

on

tO

the .

second

or

higher

creation

and

to

the New Jerusalem

(Comp.

Gen.

2 :8-10 with Rev.

21 :

1,

2). · · ·

•

•

How does th.e Bible prove

itself

to be a

divinely

inspi1·ed,

heaven-given book, a communication from a Fatl1er to I-IiS

childre ·n, and thus a revela.ti

1

on ?

First, by

the

fact that,

as

does no other

sacred book ii~

the

world, it

condem ·ns

ma·n and all his, w

1

orks~ It doe.s not

pra ·ise eitl1er

his ,

wisdo1n,

his

reas .on,

his art,

or

any progres s

tha.t he has made;

b,ut

i·t

represents him as being

in the

sight

of

God,

a miserable sinner,

incapable

of doing anything good,

and

deserving

onJy death

and

endless

perditio11.

Truly,

a

boo'k which is able thus to ·speak,

and

in con.sequenc.e causes

llli)lions of men,

troubled

in conscience, to prostrate

them-

]

. h d ..

1

"'God b .f l . "'

e

ves

1n t .

e ust ·, crying, ·

I

e

merct

u

t

1

0 n1e a s1nnc1.

·must

contait1 more

than

n1ere

ordinary

trt1th .

•

t

•

I

•



8

The undamentals

Secon<lly, the Bible exalt s itself far above all merely

human books by its announcement of the great incomprehetl'

sible mystery that, "God so loved the world that He gave I-Iis

on. , begotten Son; that whosover beiieveth in Him .should

not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3

:16). Where

is there a god among all the heathen nations, be he Osiris,

Brahma, Baal, Jupiter or Odin, that would have promised

those people that, by taking upon .himself the sin of the world

and suffering its puni shment, he would thus become a savior

and redeemer to them?

Thirdly, the Bible sets the seal of its divine origin upoll

itself by means of the prophecie s. Very appropriately does

God inquire, through the prophet Isaiah, "Who, as I, shatl

call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for Me since

I

established the ancient people? and the things that are coming

and shall come to pass, let them declare" ( Ch. 44 :7).

Or

says

again, "I am God, declaring the end from the beginning, and

from ancient times, things not yet done, saying, My counsel

shall stand, and I w~ll do all My pleasure; calling a ravenous

bird from the east, and the man of My counsel from a far

country. Yea, I have spoke~, I will also bring it to pass;

I

have purposed, I will also do it" ( Ch. 46: 10, 11). Or,

addressing Pharaoh, "vVhere are

thy

wise men, and let theI1l

tell thee, and let then1 know what the Lord of Hosts hath

purposed upon Egypt" (Ch.

19 :12) . .

Again we say, where

is there a god, or gods, a founder of religion, such as Con-

fucius, Buddha, or Mohammed, who coµld, with such cer,

tainty, have predicted the future of evetl his own people?

Or where is there a statesman who in these times can foretell

what will be the condition of things in Europe one hundred

or even ten years from -now

?

Nevertheless the prophecie s

of Moses and his threatened judgm .ents upon the Israelites

have been literally fulfilled. Literally also have been fulfilled,

( although who at the time would have believed it?) the proph

ecies respecting the destn1ction of those great ancient cities,



•

•

•

The

Bible and Modern C1

t1:ci mi

J

79

Babylon,, Ni ,neveh and Men1phis. Who in these times woul ,d

believe a like prophecy res,pecting London, Paris, or

New

Yorl<:? Moreover, in a literal way

has

been fulfilled what th .e

p1·0phets David and Isaial1 f'oresaw

Concerning

the last suffer -

,

ings of Christ His death on the cross, H ·is drinking of

vinegar, and the casting of lots for His , garments. And there

are other prophecies which will stil l he most 1iterally fulfilled,

such as the promises made

to Israel,

the final judgment, and ·.

the end

of the world.

''For,''

as Habakkuk

says,

''the

vision

is yet for an appointed time, and will not lie. Though it tarry

wait for it; it will surely come'' ' ( Ch. 2 ,:3).

Furtl1ermore, the Bible has demonstrated it,s peculiar

power by its influence with the martyrs. Think of the hun

dreds of thousands who, at different times and a1nong different

peoples, have sacrificed their all, their wives, their children, ·

all their poss ,essions, and final]y life itself, on account

of

this ·

•

boo,k

Think of how they have,

on

tl1e rack

and at the

stake,

confessed the truth of the Bible, and borne testimony to its

power. However, 0 ye critics and despisers of God's Word, ·

if you will only write such a book and then die for it,

we

•

will believe you.

· Lastly,

tl1e

Bible shows itself every day to be

a

divinely

given book by

it ,s beneficent influence among all kinds of

people.

It

converts

to

a

better _

life the

ignorant

and the

learned, the beggar on the street and the l{ing upon his throne,

yond

1

er poor woman dwelling in an atti ,c, th

1

e greatest poet

and the profoundest thinker, civilized Europeans and uncul

tured savages. Despite all the scoffing

and

derisiOn of:

its

enemies, it ·has been translated into hundred s of language s,

and has been preached by tl1ousands of missionaries to mil

lions o,f people. It makes the proud 'humble and tl1e dissolute

virtuous; it consoles the ui:ifortunate, . and teaches man how

to live patiently and die triumphantly. No other book or col-

lection of books accomplisl1es for man the exceeding great

benefits a

1

ccomplished

by·

tl1is book of trt1tl1.

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

80

The undanientals

MODERN

C,RITICI .SM

AND ITS RATIONA .LISTiI€

METH:UD

•

In

these

times there

has

appeared a criticism

which,

c

1

on-

•

stantly ,growing bolder in its

attacks

upon this sacred

book,

•

n.ow decrees, w,i'th all

S

elf-as ,suran .c

1

e

a11d

confidenc,e, th,at

it

is. simply a

human production.

Beside~ other

faults

found,

with

it,

it is declared to

be full

of errors,

many

of

its

books

to be spurious, writt .en ·by unknown 1nen at late·r· dates tl1aP

tho se assigned, etc.,. etc. But we asl{, upon what fundamental

principl

1

e,

what

axiom, is this verdict of

the critics

based?

It is ·upon the id

1

ea that, as Renan exp,r·essed it, reason is

capable of judging all things, but is. itself judged by notl1ing

That is

surely

.a proud dictum, but an empty one if its char-

a,cter is really· n

1

otice ·d. T

1

0

be su·re,

G

1

od has given r

1

easoh

·to

man, so that ·, in l1is

cu,sto1nary way

of

planting .a·nd

building,

buying

and

selling,

l1e

may

make a

pra .ctical

use of

created

•

nature by which he,

is, su·r1-0

unded. But is reason,

even

as

respect ls matters

of

this life,, in accord with

itself?

By no

means. For,

if

that were so, whence comes, all the strife and

contention of men at home and ·

abroad,

in

their places

of

business and , their pu.blic asse1nblies, in .art and science, in

legislation, religion and philosophy

? Does

it not a'll proceed

from

th

1

e

co

nflicts

of

reason

?

The

e11tire history oi'

ou,,

ra.ce

is the history of

milli

1

ons

of

n1en gifted with reason

who hav~

been in perpetual conflict one wi·th another. Is it with such

reason,

th

1

en, ·that

senten ,ce·

is t·o b

1

e pr

1

onou

1

nced

upon a divin,ely

given book? A pure1y rational revelation would certainly be

a contradiction of terms; besides, it would be

wholly

super ...

fluou.s.

But

-Whe11

reaso

1

n

undertakes to speak

of.

th·i·ngs

entirely supe1·naturaJ, invisible and ete1·nal, it talks as a bli,nd

man does about colors,

discoursing

of matters concerning

which it neithe ·r knows , nor , can l<11owanything; and thus

it

•

ma·kes

itself

ridiculous. It

has

not ascend ,ed up to heaven ,

· neither has

it descended i'nto

the deep; and therefore a

purely

rati

1

onal

religion

·i,s

no re1igion a,t a1J~ ·



•

•

•

•

•

The

Bible

and M ode1

1

n Criticism

81

•

INCOMP

1

ETENCY OF REASON F

1

0R SPIRITUAL TRUTH

•

•

Reason

aJone

has

never inspired

men

with

great

sublime

conceptions

of spiritual truth, whether

in

the

way

of

discovery

or

invention;

but usually

it

has at first

rejected and

ridiculed

such matters. And

just

so it is with these. rationaJistic critics,

they have no appreciation or understanding of the high and

sttblime

in God s Word.

They understand

neither

the maj

esty of Isaiah,

the pathos

of

David .s repentance, the

aud.acity

of Moses prayers, the philosophic depth of Ecclesiastes, nor

the wisdom of Solomon which uttereth her voice jn the

stre

1

ets. According to them ambitious priests, at a later date

than is commonly assigned,

compi1ed all those books

fro which

we l1ave al luded; also the·y wrote the Sinai ·tic law, and in- ·

vented tl1e whol .e story o·f Moses life. ( A magnificent fic

tion

·SO

1

one of·

the critics

calls,

that

s·to·ry.)

But

if

all

this

is so, then we must believe that cunning falsifiers, who were,

however,

so

the

critics

say,

devo1,1t

men, genuine products of

tl1eir

1

day (,alt.h,ough

it calls

for

notice th.at

the age in which

those devout men Jived, should, as was

done

to Christ, have

•

persecuted and killed them, when usually an ·,age loves its

own children); that

is

to say,

we must

believe

not

only

that

•

shallo ,w-minded m.en have· uncovered for us

eterna l

·truths

and th~ most

distant

future, but a1so that

vulgar,

interested

•

liars, ]1ave declared to us the inexorable righteousness 0£ a

holy

God Of course, all

that

is nonsense ;

no

one can

be-

liev1 it.. ·

But if

these critics disco11rse,

as

sometimes they do, with

great self-assurance upon topics such as the history of Israel,

the peculiar work of the prophets, revelation, inspiration,

the es,sence

1

of Christianity, the difference betw

1

een the teach

ings of Christ and those of Paul, anyone who intelligently

reads

what they say

is

impressed with the idea

that,

although

they display much ingenuity in

their

efforts,

after

all

they do

not

really

ur.tderstand the

matters concerning

whicn

th

1

E y

•

•

•

•



82

The undamentals

speak. In like manner they talk with much ingenuity and

show of learning about men with whom they have only a

far-off acquaintance; and they discuss events in the realm of

the Spirit where they have had no per sonal experience. Thus

. hey both illustrate and prove the truth of the Scripture

teaching that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the

Spirit of God." . These critics say that God, not being a man,

cannot speak; consequently there is no word of God Also,

God cannot manifest Himself in visible form; therefore all

the accounts of such epiphanies are mythical tales Inspira

tion, they tell us, is unthinkable ; hence all representations of

such acts are diseased imagination t Of ·prophecy there is

none; what purports to be such ·was w~itten after the events

Miracles are impossible; there£ ore all the reports of them, as

given in the Bible, are mere fictions Men always seek, thus

it is explained, their own advantage and personal glory, an<l

just so it was with those "prophets of Israel."

Such is what they call "impartial science," "unprejudtced

research," "objective demonstration."

NOTHING NEVV IN THESE "NEW" VIEWS

Moreover, these critics claim for their peculiar views that

they are "new theology," and the "latest investigation." But

that also is untrue. Even in the ti1nes of Christ the famous

rabbi I-Iillel and liis disciple Gamaliel substituted for the

Mosaic law all manner of "traditions" (Matt.

15

:2-9;

23 :16-22). Since then other learned rabbis, such as Ben

Akiba, Maimonides and others, have engaged in Bible criti

cism; not only casting doubts upon the genuineness of various

books of the Old Testament, but also denying the .miracles

and talking learnedly about "myths." Even eighteen hundred

years ago Celsus brought forward the same objections as

those now raised

by

modern criticism ; and in his weak and

bungling production, the "Life of Jesus," David Strauss has

•

in part repeated them·. Also there have been other noted



The Bible and lvlodern Criticis1n

83 ·

heretics, such as Arius (317 A. D.), who ·denied the .divinity

of Christ, and Pelagius in the fifth century, who reje cted

the doctrine of original sin. Indeed this exceedin gly new

theology adopts even the unbelief of those old Sadducees ·who

said "ther e is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit" (Act s

23 :8), and whom Christ reproved with the words, "Ye do ·

err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God" (Matt.

22 :29). It cert~inly does not argue for the spiritual progre ss

of our race, that such a threadbare and outworµ unbelieving

kind of science. should again, in these days, deceive and even

stultify thousands of people.

NO

AGREEMENT

AMONG

THE

CRITICS

Do these critic s then, to ask the least of them, agree with

o~e another? Far from it. To be sure, they unanimously

deny the inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Chris~ and

of the Holy Spirit, the fall of man and the forgiven~ of ·

sins through Christ; ·also prophecy and miracles, the resurrec

tion of the dead, the final judg1nent, heaven and hell.. But ·

when it com~s to their pretendedly sure results, not any two

of them affirm the same things ; and their numerous publica

tions create a flood of disputable, self-contradictory and

mutually destructive hypothe ses. For example, the Jehovah of

the Old Testament is made to be some heathen god, either a

non1adic or steppe god, the weather -god Jahu, or the god of

West-Semitism. It was David who first introduced this divin

ity; and according to some authors the peculiar worship of

thi s god was, with its human sacrifices ( ),only a continuation

of the Baal-Moloch worship Of Abraham it is sometimes

affirmed that he never existed, but at other times that he

was a Canaanite chief, dwelling at Hebron. Nol he is .the ·

lllyth of the Aurora; and Sarah, or Scharrat~, is the wife

of the moon-god Sin, and so on. The twelve sons of Jacob

are very probably the twelve months of the year. As to

Moses, some teach there never was such a man, also that



84

The undanientals

the ten commandments were composed in the time of Manas-

eh. No I the more moderate writers say that Moses is a

historical character.

It

was in Midian that he learned about

Jah, the tribal god of the Kenites; and he determin~d with

this divinity to liberate his people. Elijah is simply a myth;

or he was some unfortunate prophet who had perhaps been

struck by lightning. And so, too, this modern criticism knows

for sure that it was not Solomon, but a wholly unknown king,

living after the time

of

Ezra, who wrote Ecclesiastes; also

that there never was a Daniel, but that again some unknown

author wrote the book bearing that name. Moreover, Kautsch

tells us that this book first made its appearance in January,

164 B. C., while other critics are positive that it was in 165.

Query: Why could not that unknown author have been named

Daniel? ·

So also Wellhausen knows of twenty-two different au

thors-alJ of them, to be sure, unknown-£ or the books of

Moses, while Kuenen is satisfied with sixteen. The noted

English critic, Canon Cheyne, is said to have taken great

pains to

tear

the book of Isaiah's prophecies into one hundred

and sixty pieces, all by unknown writers ; which pieces were

scattered through ten different epochs including four and a

half centuries ( Modern Puritan, 1907, p. 400). Likewise

this critic knows that the fjrst chapter of Samuel originated

with an unknown writer living some five hundred years after

the time of that prophet; also that Hannah's glory-song, as

found in 2 Kings, was written by some other ''unknown.

That Eli ruled over Israel for forty years is, in all likeli

hood, the unauthentic statement of a later day (Hastings'

Bible Dictionary). Why so? we may ask.-The

book

of

Deuteronomy was written, we are told,

in 561 B. C., and

Ecclesiastes in 264

:a.

.; and a German critic, Budde, is

certain that the book of Job has somehow lost its last chapter,

and that fifty-nine verses of this book should be wholly ex

punged.



•

•

The Bib

,le and Modern Criticism

Such are a, f'ew illu ,strations of the way in w·hich

lfol y

Scripture is treated

by

the criticism we a.re considering.

But, surely,

it would

not require much

Sagacity and intel

ligence for one, by applying such peculiar

methods,

say, to

Goethe's

works, to demonstrate

,critic ,ally that a. good sha1-e

•

of those productions, such as Erlkonig, Iphigenia,

GOtz

van

Berlichingen,

the

Wahlverwandschaften, Faust

(Parts

I.

and

II.), belong, if judged of by their style of composition and

their 'historical

and p

1

hilosophi ,cal views,

to

wholly different

epochs, and that

they

originated

with many different author s.

Mo1·eover, it

co~d

easily

be

sl1own

that

no,ne ·Of tl1ose

author s

. Jived in the times wl1en N apoleo11 Bon .aparte revolutioniz ·ed

Europ ·e, since his name is not mentioned in any o,f the produ c-

tions specified.

CRITICISM AS,

APP LIED T0

1

THE

NEW

TEST

AMENT

Of ,course this , modern Critici sm doe s not stop short of ·

the New Testament. Thi s part 0£ the Bible, H arnack say s,

•

narrat

1

es f or us incredible stori,es re specti ,ng tl1e

bi,rth

1

and

•

childhood of Christ.

''Nevermore, .'

he goes ,on

to

as,sert .,

''sh .all we believe that he walked upon the s

1

ea and com1nanded

the storm.''

It

st,and,s to reason that He did

not

rise fr 'om

t·h,e dead. The Fourth Gos,pel is spurious, an ,d so also is

according to late critical authority) the Epi stle

to

tl1e

Roma11s.

The Book of

Revelation is only · the occasion·

for

derisive laughter on the part of the se skeptical critics : and

because

it

is so, the cur se mentioned in its last · chapter is

made applicable to them (vs. 18, 19). Nev ertheless, these men

sin

most

; erio ,usly again st Cl1rist.

In ·

their

view

the

very

Son o,f God,

the Word

that

was in the

beginning

with

.God,

and that w,as God, and without Who1n nothing exi sts, is only

a fanatical young rabbi; entangled in the peculiar views and

superstition s of his people; and he died upon the cross only

because he. misconceived of the cl1aracter of l1is own missio n

a11d

the

natur ·e of

his

times. Je sus '''is not

indispe11sable

to

•

•



86

The FundamentaJs

·Now all this is what is denominated Biblical criticism.

It

is a jumble ·of ·mere hypotheses, imaginings and ass·ertions,

brought forward often without even the shadow of proof,

and

with no

real certainty. Still, in the se times it r~presents

itself to thousands of nominal Christians and to hundreds

of

·miserably deceived theological students who are to become

preachers of God's word , as being the assured results of

the late st

scientific

research. May God have mercy,

if

such

is .the case

WHAT ARE THE FRUITS OF THIS CRITICISM?

Now, if the se people were of the 'truth, and

if

they would

only believe Him who says, I am the way, the truth and the

life, they would not be under the necessity of · ediou sly .

working their way through the numerous publications ( statis

tics show that there appear in Europe and America annually

some eight hundred of these works)

;

but they would find in

I-Iis teaching a simple and sure means for testing the character

of these critical doctrines. Ye shall know them by thei(

fruits, is what Christ says of the false teachers who came

in His name. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of

thistles? (Matt.

:16).

Are the fruits of modern criticism

good? Where are the grapes or figs that grow ·on this thorn

bush? Has · not this critici sm already robbed, and perhaps

forever, thousands of people of their first love, their un

doubting faith, .and their joyou s hope? Has it not sowed

dissension, fostered pride and self-conce it, and injured before

all . the world the authority of both the church and its minis

ters? Has

it

not offended Christ's little ones? (Matt.

18 :6,

7).

And does it not every day

f

urnis.h the enemie s of

God with opportunities for deriding and scorning the truth?

Where are the souls that it has led to God- · com£orting,

strengthening , purifying and sanctifying them? Where are

the individuals who even in the hour of death have continued

to rejoice in the benefits of this criticism?



,

•

•

•

•

•

•

The B ible and Modern Criticism

87

In the

Study-room

it ensnares, in

l,ectur

1

e-h~lls

it make ,s

great

pretenses ,,

for

n1ere

popular lectures it is still service

able; : but when

tl1e

tl1under~ ,of God's power break in upon

the soul, wh,en despair at the loss of al1 one has loved takes

possession of the mind, when remembrance of a

miserable

lost

life , or ,of past ,misdeeds is felt and realized,

wl1en

one is on a

'

sick-bed and ,death approaches, ,and the soul, appi:eciating

that it

is

now on the brink of eternity, calls , for a Savior~ .

just

at

this

thne

when

its

help

is most

needed,

tllis modern ·

religion

utterly

fails. In the year 1864, in Geneva, one

of

those modern theo

1

logians was summoned

to prepare

f'or exe

cution a young man who had committed murder and robbery.

· But he candidly

exclaimed, ''Call

some one else, I have noth

ing to say to him.'' This incompetent criticism did not know

of any consolation for

the sin-burdened soul ;

therefore

an

orthodox

clergyman

was

obtained, and the wretched man,

murderer though he was, died

reconciled

to God thr~ugh the

•

blood of

Christ. . ~·

But supl),o~e that all the teachings of this criticism were

true, wl1at would it avail us? It would put us in a sad eon

di 'tion indeed.

For ·

then,

sitting besid.e

ruined temples

a~nd

broken-d ,own . altars, with no joy as respects . the hereafter,

no

hope of

ever]asting life, no

God

to

help

us, no

forgiveness

of

sins, feeling miserable, all desolate

in our hearts

and

chaotic in our minds, we should be utterly una,b]e either to

know or be.lieve anything more. Can sucl1 a view of the

world, such a religion, which, . as was

said of

Professor .

Harnack' ,s,

lectur 'e,s

in

America,

,o.nly destro ,ys,,

removes

and

tears downt be true? Not If this modem

criticism

is ti-ue,

tl1en away with all

so-called

Christianity,

which

only deceives ·

us 'With idle tales t A way with a religion · whi

1

ch ha.s nothing

to offe ,r· us but the commonplace teachit1gs of morality I Away

\\r,ith

faith

Away with h

1

ope t Let us e·at and drink, for

tomorrow we die

•

•



88

The undamentals

THESE TEACHINGS IN THE LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE

But let us hear

what

God' s word

has

to say regarding

this topic:

2 Pet. 1 :21.-· For no prophecy ever came by the ·will of

man ; but holy men of God spake as they were moved

by

the

Holy Ghost.

2

Tim.

3 :16, 17.- All

Scriptu re given by inspiration of

God is profitable for doctrin e, for reproof, for correction ,

for

instruction in righteou sness ; that the man of God may

be perfect, thoroughly furni shed unto all good works.

Gal. 1 :11, 12.- I certi fy you, brethren, that the Gospel

which was preached by me is not after man, neither was I

taught it, but

by

the revelation of Je sus Christ.

Rom. 1 :16.- I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Chri st;

for

it is the power of God unto salvation

to

every one

that

believeth.

Acts 20 :30.-But of your own selves shall men

ari se,

speaki ng perverse thing s, to draw away disciples after them.

2 Pet. 2 :1.- There were false prophets also among the

people, who privily shall bring in damnable her e

sies, even denying the Lord that bought them.

1 Cor. 1 :20, 21.- Where is the wise ? where

fa

the scribe?

where is the disputer of

this

world? Hath not

God

made

foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that

in the

wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it plea sed

God by the foolishne ss of preaching to save them that

believe.''

Col.

2 :4-8.- This I

say,

lest

any man should beguile y

u

with enticing word s, or spoil you through philosophy and

vain deceit, after the rudiment s of the world, and not after

Christ.''

1 Cor. 3 :19.- '' For the wisdom of this wprld is foolish

ness with God.

1 Cor. 2 :5.- That your faith should not stand in the

wisdom of n1en, but in the power of God.



•

Th.e Bi.ble

and

JII

odern Cri ti c-ism

1 Cor. 2 :4. '' And my speech and rn.y P,reaching was not

with enti .cing words of man's

wisdom,

but in

demonstration

of the Spirit and of

power.'' . -

1 Cor. 2

:12,

13.

''Now w

1

e hav

1

e rec

1

eive,d, not

the .

spi.r.it

of the

world,

but the spirit

which

is

of

God, that we might

know

the things that

ar ·e

freely

.given

to

us

of

God.

Whjch

things also we speak, not in the words which man~s wisdo·m

teacbe ·th,

b·ut ,

which

the

Holy

1

Gh.ost ·teachet h ;

ic.omparing

spiri .tual

t.hings with spiritual. ~'

Col,. 1 :21 and 2 Cor. 10 :5. Therefo ,re

''you

tha 't were

sometime

al·i,enated

and

e·nemies

in your

minds by

wicked

wor ·ks,' ' now ''bring into captivity every thought to the obedi-

e,nce o,f·Chri ,st.'' .

Ga·I, 1 :9'. ''As we said bef,01·e, so say I no·w again, , I ·£

any

man p,reach _any

other gos,pel

un ·to

you

than that

ye

have received, let him be a,c,cur .sed.'' . ,

1

C,or. 15 .:17.

''Whosoev ,er

says that Chrjst is ~ot risen, ·

'his

faith

i.s vain,

he

is

yet

in his sins. . ·

. 2

John,

vs.

7,

9, 10, 11.

''Fo r

many deceivers

are

entered

into, the world, who confess n ot that Jesus Christ is come in

th,e flesh. T'his is a deceiver and an

antichris ·t. * * *

Who

soever

tr ,ansgresseth

and abideth

no·t in

the doctrine

of

Christ,

hath

no·t

God. He

that

abideth

in

the

doc.trine .of ·Christ, he

hath bo·th th,e Fa .ther and the Son. If . the:re come, any unt .o

you, and bring not

this doctrine,

receive him

not

into your

house, neither bid him

1

God speed ; for he that bidde,th 'him

God speed ·is partaker of his evil deeds.''

Luke 11 :52. ''Woe unt ,o, you lawyers

f

fo

1

r ye

have taken

away the key of knowled.ge ; ye entered not in yourselves,

and

them .·hat

were entering in

ye l1inde1·ed.''

•

•

,CONCLUSION

Let us then, by

r,epudiating this modern criticism, show

1

our condemnation .of

it.

at

does

·it off

er us? '

Nothing.

What

does

it

take

away? Everything.

Do we have any

•

•



90

The Fundamentals

use for it? No It neither -helps us in life nor comforts us in

death; it will not judge us in the world to come. For our

Biblical faith we do not need either the encomiums of men,

nor the approbation of a few poor sinners. We ~ill

not

attempt to improve the Scriptures and adapt them to our

liking, but we will believe them. We will not criticize them,

but we will ourselves be directed by them. We will not exer

cise authority over them, but we will obey them. We will

trust Him who is the way, the truth, and the life. His word

shall

make

us

free.

Respice

fineni

"consider the end"-that is what even the

old .Romans said. True rationalism adjudges all things from

the standpoint of eternity; and it asks of every religion,

What can you do for me with regard to the great beyond?

What does this Biblical criticism offer us here? Only fog

and ·mist, or, at best, an endless state of indecision, soxpe

thing impersonal and inactive, just like its god, whose very

nature is inconceivable. "Eternal life," writes one of these

modernists, "is only the infinitely weak vestige of the present

life." ( ) Here also the maxim proves itself true, "By

their fruits ye shall know them." Just as for our present

life this criticism offers us no consolation, no forgiveness of

sins, no deliverance from "the fear of death, through which

we are all our iifetime subject to bondage," so also it knows

nothing respecting the great beyond-nothing with regard to

that new heaven and new earth wherein righteousness shall

dwell, nothing with regard to that golden city which shines

with eternal light, nothing with regard to a God who wipes

away all tears from our -eyes. It is utterly ignorant of the

glory of God, and on that account it stands condemned.

"Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of

eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art that

Christ, the Son of the living God" (John

6 :68,

69). And

He answered, "Behold, I eome quickly: hold that fast which

thou hast; that no man take thy crown" ( Rev. 3 : 11).



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

I

\

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CHAPTER IV

SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH

BY REV.

PROF.

JAMES ORR,

Di.

D.,

•

UNITED

FREE

CHURCH COLLEGE,

GLASGOW, scO ,TL AND

•

•

,

•

In man ,y quarters

tl1e

be lief is industriou sly circulated tha ,t

l

d

f · ,, .

b

thi

h

11

fl

h h ..

1

1e a

vance

o S

c1ence,,

meaning

y

,s c

r

1e

y

t

e p

ys1ca

scien ces as ,tronomy, g·eology, bio,logy, anq the like -has

l)rov ·ed da1naging,

if no,t

1

des·tructive , to the claims of the

Brble,

and ·the

truth

o,f Chri .,tianity.

Science and Christianity

are

pitted

against

each other.

Their

int ·erests .

are helcl

to be

antagonistic. Books are written, like

Draper s

Cenflict

Between Religion and Science , White s

Warf are

of Science

with Theo·logy

in Christendom,

and

Foster s

Finality

o,f

the Chri .stian Re1igion, to

sl1ow

that thi s warfar ·e b.etween

science a nd religi ,on has ev

1

er been going

on, , an .d

can never

i·n the ·nature of things cease ti11 theology is

destroyed, and

s,cierice holds so le swa,y

·in

m

1

en s minds.

This

wa·s not the .attitu ,de of the ol

1

der

i.nves ,tigators of

sciencie.

.Most

o

th,as,e were

devout

Christi ,an men.

Na

ville,

in his book, Modern Physics, has shown that the great dis

covere rs in sc,i

1

ence

1

in past times were nearly always devout

men, This v.ras tr ue of Galileo,, Kepler, Ba.con, a.nd Newton;

it was true of m

1

en like

Faraday,

Brewster,

Kelvin, ·

and

a

host of others in more recent tim es. The ·

late

Prof

ess,or Tait,

0

1

£

Ed inb

1

urgh,

writing in The I nternationaI Revi.ew,

said,:

The assumed in,compatibility of religion and science has been

so of ·ten and confidently

ass,ert red

in recent times

tl1at it

Mas

coine * *

*

to

1

be

taken

for

granted

by

the writers

0£ .

leading articles,

etc., and it

is of course, perpetually

thrust

hef ore their too trusting readers. But

the whole thing

is a

mistal<e, an ·d a mistake . so

grave that

no

truly

scientific

•



92

The undamentals

man runs, in Britain, at least, the smallest risk

of making

it.

With a few, and these very singular

exceptions, the truly scientific men and true theologians of

the present day have not found themselves under the . neces

sity of quarrelling. The late Professor G. J. Romanes has,

in his ~hough ts on Religion, left the testimony that one

thing which largely influenced him in his return to faith was

the fact that in his own university of Cambridge nearly all

the men of n1ost eminent scientific attainments were avowed

Christians. The curious thing, he says, is that all the most

illustrious names were ranged on the side of orthodoxy. Sir

W. Manson, Sir George Stokes, Professors Tait, Adan1s, Clerk

Maxwell, and Bayley-not to mention a number of lesser

lights, such as Routte, Todhunter, Ferrers, etc.,-were all

avowed Christians (page 137).

It 1nay be held that things

are now changed. To so1ne extent this is perhaps true, but

anyone who knows the opinions of our leading scientific

men is aware that to accuse the majority of being men of

unchristian or unbelieving sentiment is to utter a gross libel.

If by a conflict of science and religion is meant that

grievous mistakes have often been made, and unhappy mis.

understandings have arisen, on one side and the other, in the .

course of the progress of science,-that new theories and dis

coveries, as in astronomy and geology, have been looked on

with distrust by those who thought that the truth of the ~ible

was being affected by them,-that in son1e cases the dominant

church sought to stifle the advance of truth by persecution,

this is not to be denied. It is an unhappy illustration of how

the best of men can at times err in matters which they

imperfectly understand, or where their prejudices and tradi

tional ideas are affected. But it proves nothing against the

value of the discoveries themselves, or the deeper insight

into the ways of God of the men who made them, or of real

contradiction between the new truth and the essential teaching

of the Scriptures. On the contrary, as a minority generatlJ



i

Science

and hristian Faith

93

perceived from the first ., the su·pposed disharmony with the ·

t1·uths of

the 'Bible

was

an unreal one,

earl.Y

giving

way

to

· better under ,standing on botl1

sides, and

finally o·pening · up

new vistas

in the

cont

1

emplation of

the Creator's

power, wis

' dom, and majesty.

It

is never to

be forgotten, also, that

the error was seldom all on o·ne side ; tha~

science, too,

has,

in number1.ess cases put

f·orth

its hasty

and

unwarrantable

,

theories and

has

of

ten had

to retra

1

ct eve·n its ·truer

specula,.,

tions . within

limits which brought them

into more perfect

harmony with r,eveal.e

1

d tntth. If theology

has resisted novel

ties of science,

it

has

o,f te.n

had

good

reason

for

so

doing~

It is well in

any

case that

thi.sl

alleged

C

1

onflict

of

Chris•

tianity

with science

should be carefully probed,

and

that

it

shou ld

·b,e

seen where exactly the ·

truth lies

·in regard

to it.

•

•

I. SCIENCE

AND ·

LAW MIRACLE

•

•

It is perhap s

more in its

general outlook on the

world

than

in. its

specific

results

that

scie11ce

s alleged to

be

in

conflict

wit 'h the Bible and Christianityi The Bib]e is a

record

of

rev

1

elation ,. Chri stianity is a supernatur .al syst·em. Miracle,

i11

. the

s,ense ·of a direct

entrance of God in word and

1

deed

into

human history

for

gracious

ends, is .of .the

essence

of

it.

On

the ether ha·nd, tl1e advance of science h.as done much to

deepen

the impre ssion of the

ttniversal

reign

of

natural

law

-

.

The

effect has

been to lead multitudes

,vl1os

e faith

is not

·g rounded

in

direct

spir itual exp ,erience

to

look aslcance on the

,vhol

1

e idea of

the

supernatural.

Go,d, it is assumed,

has

His

own

mode

of

worlcing,

and

tha 't is

by

means

of

secondary

agencies operati11g

in

a.bsolutely

uniform

ways; miracles, . ·

therefor

1

e,. cannot be

admitte .d. And,

since miracles are

found

•

in Scripture, since the entire Book rests on the idea of a ·

sttpernatural economy of grace, the who

1

Je must b,e dilsmissed

as in

conflict with

the

moder11min

1

d.

Professor G. B .

Foster.

goes so far as to d,ecl,are tha ·t a man can

hardly

be

intellectually

..

•



•

•

•

•

,·

•

•

94

The Fundamenta .ls

•

•

l1onest who

i:µ

these days professes to believe in the miracles

of the Bible .

•

•

It is overstating the case to speak of this repugnance to ·

miracle and rejection of it in the Bible, as if it were really

new. It

is

as 9ld as rationalism itself. You find it in

S]?inoza,

in

Reimarus ,

in Strauss ,, in

numb ,erless

others. DeWette and

Vatke, an1ong e,arlier Old Testam ,e·n·t ,cri·tics,, ·manife .sted. it as

strongly as their followers do now, and made it a pivot of

their

criticism.

It governed

the

attacks

on Christianity.

made

in the age of the deists. David Hume wrote an essay against

miracles which · he thought had settled the question forever.

· But, seriously considered, can this attack on the idea of mi1·

acle, derived £rom our experience of the uniformity of nature s

laws, be defended?

Does

it not :in itself involve a huge

assumption, and run counter to experience ·and eomt11onsense ?

The question is one well worth asking.

First, what

is

a miracle? Various definitions rnight be .

· given,

btlt it

will be enough

to

speak of

it here

as any

effect

in natu re or deviation from its ordinary course due to tlie

interposition of

a supernatural

caitse. It is no necessary part,

it should be observed, of the

Biblical idea

of miracle, that

natt~ral

agencies should not

be

employed as far as they wi ll go.

If the drying of the Red Sea to let the Israelites pass over

was

1

due in part to a

gre,at,

wind that bl

1

ew, thi

1

s was n,one the

less of

God s

or ,dering, and did not detract from the, super-

•

. natural cl1aracter of the event as a whole. It was still at

--~ s

cdmmand

that

the waters

were parted,

and

that

a

way

was

ma.de

at that particular time and place

for

the

people

to go through. These are what theologians call provi ,dential

mirac les, in which, so far as one can see, natural agencies,

.

,

under divine direction, suffice to , produce the res ,ult. There is,

however, another and more conspicuous class, the in,stanta

oeous cleansing

of

the leper, e.g., or the raising of the d~d,

in which natural

.agencies

are obvious.ly

altogether

transce11ded .

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Sc ·ietice and Christian Pai.th

95

•

•

•

It i~ this class about which t'he chief · discussion

goe.s

on. They

are .z:niracles in ·the stricter sense of a complete trans .cendence

of nature's

law.s. ·

•

What, in · the next ,place, i~ meant by the uni/ o~mity of

nature f Tb .ere

a.re,

of cour·se.,

laws of

nature no one dis ,-

•

pt1tes that. It

is

quite a mistake to

suppo ,se tl1at

the Bible,

tl1ougl1

not writte ·n in th

1

e

twentieth c.entury, ..knows notl1ing

o,f a regular o·rder and system of

nature . The

wor 'ld is

God's

W

1

orld;

it

i.s established

by

His d

1

ecree; He has given

to every

cr ,eature its natur

1

e,. its bounds, its Jirnits; all thi~gs , continue

.

according to 'His ordinances (Psa. 119:91). Only, law in the

Bible isl never viewed a.s having an

i·n,dependent

existence.

It is always regarded as an expression ·of the power or wisdom

of God.

A-nd

this gives the

right point

of

view for . c.onsider

ing

the relation of

law

to

miracle.

What, to ·begin

with,

do we mean by a ''law'' of nature ? It is, as sc.ience will

concede, only our ·r-eg:istered observation of the order in

•

which we find causes and events

linked

·tog,ether

in

our

experi-

e11ce.

That

they are so

linked

no

one questions.

If they were

·not., · 'resl1o·uld have

no world

in

which

we. could live lat all~

BLtt

then, next ,, what

do

we

m,ean

by ''uniformity'' in

this

conn

1

ection? We mean no more than thi .s that, given like

causes, operating under like conditions, like ~ffects will

follow.

Quite true; n.o one ~enies this either. ...... . ·· · , , , . . ,:\

But then,

as J.S. Mi,11,n hi·s Logic, , pointed out long' ago,

a miracle in the ·

strict

sen ,se

is nolt

a denial of ei.th

1

r of

thes,e

truths. A miracle ·isl 'll0

t

the , as,sertion that, th ·e :same causes

operating, a different result is produced. It is, on

the contrary,

the asse ·rtion th .at a

new

cause has intervened, and this a

caus,e .

which tl1e theists cannot deny to be a vera causa-the will

an d

power

of God.

Just as, when I

lift my arm,

or

throw

a

stone

high in the air, I do not abolish the law of gravitation but

counteract or

0

1

verrule its purely

natural

action

by

the intro~

•

duct ,ion

of a new

spiritual force ,; so, but

in

an infinitely

hilgher

t.

I

4. •

•

•

•

•

•

•



96

The Fundamentals

way, is a miracle due to the interposition of the First Cause

of all, God Himself. What the scientific man needs to prove

to establish his objection to miracle

is

not simply that natural

causes operate uniformly, but that no other than natural causes

exist; that natural causes exhaust all the causation 'in the

universe. And that, we hold, he can never do.

It is obvious from what has now been said that the real

question at issue in miracle is not natural law, but

Theisrn.

It is to be recognized at once that miracle

CcKl

only pr.ofitably

be discussed on the basis of a theistic view of the univer se.

It is not disputed that there are views of the universe which

exclude miracle. The atheist cannot admit miracle, for he

has no God to work miracle s. The pantheist ca,nnot admit

miracle, for to him God and nature are one. The deist cannot

admit miracle, for he has separ ated God and the universe so

far that he can never bring them together ·again. The question

is not, Is miracle possible on an atheistic, a materialistic, a

pantheistic, view of the world, but, Is it possible on a thei stic

view-on the view of God as at once immanent in His world,

and in infinite ways transcending it? I say nothing of intel

lectual honesty, but I do marvel, as I have often said,

at the

assurance

of any one who presumes to say that, for

the highest and holiest ends i.n His personal relations with

His creatures, God can work only within ·the limits which

nature imposes; that He cannot act without and above nature 's

order

i

it pleases I-Iim to do so. Miracles stand or ·fall by

their evidence, but the attempt to rule them out by any

a priori dictum as to the uniformity of natural law must

inevitably fail. The same applies to the denial of provide.nee

or ·of answers to prayer on the ground of the uniformity of

natural law. Here no breach of nature's order is affirmed,

but only a goverRance or .direction of nature of which man's

own use of natural laws, without breach of them, for special

ends, affords daily examples.



•

•

•

•

•

Science and/ Christian Faith

•

II. SCRIPTURE AND

THE SPECIAL

SCIENCES

•

• •

Appr ,oaching more

nearly

tl1e alleg~d

con.flict

0

1

£

th

1

e

Bible

·or

Christi ·anity wit l1

the

special.

sciences, a

first que·stion

of

.importance is,

Wl1at is

the

general r·e·l·a tion of

the Bible

to

sc.ience? How

does

it

claim

to rel.ate .itself to

·the

advan

1

ces

of natu ·ral lrnowl,edge? Here, it is to be fea ,r,ed, mistakes

,are of ·ten made

0

1

n bo,th sides 011 the side of science in

affirn1-

•

ing contrariety

of

the Bible ,vith

sc·ie·ntific

results where

n.one .

r eally exists ,; on t he side. of believe1·s in dema·ndin:g that the ·

B,ible be taken as a

text -book

of

the 11ewes t

scientific dis

coveries, ,and trying by forced n1etl1ods to read thes·e into

the.m. The trttth o,n this point lies really on the sarface. Tl1e

Bibl

1

e clearly does not

profe ss

to anticipate t he scientific dis-

coveries of the nineteenth and twentiet11 centuries. Its ,des1gn

is ver,y different;

namely, ,

to

reveal God

and Hi .s

\Vill and:

His

purpo ses · of gr:ace to men, and, as

involved

in this, ,

Hi.s

gerieral relation to

the

creative wor ld, its

dep.endence

in

all

its p,arts on

Him, .

and H is

,orderly government

of

.it

in Provi

dence for His wise and good

1

ends. Natural tl1ings are taken

as

they arre

given,

a11

1

d

spol{en of in

sin1ple, popular language,

as we ourselves

every

da.y

.speak of

t l1em.

The

wor.Id

it

de,

s.cribes

is

the

world men

know and live in,. an

1

d .it is described

as i t appears, no,t as, in its 1,.econdite resea1·ches, s

1

cience

revea]s

its inner constitut ,ion to us.

Wise

expositors of the Scrip

tures, older and young er,

have · always ,recognized

·this, an(l

h.ave not attempt

1

ed to force its

language

further.. To take

only

one example, John Calvin,. wl10 ·wr·ote before the Copei-

nican

system

of astronon1y

had

obta.ined common

ac:ceptance,

in

hi-s

commentary on the ·fir.st cl1apter of

Genesis penne

1

d tl1ese

wise

words:

H ,e ,vho wottld lea1·n

astronomy and other

recondite

arts, he

said,

·let

him go

elsewhere,

Moses

wrot ,e

in ·a

popular styJe things wl1icl1,

without instructi ·on, all ordi

nar y persons it1dued ,vith

co1nmon sen.se are

able to under

stand.

*

*

*

He

do

1

es

not

call us up to heaven , he on·ty

•

•

•

•



98

The Fundamentals

propose s things that lie open before our eyes. To this ·hour,

with all the light of modern science around us, we speak of

sun, moon and stars rising and 's etting , and nobody mis

und erstand s or affirms contradiction with science. There is

no doubt another side to this , for it is ju st as true 'th~t .in

depicting natural thing s, the Bible, thr ough the Spirit qf reve

lation that animates it, seizes thing in so just a light-still

with reference to its own ptirposes-that the n1ind is prevented

from being led astray from the great truths intended to be

conveyed.

will serve to illustrate these positions as to the rela

tion of the Bible to science if we look at them briefly in

their application to the two sciences of

astrono ·my

and geology

in regard to which conflict has often been alleged.

1. The change from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican sys

te1n of

astronomy - £

om the view which regarded the earth

as the center of the ·univer se to the modern and undoubtedly

true view of the earth as moving round the sun, itself, with

its planets, but one of innu111erableorbs in the starry heavens

of necessity creat ed great searching s of heart atnong those

who thought that the language of the Bible committed the111

to th e older system. For a time there was strong opposi

tion on the part of n1any theologians , as well as of students

of science, to the new discoveries of the telescope. Galileo

was imprisoned by the church. But truth prevailed, and it

was soon perceived that the Bible, using the language of

appearances, was no more committed to the literal moving

of the sun round the earth than are our modern ·almanacs,

which employ the same forms of speech. One would have to

travel far in these days to find a Christian who feels his faith

in the least affected by the discovery of the true doctrine of

the solar system. He rejoices that he understands nature

better , and reads his Bible without the slightest sense of con

tradicti~n. ·Yet Strauss was cJ nfident that the Copernican

system had given it s death-blow to Christianity; as Yoltaire



Science and hristia n Fa£th

99

before him had affirmed that Christianity would be over thrown

by the discovery of the law of gravitation and would not

survive a century. Newton, the hun1ble-minded Christian

discoverer of the law of gravitation, had no such fear, and

tin1e has sh9wn that it was he, not

\

oltaire, who was right.

These are specimens of the conflicts of Christianity with

.

science.

The so-called astronomical objection to Christianity

more specially takes the form of enlarging on the

illimitable -

ness

.of the universe disclosed by science in contrast with the

peculiar interest

of God in man displayed in the Christian

Gospel. What is .man that thou art mindful of him? (Psa.

8 :4). Is it credible that this small speck in an infinity

of worlds should be singled out as the scene of so tre1nendous

an exhibition of God's love and grace as is implied in the

Incarnation of the Son of God, the Sacrifice of the Cross,

the Redemption of Man? The day is well-nigh past when

even this objection is felt to carry much weight. Apart from

the strange fact that up to this hour no evidence seems to

exi st of other worlds inhabited by rational intelligences like

man- no planets, no known systems ( on this point A. R.

Wallace's Man and the Universe may be consulted)

thoughtful people have come to realize that quantitative big~

ness is no measure of God's love and care; that the value of

a soul is not to be estimated in terms of stars and planets;

that sin is not less awful a fact even if it were proved that

thi s is the only spot in the universe in which it has emerged.

It is of the essence of God's infinity that He cares for the

little as well as for the great; not a blade of grass could wave,

or the inse<::tof a day live its brief Ii£e upon the wing,

if

God were not actually present, and 1ninutely careful of

it.

Man's position in the universe remains, by consent, or rather

by proof, of science, an altogether peculiar one. Link between

the material and the spiritual, he is the one-bei~g that seems

fitted, as Scripture affirms he is, ·to be the bond of unity in



100

The Fundamen tals

the creation .(Heb. 2 :6-9). This is the hope held out to us

in Christ (Eph.

1 :10).

One should reflect also that, while

the expanse of the

physical

universe is a mbdern thought,

there has never been a time in the Christian Church ·when

God-Himself infinit~was not conceived of as adored and

served by

countless hosts

of ministering spirits. Man was

never thought of as the only intelligence in cr,eation. The

1nystery of the divine love to our world ·was in reality as

great before as after the stellar expanses were discovered.

The sense of conflict, therefore, though not the sense of

wonder, awakened by the exceeding riches of God's grace

to man in Christ Jesus, vanishes with increasing realization

of the depths and heights of God's love which passeth knowl

edge;, (Eph. 3

:19).

Astronomy's splendid demonstration

of the majesty of God's wisdom and power is undiminished

by any feeling of disharmony with the Gospel.

2. As it is with astronomy, so it has been with the reve

lations .of

geology

of the age and gradual formation of the

earth. Here also doubt and suspicion were-naturally enough

in the circt1m tances-at first awakened. The gentle Cowper

could write in his Task of tho se

*

who drill and bore

The solid earth and from the strata there

Extract a regi ster, by which we learn

Th?-t I-le who made it, and revealed its date

To Moses, was mistaken in its age.

If the intention of the first chapter of Genesis was really to

give us the date of the creation of the ·earth and heavens,

the objection would be unanswerable. But thirtgs, as in the

case of astronomy, are

how

better understood, and few are

disquieted in reading their Bibles because it is made certain

that the world is immensely older than the 6 000 yeats which

the older chronology gave it. Geology is felt only to have

expanded our i<eas

f

the vastne s. and marvel of the Creator's



t

•

Scie ice and Christian Faith

•

• •

operations through the reons of time during wl1ich the world,

with

its

teeming

populations of

fishes,

birds,

reptiles, mammals,

was

preparing

for

man s

abod ,e

when

th

1

e

mo,untains were

being up h

1

eaved, the valley ,s being scooped out, and veins of

precious metals being , inlaid into the crust of th ,e earth~

Does science, then,

re,ally,

contra ,dic t Genesis I. Not

surely if what has been above said of the essentially popularc

cl1aracter of the allusio11s to n,atur .al things in the B,ible be

rem

1

ember

1

ed.

Here celrtainly

is no detailed desc ,riptio11 of

the

process

.Of

the formation of the eartlri in terms

anticipative

of modern sciience t

1

ertns which would ,have been unintelli

gible to

the origin,al reade ,rs but a sublime picture

1

true

to

the

order

of nature, as

it.

is

to

the broad

facts

even of

geolog

ical succe,ssion,.

,J, it tells how

Go,d

called h

1

eaven and earth into

being,

s,eparat ,ed light f

r·om

darkne ss,

sea

from 1and,

clothed

the world

with

veget .ation, g

1

ave

su,n and n1oon tl1eir appointed

ru ,Je o.f day and

night,

made fowl to

fly, and sea-monsters t,o

plow the deep, create,d th

1

e catt]e and beasts of the fie],d,. and

finally m.ade man, male and female, in His own image, and

established him

as ruler over all God s

creati on,

this orderly

rise of create id f

1

orm s, 1n an crowning the wh ole, these deep

idea ,s of the narrative, setting the world at th ,e v,ery beginning

in its

right

r

1

elation

to God, and

laying

the foundations of

an enduring philosophy o,,

religion, are tn1ths

which scirence

does nothing to subve ,rt, but in .n1yriad ways

confi1ms.

The

•

six days may remain as difficulty , to some, but, if this is

not part of the

symbolic

setting of the picture a great ·divine

week of work one may well ask, as was done by

A_ugu stine

long before

geology

was thought of,

what

kind of days

these were

wl1ich

ro,Jled their cot1rse before the sun

1

witl1 its

twenty-£ our hours of diurnal measurement, was appoint~d to

that

end? Tl1ere is

no Violence done

to

the

narrative

i11 st1b-

•

•

stituting in th9ught reonic days va.st cosn1ic periods for

days

1

'' on

our

narfower,

SUn-measur.ed

scale:

Then

the

last

trace of app

1

arent con:fli,ct disapp

1

ears.

•

•

•

•

I

•

•

•



102

The Fundament als

III. EVOLUTIO N A~D

MAN

In recent year s the point in which conflict between Scrip

ture and science is most frequently urg ed is the appar ent

contrariety of the theory of evolution to the Bible story of

the direct creation of the ani1nals and man. This might be

· met, and of ten ·is, as happened in the previou s cases, by

denying the reality of any evolutionary proce.ss in nature.

Here also, however, while it must be conceded that evolution

is l}Ot yet proved, there seems a growing appreciation of the

strength of the evidence for the fact of some form of evolu.,

tionary origin of species-that is, of some genetic connection

of higher with lower form s. Together with this, at the sarne

time, there is manifest an increa sing disposition to limit the

scope of evolution, and to modify the theory in very essential

points-those very points in which an apparent conflict with

cripture arose.

, Much of the difficulty on thi s subject has arisen from the

unwarrantable confu sion or identification of evolution with

Darwinism. Darwini sm is a theory of the process of evolu

tion, and both on account of the skill with which it was pre-

ented, and of the singular eminence of its propounder,

. obtained for a ti1ne a very remarkable prestige. In these

later days, as may be seen by consulting

a

book like R. Otto's

Naturalism and Religion, published in The Crown Library,''

that prestige has greatly declined. A newer evolution has

arisen which breaks with Darwin on the three points most

essential to his theory:

1

The

fortuitous character of · the

variations on which natural selection works. Variations are

now felt to be along definite lines, and to be guided to definite

ends. 2. The insufnency of natural selection (on which

Darwin almost wholly relied) to accomplish the tasks Darwin

assigned to it. 3. The slow and insensible rate of the changes

by which new species were supposed to be produced. Instead

of this the newer tendency is to seek the origin of new species



I

•

•

•

103

•

in rapid and .sudden c~ang ·es, the cause s of which li·e within

the organism in ''1nutatio

1

ns, ~s they are coming to be

ca.lled . so t.l1at tl1e pro ·c·ess

may

be .as brief as

fonnerly

it was

s·up·posed to be long. ''Evolution, i11 short, is coming to be

recognizep. as b,ut a new na1ne £01· 'creation,

1

only that ·the

creative

·power

now works from witliin in~tead of ·, as in the

old conception,

in

an

external

pla.stic

fa .shion. It is,

how-

.

ever, c·reation none t·he less. · · ·

In tru 'th, no conception of evolution can b

1

e· f.ormed, com

patible with al.I the facts . o,f scie11ce, which

1

does not .

takel

account, at . lea ,st at certain great cfitical point ,s, of the entrance .

of new factors into the process we call creation. 1. One such

point is tl1e transition from inorganic

to ·

organic existe ·nce·~·

th

1

e entrance of t·he ne,v

powe1·

of .lif e. It is hopele ss to

1

seel(

to a

1

ccount for life by purel.Y m

1

ecl1anical and chemical agencie s,

and science . has well-nigh given ttp

t.l1e

att

1

empt. 2. A second

point

is

in

the

t1pansition fro1n purely organic development to

conscioiisne.ss. A sens,ati ,on i,s a n1ental fact different in kind

from

any

n1

e1ely

organ .c change, a~d inexplicable

by

it. Her ,e,

accordingly, is a new rise, revealing previously unknown spit

itual powers.

3 . The third point

is

in

the

transition

to ratio1t~

ality

personality

and

moral life

in

1na·n.

This,

as

1na11 '

.capacity f

1

or self-consciou .s, self-directed, progre ·ssive

life

evinces, is something different fr

1

om the purely animal co11-

sciousn1ss, and n1arks the begi .iming ·of a new kingdom. Here,

a.gai.n, the Bihl·e and science are felt to be in har1nony· lvlan

·is the

last

of

1

God's

create ·d

works the

crown

and

explana

tion of the whole - and he is made in God's image. To account

for him, a

sp,eci.al

a ct

of

the Creator, constituting him

w11at

he i.s,

must

be presuppos

1

ed. This , creative

a.ct

does

n ot

relate

to the sou.I only, for high

1

er spir ·itual powers cottld not be put

into a

merely

animal

brain.

There must be a rise on

the phys

icaJ side as well, corres ·ponding with the m,ental advan ce.

111

bod,y, as in spi .rit, man come

1

s from his Creator' 's hand ..

If

this new

evo,Jutionary

conception is

accepte·d,

most of

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

,

104

•

•

•

•

•

th:e

difficulties which beset the Darwinian tl1.eory fall away.

1. For one

tlung, man need no

1

long,er be thought

of as a s ow

development

from the anim,al stage

an

ascent through

brµt-

. isl1ness and savagery

f

ram an ape-like form. H is origin

may

b,e a,s sudden as Gen esis rrepres ,ents. 2'~ The nee

1

d £or

as.s.umin,g

an enormou s a ntiquity of' ma11 to a:llow·

·£

Or the .slow de·velo~

ment

is

no tonger felt. And (3 )

1

, the n

1

eed of assumi ·ng

man' ·s

origitial condition to have bee~

one

of brutal passion and

subjection · to natural impulse disappears. Man may have

come from his Cr ,eator' s hand in as morally pure

a

state ·, and

las

c.a.pable

of

sir1less

d·evelopment, as Genesis

1

and Paul

affi1'11.

T his also its ttJe most worthy vi·ew ·to take of 1:nan's ori,gin.

It is

a

view born

1

e out

by

the absence

of all re ,Jiable

evidence

of those ape-like intermediate forms which, on · the other

hypothe sis, must have intervened between the

animal -proge11-

ito1·s

and the finish

ed

l1uma.n

being.

It

is

a view not contra-

·dicted by th

1

e alle

1

g

1

e·d evid ,ences of man' 's very ,great .antiq,uity-

100,000,

200,000,

or

5,00,000

ye

1

a·r·s· f

re·que·ntl,y·

·relied on.; f.or

1nos t o f th

1

ese and the extrav .ag.ant mea surements of time con

nected with them, are precariot ts in the extreme..

The

writer;s

book, ''God's Image in Man and It s Defacement,'' may

be

consulted on these point s.

T l1e conclu sion from th

1

e whole is,

th_at

t1p

to the present

l1ot1r,

s,cien,ce and

the Biblical views of

God..

man, and

the

.worl d, do not stand in any

re,al .

relation of conflict. Each

book of God's writing reflects light upon the pages -,f the

other, but neither , contradicts the other's essential testimony ·.

Science itself seems now

d·isposed

to take a less

1

material i~)·ic

vie·w

of

the

origin and

natu1·e of

·things ·than

it.

did

a

detcade

or

tw10

ago, and to in,terpret · ·he

creatio ,n

more

i11

th

1

e

light

of

the spiritual. · The experience of the Christian

belie:ver, with

the work of missions in

heathen

lands,

furnishes a testimony

tl1at cannot be disregarded to the reality of this spiritual

world, and of the regeneratin ,g, transforming forctes pr-0ceed-

ing from it. To God be ~11

heglory · . ·

•

•



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

. CHAPTER V

•

:A PERSONA L TESTIMONY

•

•

BY P FIILIP :h(AU RO,

•

ATTORN EY-AT-LA W) NE W YORK CITY

[ came to a slavi.ng knowledg e of · the Lord .Jesus Christ

on Maf 24th, 1903, being t ben i11 my forty-fifth year. I

did not at . that ti,me fully

understand

~hat had

happened

to

me, and only learned subsequentl y, th rough the study of

tl1e

Scri .ptures ., that, by the grace of God t hrough faith i11 His

Son

J

esu,s. C.hri.st,

I

had bee·n

quickened ( Eph.

2 :5),

and ha,d

passed ~r·om ,death unto life (John 5 :24).

t

FORMAL PROFESSION NOT AN ANCHO R FOR THE S0

1

UL

•

For m.any· years previou s to that time I had beeln drifting

steadily

away from even ·a formal profession

of

Christ.

There ·was no

aspiration in

1ny

sot1l

b,eyond

the gratification

of self ·; and all the exertion which I was putt ing forth had

for its s,ole obj

1

ect

the

acqui sition and .ac

1

cumulation of means

for ministering to that gra tificat ·ion .tl1rough life. I do

no·t .

exc.ept from

this category

the

consideration bestowed

upon

1ny

f

amity ( who would d.oubtl es,s give

me

a g·ood character

as an indulgent hu

1

sban

1

d

and

father), for I

count t11ese a.s

•

within

the

definition of self.

•

The things which I valued, such as 1~eputation, the good

opinion .of men,, success , in busine ss ,e11terprises and the like,

1

engrossed my

time and

thought ,, and

beyond these ,

whicl1

were

all of a temporal

nature,

there was no object in view.

I

can

sow clearly see that I had unconsciously made mo·ne

1

y a god

to trust in and to

bestow my affections , .u.pon, and can there

£

ore

comprehend

the

statemen.t of

Scriptur

1

e

that

covetous.ness

is idolatry. . ·

•

105

•

•

•

•

• •

•



•

•

106

Tlie F

u idamentals

· Whethe r

or not

there was an

existence beyond the grave

was a matter abo

1

ut wl1ich

I

l1ad

sp,ecula ted much but

had

dis

misse d

it from

my thou ght . Having become a

thorough

going ra tional ist (and being no more irrational than the gener ~

ality

of tho se

who assume that ·

self -flattering

title )

1 took

. the ground

that

it was

possible

to

believe only

what

could

be made evident to th~ physical senses, and

having rejected

the

witness of God, and so made Him a

liar (

1 John

5

:9, 10)

and hav ing

disregarded

''the evidence of things

not seen''

( Heb.

11 :1) , I

was perishing for

lack of

know ledge while

passing,

in n1y o,wn estimation and tl1at of others , as a. ' ' very

. wel l-inf ,o,rmed ma,n. ''

I had

become a

.church-1nember

and

commun .icant at the

age of sixteen ; had been for many years thereafter quite a

regular attendant o·n chu .rcl1 servic

1

es, and had heard innun1er-

•

· able

sermons ; yet

I

was

as

ign .orant

as

any

Hottentot

con-

cerning

God'

1

s 0

1

n

1

e and onl.y ·way

of

salvation. , Such is ·the

wretch .eel condition of million s -o,f excellent people in this

'' Christian''

land and

in this ''e nlightened' ' century.

~he

·Gospel is hid · from the ,m because ''the god

of

this age' ' h.atb

blinded their minds

' 'lest

tbe light of the

glorious Gospel

of

#'

Christ, who is the image of God, should shine

unto

them''

( 2

Cor.

.4 :4

)1

W'ORLDLY PRO,SPERITY U'NSATISPYING

•

.

•

~{Whosoever

drinketh of

thi s

water

shall

thirst

again''

(J ohn 4 :13). Let me

add briefly,

as touching my material

circumstances, that

in

the practice

of my chosen profession

( law) I was sµffi.ciently successful to

gratify

my own ambi

ti.on ,and

to excite the

envy

of

others; that I was

bless ,ed with

. ~xcellent

physical

health; and that

my domesti

1

c

relations

were

all

that

could

be

desired. Nothing seemed

to

be

lacking that

could ·insure or contribute t,o happiness and contentment.

But peace of

mind

and

r·est of conscience

are not

to be

found

in

what

the

world calls

''easy

circutns ltance s.''

Not-



•

•

•

1 Perso~ial

Test 11 01·y

withsta ndi11g

tha t I

had appare ntly every

reaso11

to be V. ~11

satisfied with

my lot,

and

every opport11nity

to

enjoy

the

good

things of

tl1is

world, my mental condition

was

anything but

•

satisfactory. It is hard to picture the state of a mind sub-

ject ·to increa singly

frequent

and protracted spells of

depres

sion, for which there seemed to

be

no reason

or

exp la11aio11

Certainly I

was

thoroughly

discontented, desperately

un l1appy ,

and

becoming

moie and more an easy prey to

gloomy

thoughts

and

vague, undefinable apprehensions. No longer could I

fi.nd ' mental sa tisfaction and diversion in the places and things

which once supplied them. My grat ifications had been largely

of an intellectt tal order, and my mind had be

1

en much

OCCt1pieu

. in 'efforts to pierce

the

veil

of the material universe, and

to dis

cover what, if anything,

Jay

concealed behind it. This quest had

carri .ed me into the domains of science, phil0

1

iOphy,

occultism,

theosophy, etc .. etc. All this pursuit had

yielded

nothing

111ore

1·eliable than conj ~.cture,

a11dhad

1eft

the inquirer after

the

truth

wear ·jed, baffle,d and

inteilect .ttal.ly

starved.

Life

had

no mea11ing, advantage, purpose or ju stification ;

and

the

powers of the much-vaunted hun1an i11te]1ectseemed unequal

to

the sol.tttion of

the simp

1

lest

my steries.

The

prospect 'before

n1e 'Was

Unsp

1

eakab 'ly

dark and

for

bidding,

•

'''vVR El?E IS THE WISE?'' ( 1 Co·r. 1 :20) ·.

But some

remedy against sett le.cl

desp,air must be

found.

So 1· followed others in the attemp

1

t to find

1

distraction in the

gaieties, a1nusements and excitements of a godless, pleasure

seeking

wo1·ld, a'tnong

whom I was

a.s

godless·

as

anyt

Some

good

p,eople

who were interested in me, and who had an

i11kling

of my condition, assured me

that

what I needed

v.ias n10

1

re ''div ·ersion'

1

and ''relaxati ,on,'' and that I was '''work-

•

•

ing too hard,'' etc. This

view

of

the matter was urged

by ·

church members. No one told me the simp,le truth;

na.mely,

that I ne

1

eded Christ and His salvation. 0, the ·innumerabJ,e

mi1lions who are

stumbling

through life , vaguely conscious of

•



108

The Fundamentals

a great need, but ignorant of its nature, and having no one

to

tell them

I

have given this description

of

my unhappy state at

some lent,h in the belief t~at a·mong those who may read

it,

many will recognize

it

as a description of the main features

of their own condition.

To such I can say with the utmost assurance that the e

is deliverance for you, full and complete, and that it is not far

off, but it is close by. The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth

and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach;

that

if

thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and

shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from

the dead, thou shalt be saved (Rom. 10 :8, 9).

So completely has that old condition of mental distress and

unrest passed away that I would riot now be able to even

recall and describe it, but for a record which I made within

six months of my conversion.

"Who shall deliver me I thank God through Jesus Christ,

oitr Lor<f'

(Rom.

7

:24, 25). One never-to-be-forgotten evening

in New York City I strolled out in my usual unhappy frame of

mind, intending to seek diver sion at the theater. This purpose

carried me as far as the lobby of a theater on Broadway, and

caused me to take my place in the line of ticket purchasers. But

an unseen hand turned me aside, and the next thing that

I

remember I had wandered far from the theater and my atten

tion was arrested by a very faint sound of singing which

came to my ears amid the noi ses on Eighth A venue, near

For ty-fourth Street. There is no natural explanation of

my

being attracted by, and of my following up, that sound.

Neve rtheless,

I

pushed my way into the building (a very

plaint unattractive affair, _bearing the sign Gospel Taber

nacle, ) wherrce the sound emanated, and found myself in a

prayer meeting. I was not much impre ssed by the · exercise s,

and

in fact

was not

at

all in sympathy with what transpired.

What

did, however, make an impre ssion upon me was th e



•

•

I

•

•

A Piersonal 1 .estimoiiy

·109

circu_mstancethat, as I was

makin .g

my way to the door afte r

the meeting, several persons greeted me with a

pleasant word

and a

shake

of

the

'hand,

and one inquired abo

1

ut

my spiritual

.~ate. I went

away

fr

1

om that meeting still in complete igno-

1an1,e of

th

1

e

.simple trut ·h t·hat

my wretchedness was

a1·1

d11e

to the fact th,at I was an unreconciled and unpardon ,ed sin11er,

a11d of

the greater truth

tl1at

there was One wh,o had died

for ·my sins, who fl:ad reconciled me to

God

by His

blood,

and through whom

I could . obtai ,n for ,giveness

of sins and

eternal life . . Again I

Say

that no ' natural explanati ,on will

account for the

fact that I was constraine ,d

to

return t,o a

place so utterly

devoid

of attractions

and

so foreign to all

· my natural tastes

and inclina ·tions.

The people

wer le not in

t ·he social grade to

which

I had been

acc·ust

1

ome,d,

.and I would

have found no

1

thi11gat all

congenial

in

their

society.

•

A·nd here I. wish ·to call particular

attentio11

to a striki1rig

ins,tanc

1

e of the fact that God's ways are no

1

t as out· ways, and

that the 'Wisdom of matt is foolishness with G

1

od. I

should

hav

1

e supposed that, in order to convihce m

1

e of t'he truth .of ·

the 'Bible and of C11ristianity it wottld 'be necessary to em·ploy

the best efforts

of

a

faculty of

the p1·ofo,un,de,st th,eologians,,

vetsed in all

the argu ll

1

ent,s

of skep tical

ph.ilos

ophy,,

,and

able · ·

to

f urnisl1

plausible rep lies

to

t.hem. But

God, in His wisdom,

sent me to learn the wa,y of ever lasting life ftom a

cotnpai1y

of .exceedingly p

1

lain, humble

p

1

eopl

1

e, of

little

1

education,1 to

whom I re,gar ,ded

myself as immeasur .ably superior i.n all the

high

1

er branches of knowledge. It is

true

that tl1ese

people

knew very little of

w·hat

is tattght

in colleges

and

seminaries;

but

the,y

did

have ·that k11owledge which is

th

1

e

highe,st

a11d

most

excellent ,of.

ali, that kn

1

owled.ge

for which ,one

of the 111ot

scl1olar ly of men of

his

day was wil]ing to

sacrifice all

his

advantages, counting them but refuse, and to cast away all

. his brilliant prospects, saying,

''I

count all

things but loss,

for

t11

exc,ellency

of

the kno luledge of'

Christ

Je .sus

my Lord''

( Pl-1i .

3

1

:1). · · .

•

•

•



110

The F wn damentals

So that my estimate of my own attain1nen ts was alto

gether wrong; and the actual truth was that, in comparison

with the simplest of those who had knowledge

oi

Jesus Christ

as Savior and who confessed Him as Lord, was but an

ignoramu s.

do not rem ember how many ti1nes went to these meet~

ings

before I yielded to the Spirit's influence, and I do- not

remember that was conscious of any benefit from attending

the meetings, which, from the ordinary standpoint, would

have been pronounced decidedly dull. The crisis in my life

came on the evening of May 24th, 1903, when, yielding to

an inward prompting which, gentle as it was, yet overpowered

all my natural reluctance and repugnance to such an act, I

went forward and

knelt

with a few others at the front of the

meeting roon1. I took the sinner's place, and confessed myself

in need of the grace of God.

A

Christian man (the same who

at

first asked

me

about n1y soul) kneeleq by me and called .on

the Lord

Jesus to

save me. Of course, the act of publicly

kneeling and calling on the natne

of

the Lord is not a neces

sary part of the process

of

conversion. There is

no

specified

place or manner in which the gift of eternal life is received.

What

is

necessary, however, is that one should believe God,

first as to the fact that ~e is a sinner and can do .nothing for

himsel_; and second, that Jesus Christ, risen from the dead,

the

Etern .al

Son of

God,

is the Sin-Bearer

for

all who believe

on Hin1- Who was delivered for our offenses, and raised

again for our justification (Rom.

4 :25).

did not know the nature of what was happening, for

did not believe in sudden conversions. supposed that a

change of nature, if it occurred at

all,

qiust be very gradual

an evolution, in fact. But my ignorance of the process did

not stand in the way of the mighty power of God, acting

in grace,

to

quicken me into new life (Eph.

1 :19;

2:5). I ·

called upon the name of the Lord, with a deep conviction of

in in

my

heart ; and that was enough.



•

111

''IF ANY MAN BE IN CHRIST, I-lE IS l NEW CREATU RE''

In

the years

that

have elapsed I have come to

a bet~

ter understanding o·f the tre111endous change which

took

-

place that night though onJy in eternity will I fully com-

prehend

it.

Certainly it was

life from tl1e

dead.

Spiritual

things £rom

tl1at moment became

realities, and took a .

place

in

my thou .ght and consciousness. Th,e

things that

once

had

a l1old upon me began to lose their attraction. ·1 soon learned

by a happy

experie11ce

tl1at

if

a man be in

Cl1rist,

there is

a new creation an entirely new environment that old

thi11gs

l1ave

passed away, and all things have

become new; and

that

a]l things

are

of

God

(2

Cor. 5

:17, 18). In

a

very short

time the habits

of my

life , as well

as

the occupations

of my

·heart

and mind, underwent

a great change.

The

habit of

daily

Bible

reading, · and

of 1norning

and evening prayer,

wa

i1nmediately established. Of ten previot1sly I had tried to

pray, as I felt the pressure of misery and distress of mind; ..

and innumerable

time s

both publicly

and privately, I had ,

''sa id

my

prayers; but it was not praying, for I was in

u,nbelief. I did not believe

tl1e

Word of God, but criticized

and rejected it. I did not believe in the virgin . birth 0£ our

Lord, nor in .His vicarious death, nor in His physical resur- ·

•

rection.

The

doctrine

of His blood-shedding for the sins of ·

others, and of His being made sin for us, that we might be

made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. 5 :21) I

rega rded as

unphilosophical and unworthy of belief.

T'he

only

God

I knew

was the god

of

mate rialism, a creature

of

1nan's vain imagination.

I had

no

knowledge

0£

the

God

and Father of our Lord Je sus

1

Cl1rist.

DOUBTS AND DIFFICULTIES S,WEPT AWAY

•

•

•

Perhaps the most

wonderful

change

which was

1nanif est

to my ·consciousness, when my 1nind b·eg~n to

resume its

norm .a) activity and to inquire into ,vhat had happened, v.ras ·

•



112

The undamentals

this, that all my doubts, questionings, skepticism and crit i

cism concerning God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, con

cerning the

full

insp irati on, accuracy and authority of ...._he

Holy Scriptures as the incorruptible Word of God, concerning

the sufficiency of Chri st's atonement to settle the que~tion of

sin, and to provide a ground upon which God could, in per

fect righteousness, forgi ve and justify a sinner, and concerning

an assured salvation and per fect acceptance in Christ, were

swept away completely. Fron1 that day to this I have nev er

been troubled

by

doubt s of God and His Word.

IF THOU SI:L LT RE LIE VE IN THINE HEARTu

This experience is to me, and will be to any one

who

refl~cts upon it, .ver~ wonderful

~ ~

i~pressive. ~ad. no

notion at all that intelle ctual difficulties and questioning s

could be removed in any way except by being answered, one

by one, to the intellectual satisfaction of the person in whose

mind they existed. But my doubts and difficulties were not

met in that way. They were simply removed when believed

on the Crucified One, and accepted Him as the Christ of God,

and as my personal Savior.

The explanation of this

is

that

the

seat

of

unbelief

is

not in the head, but in the heart (Rom. 10 :9) . It is th e

will

that is wrong; and the bristling array of doubts and

difficulties which spring up in the mind are mere disguises and

pretexts supplied by th e enemy of souls, behind which the

unbelieving heart tries to shelter itself and to justify

it

unbelief.

This

is

the exp lanat ion of those words of our Lord, who

knew what was in man, ' Ye

w ll

not

come to

Me

that ye might

have life (John 5 :40).

It is man's unbroken and unyielded will that prevents him

from coming to the Fountain

of

eternal life and receiving

that unspeakab~e gift of God. And this, too, is why it is

,vritten, For with th e heart ma n believeth unto righteous-



•

113

•

•

ness'' (Rom. 10 :9). The natural 1nind is the conge11ialbreed

ing place of doubts and questionings, and (as

it

deems these

to

b

1

e of

g1·eat

importan ,c

1

e)

i·t

s·ttpp,oses,

that

these

m U,st

be dealt

vvith seriati1n. The ·natural man kn,ows nothing about being

rtransformed by

the

renewing of tl1e n1ind'' (R .om. 12 :2),

a.11dhe ''receives . not the thin .gs of

tl1e.

Spirit of God; , for th,ey

ar

1

e fool ·ishness unto him; neither can

he

know them, because

•

they are

spiritually

disc·er~ed'' ( 1 Cor. 2: 14). Bu·t when the

heart , the

cente,r

of man's being,

th ,at

i11most

place

to

whicl1

God alone has

acc,ess,,

is p·ersuaded, tl1,e whole

n1an

is chang

1

ed,

•

a11d tl1e mind lil<:ewise re11ewed

and purged

of its

·pestilential

brood

of

d

1

oubts

and reasonin .gs.

Therefore, what 11ad previously held me back from ac.cept-

1n,g the salva ·tion

tl1at

is freely offered tr1rough

Cl1r,ist

Jesus

was not tl1e

brood of

doubts and re·asonings

with

which my

l1ead

teemed.,

I .n

S1uppo sing~

that th

1

clifficulty

lay

there

I

was miser,ah1y d

1

ece,ived, as are

111yriad

of others '''in wl1om

t.11egod of· this world hath h

1

linded

the

minds

of them tl1at

be:lieve not,

le,st, the light of the Gospel of the glory of Chri.st,

who is the image of God, sl1011ld dawn upon them'' (2 Cor.

4

:4, R. V.). God took no notice

at

all of the questionings

of

my

puny mind, which s,eemed to me

very

formidable and

worthy

of the

most

respe ,ctf u,l

cons ·ideration. He d1,alt witl1

them

according

to

His , ·OWn sovereign will

and

r,emo·ved them

in a moment. This was not difficult at a11 o H .m who ''taketl1

up the isles as a

very

little thin ,g_''

Hence the stupendous change, whereby

one , dead

in

t1·es

passes and sins is quickened tog~ther with Christ ( Eph.

:

5) ,

is ·not a,ccomplished through

,any

process

1

0£

reasoning,

nor

i,s

it the OUtcome of

any ·p

1

ro

1

cess

1

0·f

develop iment.

It . is

t&e

im1nediate

and mighty

worlc

0£

God 'ithe working of · His

mighty

pow

1

er which He wrought i11 Christ

when

He raised

Him from the dead and s,et Him at His own rigl1t hand in

tl~eheaven ·t.Yplaces'' {Eph. 1 :19, 20

1

) ;

and it is a wo·r,k which is

done instantly in tpem that believe

on ·

th e 'Lord

Jest1s

Chriist

•

•

•

•

•



114

The F itndamentals

I should, of course, be wholly at a loss_ o interpret this

experience but for the Scriptures; and thereby the Divine

- authorship of these is further confirmed. In the light of

the Scriptures .it is easy to see that what had occurrep. wa

an inwrought conviction produced by the Holy Spirit, the

One now ministering in the world, testifying of a risen,

ascended and glorified Christ, at the right hand of God, and

convicting of sin, of righteousness and of judgment.

Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is st yed

on Thee; because he trusteth in Thee

(Isa. 26:3). Another

n1arked result of believing the witness

of

God which He

hath testified of His Son ( 1 John 5 :9) has been the com

plete deliverance from the spells of mental depression, which

were rapidly developing into a state of settled melancholia,

or

what is called nervous prostration, from which so many

are suffering in these times

of

high pressure, and concerning

~he cause of which they are totally ignorant. The mind cannot

be kept in perfect peace that is stayed upon material and

perishing thirtgs. It is manifestly a satisfactory and sufficient

explanation of peace of mind that it is stayed'' upon the

unchangeable God. This deliverance from mental depression

was not immediate, for did not learn at once to stay my

mind on Him ; but the change

began

immediately and pro

gressed until settled peace became the normal mental con

dition.

I have learned, in a word, that the redemption that is_ n

Christ Jesus covers and meets all the consequences of. sin

whether manifested in soul, or mind, or body. Our salvation is

of the Lord and is for the whole man, spirit, soul and

body.

uBelieve on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,

and thy house

(Acts 16:31). Within two months from the

eyent related above ( which, by the way, through timidity and

fear of comment and ridicule I tried to keep as much as

possible to myself) I was put in a position where I was com-



A Personal T estirno11y

'115

pelled to open my lips to a beloved member of my own fam ily,

suffering as I could plainly

see,

from what had formerly

oppre ·ssed me, and to preach Christ for the first time. · W hat

effort the delivery of this sermon cost me cannot be described.

It

consisted of these words : What you need is the · Lord

Jesus Christ; and after their utterance the preacher had not

another ·word to say, and the only visible result was a very

awkward and constrain ed silence. Yet this simple, clumsily

given testimony, together with some verses of Scriptu re read

at random, were used by the Spirit of

od

to quicken another

dead soul. There were yet two more of the hou sehold to be

brought to a knowledge -of Christ, but it was not long before

these likewise, and without any pre ssure from us, accepted

Christ, and were tran slated out of darkness .into His n1ar

velous light.

T he path of the righ teous is as the daivning light, that

shineth 'more and more unto the perfe ct day (P rov. 4 :18

R. V.). It

was a great and wonderful surprise to

us to

find

that there was such a thing as an assurance of -salvation,

with im1nediate and unmi stakable blessings given. to believer s

as an earnest and first-fruits of the inherita nce of the saints.

f\11

our previous theological instruction had been to th e

effect

that if one lived Ha good Christian life ( which many -deluded

souls are trying .to do before they have got it) he might

possibly be save d hereafter, but that there was no certainty

for anybody until the day of jud g1nent.''

But even greater surpri ses awaited us. Blessed

as it is

to know upon the evidence of Chri st's own statement , prefaced

by His Verily, verily ,

I

say unto you, that He who hears

His Word and believes on Him who sent Hhn has everlasting

life and shall not come into jud gment, but

is

passed from

death unto life ·(John 5 :24), there ·was much more to follow.

God's goodness toward us did not stop at revealing the truth

as to our acceptance in Christ and our consequent eternal

security. He led us to see that it was our duty ·and privilege



116

The F und a1nenta /s

to take at once the place of rejection with Christ, who has

been cast out o this age and all of its affairs and enterprises ,

the rulers ( or leader s) of this age having crucified

the Lord

of Glory (

1

Cor~

:8).

He showed us tha.t Christ had ,given

Himself o.r

our

sins for the express purpose that He might

deliv.er us. from this present evil age ( Gal. 1 :4) ; ~nd that

His will for the redeemed of this age is that they should

go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach

(Heb. 13 :13).

The camp is, superficially at least, an attractive place, full

of gaiety and revelry, with every possible device to delight

the eye and gratify the mind of the flesh. By keeping the

bright things as · much as possib le in evidence, and pushing

the wretchedness, suffering and misery into the background ,

the camp manages to keep up appearances, particularly as its ·

oc~upants are quite willing to be deceived, and are pretty well

agreed that it is the duty of every dwell er therein to be an

optimist. Having led the Chri st of God outside the gate,

and put Him to death , the leaders of thi s · present evil age''

have devoted their gr eat talents and energie s, under the superb

dire ction and management of the god of this age, to the one

object of making such progress,'' and developing such a glori-

ous civilization, as will demonstrate that the world has no

need of Christ . In carrying out this great undertaking the

leaders of this age are sufficiently astute to provide a place

inside the camp even for those who profess and call them-

selves Chri stians, making them welcome in the world, a.hd

even giying them positions of prominence therein, upon the

. single easy condition that they will accept the age's gospel of

progress, an.d. subscribe heartily to the doctrine that the world

is getting better every day. This condition the aforesaid

Christians are for the greater part quite rea~y, not only

to accept, but

even

to ·make it an article of religion, chang -

ing the Scriptures so far as neces sary to that end.



•

•

•

•

•

117

A PeYisonalTe stiwiony

•

The L,ord h1a s further

shown

us

that,

so far from finding

. it a deprivation to withdraw ourselves from the pursuits and

amusements of

the

cam ,p

1

and froJn

its

1

godless mirth,

which

•

is as the crackling of dry thorns under a pot, ~we have in fact

gained unspeakably thereb ,y. The new interests which now

occupy

us (having to do with Him in

whose

presence is full

ness

of

joy, and at whose

right

hand

are

pleasu'tes for .ever

more,)

are far

more

satisfying, and contribute

far more

real

gratification than a11

the things

in

which,

for want

of

knowl~

edge of something better, we

used

to be interested, and in

the pursuit of which we spent our time and money. It seems,

humanly

speaking,

impossible

to

n1ake our frie11ds

and

asso-

ciates

in the old 1ife under stand

that

we have not

suffered

· any deprivations whatever. ''Having the understanding Car.k~

ened,'' they can only see the worthless things which we ha.Ve

cast aside, and can take no cognizance of the riches of grace

and glory which

the

believer in Christ has,

''in

whom it hath

pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell'' (Col. 1 :19).

It is as if a beggar were given, through

kingly

munificence,

a suit of rich apparel, and should hasten to put it on, joyfully

casting

aside the rags with wl1ich he was previously clad,

and some onlooker s, lilcewise

1

cla,d in dingy ,garments should

•

be

able to see only the discarded rags, and should thCreupon

hasten

away clasping

their own rags

tightly

around them for

fear a li1{e experie ·nce might befall ·them.

•

''IF I GO, 1 WILL COME AGAIN'' {John 14:3)

•

The L

1

ord has

also

enabled us to look

bey

1

btid ''t 'his

ptese11t ·

evil age," of Which Satan is the god., to the

age

that is soon

to come, in which Christ will return to earth, and all His

redeemed with Him, as prophesied since Enoch's time

(Jude

14; Rev. 19:11-16, etc.), and ''to the times of

restitution

of

•

all things ,vhich God hath spoken

by

the mouth of

ll

His

holy

prop ,hcts since th e ,vorld began" ( Acts 3

:21). .

•

•

•



118

The Fundamentals

But, n1ore than that, we have been led .to look, not for

ear thly happiness or for bliss af ter death , but for th at event ,

which is nearer still, and which it is the privil ege of the

believer to expect at any mo1nent, when th e Lo rd I-Iimself shall'

call upon His own to meet H im in th e air ( 1 Th ess. 4 :16, 17;

1 Cor. 15 :51, 52) . And so th e grac e of God, which bring s

salvation, hath appea red, teaching us that, denying µngod

liness and worldly lusts, we should live so9erly, righteously ,

and godly in this present world; lookin g for that blessed hope

and the glorio us app earing of our great God and Savior

Jesus Chr ist, who gave H imself for us (Titu s 2 :11-14).

This is not the teaching of the wisdom of this age, nor of

the leaders of thi s age ; nor is it the teaching of tho se professed

mini sters of Chr ist who have accepted the gospel of this age

the gospel of its pro gress and betterment; but it is the teach

ing of the grace of God and of the Word of God, and we

have accepted and rejoice in

it. .

Y ea, and all that w oitld live godly in Christ Jesus shall

suffer persecution. It would not be a truthful represen tation

of the matt er to n1ake it appear that therP have been no

unpleasant experience s attending and resulting from this

departur e from our old way s and ent ering upon the one

true and living way. There ha s been, of course, much

adverse comment, much irritation, much hostility aroused ,

we have heard many referenc es· to self-righteousnes s,''

fa natici s1n, and the like. To desert the ways of the world

is, of cour se, to conde1nn tho se ways; and they who are walk

ing in them cannot be expected to take it kindly. They turn

away exclaiming, 'Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of

Damascu s, bett er than all the wa ters of Israel?' (2 King s

5 :12). Then why this narrow-mindedness and bigotry?

And, as might also be expected, the greate st resentment of our

conduct ha s been arou sed in those who, while ·professing to

belong to Christ, are casting their lot indi scrimin ·ately with

th e1n

who openly reject Him.



•

•

I

•

•

•

119

\

•

This, of

course,

we can

endure patiently;

because He said,

<'If

the

world

hate you,

ye

l<now tha 't

it

hated 11e

before

it

hated you'' (Jahn 15 :18); a11d the more so, because we know

tl1at those Who cheris 'h and

display

su,ch feelings do 'it in

ignorance

of the truth.

We remember

that

we were, and

not

so

very long ago,

in

precisely 'the san1e

1

darkne ,ss,

and tl1at it

required th ,e power and grace of God to let the light into

ot1r darkene d minds.

We

know, too, that we can

help

the se

· preci ,ous souls

for whom Christ died, only

by

maintaining oui~

separated

path,

and

by prayin ,g

that the

scales ,

m.ay fall fro1I1

· tl1eir

eye,s

also, that they may see what is the true

''coUt 'se

of tl1is wo,rld'' (Eph. 2 :2), of which it s, leaders ,are so bo,ast

ful, and where it will inevitably carry them who

pu1' sue

i·t

to

the

end; and abov ,e all

may

see th ,at

there i,s

eternal life

only

in Christ

and through faith

in His

atoning sacrifice and

in

His

resurr

1

ection fr

1

om ,among

the

1

de,ad (Ro ,m. 10 :9; Acts

•

•

•

17:3;

Rom. 4:24,

25;

1

Cor.

15:1-4 and 13,,

19, etc .). .

'.He that

believeth

on

the

S011

hath ~verlasting _ ife;

and

he tl1at believeth not the Son shall not see life ,; but the wr ,ath

1

of God abideth on.him'' (John 3,;36), .

•

•

•

•

•

\

•

•

•

-

•

•

;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•



ADDENDA TO CHAPTER I

VARIOUS FACTS RESPECTING PLA CES W H ERE THE TABERNACL E

WAS BUILT OR LOCAT£D

I. MOU NT SI NAI

I TS LOCATIO N AN D PRESENT APPEARANCE

Dr.

J.

W. Dawson, in his Modern Science irt Bible Lands /'

gives the fall owing facts with r ega rd to the location and prese nt

appearance of the mountain near wh ich the Tabernacle was built.

The actual positi on of Mount Sinai has been a subject

0£

keen

controversy, which may be reduced to two questions: 1st, Was Moun t

Sinai in the peninsula of that name or elsewhere? 2d, Which of th e

mountains of the peninsula was th e Mount of the Law?

Aso th e

.first of these questions, the claims of the peninsula are supported

by

an overwhelming mass of tradition and of authority~ ancient an d

modern~

If this question be considered as settled, then it remains to inqui re

which of the mountain summits of that group of .hil1s in the southern

end of the peninsul a, which seems to be designated in the Bible by

the general name of Horeb, should be regarded as the ve.ritabl e

'Mount of the Law?' Five of the mountain summits of this re gion

have laid claim to this distinction; and their relative merits the

explorers [those of the English Ordnance Survey] test by seven

criteria which must be fulfilled by the actual mountain. These ar e:

( 1) A mountain overlooking a plain on which the millions of Isra el

could be assembl ed. (2) Spac e for the people to 'remove and stand

a far off' when th e voice of the Lord was heard, and yet to hear that

voice. (3) A defined peak distinctly visible from the plain. ( 4) .A mon-

tain so predpitous that the people might be said to stand und er it

and to touch its base. (5) A mountain capable of being isolat ed

by

boundaries. (6) A mountain with sprin gs and streams of water in

its

vicinity. 7) Pa stur age to ma intain the flocks of the peopl e for

a year.

By th ese cri teria th e survey ors rejec t two of the mounta ins,

Jebel el E jme h and J ebel Umm aJawi, a s destitute of sufficient water

120



ddenda

121

and pasturage. Jebel Katharina, whose claims arise from a statement

of

Josephus that Sinai was the highest mountain of the district, which

this peak actually is, with the exception

of

neighboring summit

twenty-five feet higher, they reject because of the fact that it is not

visible from any plain suitable for the encampment of the Is rae lites.

Mount Serbal has in modern times

had

some advocates; but the

st1r

veyors allege in opposition to these that they do not find, as has been

stated, the Sinaitic inscriptions more plentiful there than elsewhere,

that the traces of early Christian occupancy do not point to it any

more than early tradition, and that it does not meet the topographical

requirements in presenting a defined peak, convenient camping-ground,

or a sufficient amount of pasturage.

There only remains the long-established and venerated JebeJ

Musa-the orthodox Sinai ; and this, in a remarkable and conspicu

ous manner, fulfils the required conditions, and, besides, illustrates

the narrative itself in unexpected ways. This mountain has, how

ever, two dominant peaks, that of Jebel Musa proper, 7,363 feet in

height,

and that of Ras Sufsaf~h,

6,937

feet high;

and

of these the

explorers do not hesitate at once to pref er the latter. This peak or

ridge is del?cribed as almost isolat ed, as descending precipitously to the

great plain oi the district, Er Rahah, which is capable of accommo

dating two millions of persons in full view of the peak,

and

has

ample camping ground for the whole host in its tributary valleys.

Further, it is so completely separated from the neighboring mountains

that a short an.d quite intelligible description would define its limits,

which could be easily marked out.

Anothe r remarkable feature is, that we have here the brook

descending out of the mount referred to in Exodus (Ch. 32 :20),

and, besides this, five other perennial streams in addition to many

good springs. The country is by no means desert, but supplies much

pasturage; and when irrigated an<l attended to, forms good gardens,

and is indeed one of the best and most fertile spots of the whole

peninsula. The explorers show that the statements of some hasty

travelers who have given. a different view are quite incorrect, and

also that there is reaso n to believe that there was greater rainfall and

more verdure in ancient times than at present in this part of the

country. They further indicate the Wady Shreick, · in which is the

stream descending from the mount, as the probable place of the

making and destruction of the golden calf, and a hill known as

J

ebel

Moneijeh, the mount of conference, as the probable site of the Taber

nacle. They think it not improbable that while Ras Sufsafeh was



122

The Fundamentals

the Mount of the Law , the retirem ent of Moses during his soJourn

on the mount may have been beh ind the peak,

in

the recesses of

Jebel Musa, which thus might properly bear his name ."

II. SHILOH

ITS RUINS AS REC ENTLY INVESTIGATED

Colonel Sir Charles Wilson thus describes the present ruins of

Shiloh, in "Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement" for 1873, pp.

37, 38:

"The rui ns of Seilun (Shiloh) cover the surface of a 'tell,' or

mound, on a spur which lies between two valleys, that unite about

a quarter of a mile above Khan Lubban, and thence run to the sea.

The existing remains are those of a fellahin village, with few earlier

foundations

1

possibly of the date of the Crusades. The walls are

built with old materials, but none of the fragments of columns men

tioned by some travelers can now be seen. On the summit are a

few heavy foundations, perhaps those of a keep, and on the southern

side is a building with a 4eavy sloping buttress. The rock is exposed

over nearly the whole surface, so that littl e can be expected from .

excavation. Northwards, the 'tell' slopes down to a broad shoulder

across which

a

sort of level court, 77 feet wide

and 412

feet .long, has

been cut out. The rock is in places scarped to a height of five feet ,

and along the sides are several excavations and

a

few small cisterns.

The level portion of the rock is covered by a few inches o.f soil.

It is

not

improbable that the place was thus prepared to receive the

Tabernacle, which, according to Rabbinical traditions, was a structure

of

low stone walls, with the tent stretched over the top. At any rate,

there is no other level space on the 'tell' sufficiently large to

rece>t·e

a tent of the dimensions of the Tab erµa cle.

I '"The spring of Seilf.m is in a small valley which joins the main

one

a

short distance northeast of the ruins. The supply, which

k

small. after running a few yards through a subterranean channe\>

was formerly led into

a

rock -hewn reservoir, but now runs to waste '

T.o ·the above items Major Claude R. Conder, R. E., in his "Tent

Life in Palestine," Vol I, pp. 81, 82, adds as follows :

"There is no site in the country fixed with greater certainty .than .

that of Shiloh. The modern name Seilf.m preserves the most archaic

form, which is found in th e Bible in the ethnic Shilonite ( 1 Kings

11 ;29). The position of the ruins ~grees exactly with the very defi

nite description given

in

the Old Tes .tam ent of the position of Shiloh,



Addenda

123

as 'on the north side of Bethel (now Beitin) , on the east side of the

highway that goeth up from Bethel to Sbechem,. and on the south of

Lebona h' (Lubbin) (Judg. 21 :19).

It

is just here that Shiloh still

stands in ruins. The scenery of th e wild mountains · is finer than that

in Judea; the red .color of the cliffs, which are of great height, is

fa r more picturesque than the shapeless chalk mountains near Jeru

salem; the

fig gardens and oli;e groves arc more luxuriant,

but

the

crops are poor compared with the plain and round Bethlehem. A deep

valley runs behind the town on the north, and

in

its sides ar e many

rock-cut sepulchers. .

The vineyards of Shiloh ha ve disappeare d, though very possibly

once surrounding the spring, and perhaps extending down the valley

westwards, where water is also found. With the

destruction of the

village, desolation has spread over the barren hills around.

III. NOB

SITE OF THE VILLAGE IDENTIFIED

So thin ks Rev. W. Sh aw Caldecott. See his treatise on ''The

Tabernacle,

Its

History and Structure, pp. 53, 54 :

Four miles to th e north of J erusalem, and at the distance of a

quarter

o f

a.

mile to the east of the main road, is

a

curiously kn6bbed

and double-topped hill, named

by

the Arabs

Tell

(

or Tuleil)

el Full.

The crown of this hill is thirt y feet higher than Mount Zion, and

]

eru salem can be plainly seen from it. On its top is a large pyramidal

mound of unhewn stones, which Robinson supposes to have been

originally a square tower of 40 or 50 feet, and to have been violently

thrown down. No other foundations are to be seen. At the foot

of the

hill

are ancient substructi011s,

built

of large unhewn stones

in

low, massive walts. These are on the south side, and adjoin the

great road.

If we take th e Scriptural indications . as to the site of Nob

(heig ht·), this hill and these ruins fulfill all th e conditions of the case.

(a) Nob was so far regarded as belonging to Jerusalem, as one

of its villages ( thus involving its proximity), that David's bringing

Goliath's head and sword to the Tabernacle at Nob was regarded as

bringing th em to Jerusalem

(1

Sam .

17

54).

''( b) A clearer indication as to its situation is, however, gained

by the record of the restorat ion to wns and villages in which Nob

is mentioned, the name occurring between those of Anathoth and

Ananiah (N eh. 11 :32). Th ese two places still bear practically the

' .



124 - The Fundamentals

satne names, and theit sites are well known. In the narrow space

between Anata and Hanina stands the hill Tell el-Full, which we

take to be andeht Nob.

( c) Another indication is contained in saiah's account of Sen

nacherib's march on Jerusalem, ,the pictures que climax of which is,

'This very day shall he halt at Nob; he shaketh his hand at th

mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem' ( Isa. 10 :28 32).

Th ere are only two hills on the north from which the city can be

seen, so

as

to give reality to

the

poet's words .

One of these

i

Neby Sam1.r.ti,

and the other is

Tell el-Full.

IV. GIBEON

IDENTITY OF ANCIENT CITY WITH EL-JIB, ALSO 1,'HE G REAT

HlGH PLACE, OF

1

KINGS

3 :4,

INDICATED

In Hastings'

Dictionary of the Bibl e,

Art . Gibeon, J. F. Stenni ng

says as follows :

The identity of Gibeon with th e village of El-Jib, which lies some

six or seven miles northwest of J eru salem, is practi cally beyond disput e.

The modern village still pr eserve s the first part of the older nam e,

while its situation agrees in every respec t with the requirements of

the history of the Old Testament. Ju st beyond Tell el-Full (Gibeah) ,

the main road north from Jerusalem to Beitin (Bethel) is joined by

a branch road leading up from the coast The latter forms the · con

tinuation of the most southerly of three routes which connect th e

Jordan valley with the Maritime Plains. * * * Now just befor e

this road ( coming up from the Jordan valley) leaves the high er

groun d and · descends to the Shephel eh, it divides into two, the one

branch leading down to the Wady Suleim an, the other running in a

more southerly direction by way of the Bethhorons. Here, on thi s

fertile, open plateau, slightly to the south of the main road, rises

the hill on which the modern village of El-Jib is bu'ilt, right on th

frontier line which traver ses the central range to the south of Bethel.

It was the natural pass acro ss Palestine, which in ear ly time s served

as. the political bord r r between Nor th and South Israel, and

it

was

owing to its position that Gibeon acquired so much prominence in the

reigns of David and Solomo l).. A short distance to the east of

t h P

viJlage, at the foot of the hill, th ere is, further, a stone tank o.

reservoir of considerable size, supplied by a spring which ris es in a

h

. h .

cave 1g er up.

Tl1is spring, the exp lorers tell us, was probably the ancient pool

of Gibeon mentioned

in

2 Sam. 2 :13.



ddenda

125

Also, respecting the great high place, Smith's

Dictionary

has

the following:

The most natural position for the high place of Gibeon is the

twin mountain immediately south of El-Jib, so close as to be all but

a part of the town, and yet quite separate and distinct. The testi

mony of Et1iphanius, viz., that the 'Mount of Gibeon' was the highest

round Jerusalem, by which Dean Stanley supports his conjecture

(that the present Neby Samwil was the great high place), should

be

received with caution, standing, as it does, quite alone and belonging

to an age which, though early, was marked by ignorance and by the ·

most improbable conclusions.

Some additional facts, as given by Rev. W. Shaw Caldecott (ibid.

pp. 60-62), are as f o1lows :

El-Jib is built upori an isolated oblong hill standin g in a plain or

basin of great fertility. The northern end of the hill is covered over

with old massive ruins, which have fallen down in every direction, and

in which the villagers now live. Across the plain to the south is the

lofty range of Neby Samwil. * Gibeon was one of the four

towns

in the

division of Benjamin given as residences for the sons

of Aaron (Josh. 21 :17).

It

was thus already inhabited by priests, and

this, added to its other advantages, made it, humanly speaking, a not

unsuitable place for the capital of the new kingdom . No remains of

( very ancient) buildings have been discovered, such as those o·f er

Ramah and Tell el-Full.

,



PUBLISHERS NOTICE

As stated in the previou s volumes.of THE FUNDAMENTALS

this series of books is being sent free to every pastor, evange

list, missionary, theological and college professor, the ological

student,

Y. M. C. A.

and

Y. W.

C.

A.

secretary, and editor

of a religious paper, throughout the entire Engli sh-spe ak ing

world, so far as the addres ses of all these can be obtained.

Particular attention is hereby called to the following points:

1. Changes of addre ss should be promptly reported.

"J Vrte plainly both the old an d new addresses in full .

2. Any person entitled to these books see above classes)

who has not received the earlier volutnes 1nay obtain them

upon application as long as they last. Our supply is so1ne

what limited.

State plainly

which volumes are wanted, and

state also the line of Christian iuork engaged in and

the

denominational affiliation. After an order

is

sent

in,

allow

at least two week s and more if from a distance) for

fill

ing it.

3. In case any person receive s two or more copies of

any one volume, kindly notify us . These books are too val

uable and the demand for them too great to permit unneces

sary wa ste through duplication. I-Iowever, where extra copies

have been received, they need not be returned, but 1nay be

loaned or otherwise placed in circulation.

4. There is an increa sing demand for these books on the

part of the laity, and to meet thi s de1nand each volume is

being furnished postpaid at a cost of fifteen cents per copy,

eight copies for one dollar, or one hundred copies for ten

127



dollars. (In Great Britain 8d; 4s 2d; and £2 ls ld, respec

tively.) Do not fail to state plainly which volumes are wanted.

S. Do not send currency or personal checks. Remit by

postoffice money order or by bank draft

on Chicago, New f

York, or London, making the same payable to the Testi1nony

I

Publishing Company. ·

6.

Please bear in mind that we publish nothing e 'cept

THE

FUNDAMENTALS,

and do not issue any- catalogue.

7. Many who read this paragraph wfll doubtless know of

some person who; if his attention were called to it, would

gladly aid in the circulation of THE

FUNDAMENTALS

in his own

or other communities. Ten books, each read by ten person ,

would produce abiding results in any church; likewise one

hundred books in any community, To what better use in the

Lord's service could one dollar, or ten dollars, be placed

?

8.

IA1PORT

ANT The sugge stion has come to us that a

Circle of Prayer be organized for the express purpose of

making this entire movement

an

object of definite prayer

that God will guide in

every detail

and entirely fulfil Hi

purpose in the existence of the n1oven1ent. Such a circle

is now being forme 'd, and the Company will therefore be

glad to receive a l~ne from any who are willing to thus unite

with others in prayer. .

.

In .conclusion, we would emphasize once more the

great

importance

of

writing plainly and briefly, and always giving

full address-street (or rural route) number, postofiice, state,

and ( if outside of the United States) country.

l fuch time and

delay

will be saved

by

carefully reading

and complying with the for egoing directions.

TESTIMONY PUBLISHING . COMPANY ,

808 LaSalle A venue,

Chicago, Ill., U. S. A.

RtCHAAD

LINDAMOOD

2700 GL.ENWAV AVE,

I

CINCIN NA TI 4 OHIO

the fundamentals: volume 4

Documents