| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Introduction
to Genesis
This summary of the book of Genesis provides information about the
title
author(s)
date of writing
chronology
theme
theology
outline
a
brief overview
and the chapters of the Book of Genesis.
The first phrase in the Hebrew text of 1:1
is bereshith
("in [the] beginning")
which is also the Hebrew title of the book
(books in ancient times customarily were named after their first word or two).
The English title
Genesis
is Greek in origin and comes from the word geneseos
which appears in
the pre-Christian Greek translation (Septuagint) of 2:4;
5:1. Depending on its context
the word can mean
"birth
" "genealogy
" or "history of origin." In
both its Hebrew and Greek forms
then
the traditional title of Genesis
appropriately describes its contents
since it is primarily a book of
beginnings.
Chs. 1-38 reflect a great deal of
what we know from other sources about ancient Mesopotamian life and culture.
Creation
genealogies
destructive floods
geography and mapmaking
construction techniques
migrations of peoples
sale and purchase of land
legal customs and procedures
sheepherding and cattle-raising -- all these
subjects and many others were matters of vital concern to the peoples of
Mesopotamia during this time. They were also of interest to the individuals
families and tribes of whom we read in the first 38 chapters of Genesis. The
author appears to locate Eden
humankind's first home
in or near Mesopotamia;
the tower of Babel was built there; Abram was born there; Isaac took a wife
from there; and Jacob lived there for 20 years. Although these patriarchs
settled in Canaan
their original homeland was Mesopotamia.
The closest ancient literary parallels to Ge
1-38 also come from Mesopotamia. Enuma
elish
the story of the god Marduk's rise to supremacy in the
Babylonian pantheon
is similar in some respects (though thoroughly mythical
and polytheistic) to the Ge 1 creation account. Some of the features of certain
king lists from Sumer bear striking resemblance to the genealogy in Ge
5. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh
epic is quite similar in outline to the flood narrative in Ge
6-8. Several of the major events of Ge 1-8 are narrated in the same
order as similar events in the Atrahasis
epic. In fact
the latter features the same basic motif of
creation-rebellion-flood as the Biblical account. Clay tablets found in 1974 at
the ancient (c. 2500-2300 b.c.) site of Ebla (modern Tell Mardikh) in northern
Syria may also contain some intriguing parallels.
Two other important sets of documents demonstrate the reflection
of Mesopotamia in the first 38 chapters of Genesis. From the Mari letters
dating from the patriarchal period
we learn that the names of the patriarchs
(including especially Abram
Jacob and Job) were typical of that time. The
letters also clearly illustrate the freedom of travel that was possible between
various parts of the Amorite world in which the patriarchs lived. The Nuzi
tablets
though a few centuries later than the patriarchal period
shed light
on patriarchal customs
which tended to survive virtually intact for many
centuries. The inheritance right of an adopted household member or slave (see 15:1-4)
the obligation of a barren wife to
furnish her husband with sons through a servant girl (see 16:2-4)
strictures against expelling such a
servant girl and her son (see 21:10-11)
the authority of oral statements in
ancient Near Eastern law
such as the deathbed bequest (see 27:1-4
22-23
33) -- these and other legal
customs
social contracts and provisions are graphically illustrated in
Mesopotamian documents.
As Ge 1-38 is Mesopotamian in character and background
so chs. 39
- 50 reflect Egyptian influence -- though in not
quite so direct a way. Examples of such influence are: Egyptian grape
cultivation (40:9-11)
the riverside scene (ch. 41)
Egypt as Canaan's breadbasket (ch. 42)
Canaan as the source of numerous products for Egyptian consumption (ch. 43)
Egyptian religious and social customs (the end of chs. 43;
46)
Egyptian administrative procedures (ch. 47)
Egyptian funerary practices (ch. 50)
and several Egyptian words and names used throughout these chapters. The
closest specific literary parallel from Egypt is the Tale of Two Brothers
which bears some resemblance to the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife (ch. 39).
Egyptian autobiographical narratives (such as the Story of Sinuhe and the Report of Wenamun) and
certain historical legends offer more general literary parallels.
Historically
Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was
the author/compiler of the first five books of the OT. These books
known also
as the Pentateuch (meaning "five-volumed book")
were referred to in
Jewish tradition as the five fifths of the law (of Moses). The Bible itself
suggests Mosaic authorship of Genesis
since Ac
15:1 refers to circumcision as "the custom taught by
Moses
" an allusion to Ge
17. However
a certain amount of later editorial updating does
appear to be indicated (see
e.g.
notes on 14:14; 36:31; 47:11).
The historical period during which Moses lived seems to be fixed
with a fair degree of accuracy by 1 Kings. We are told that "the fourth
year of Solomon's reign over Israel" was the same as "the four
hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt" (1Ki
6:1). Since the former was c. 966 b.c.
the latter -- and thus the
date of the exodus -- was c. 1446 (assuming that the 480 in 1Ki
6:1 is to be taken literally; see Introduction to Judges:
Background). The 40-year period of Israel's wanderings in the desert
which
lasted from c. 1446 to c. 1406
would have been the most likely time for Moses
to write the bulk of what is today known as the Pentateuch.
During the last three centuries many interpreters have claimed to
find in the Pentateuch four underlying sources. The presumed documents
allegedly dating from the tenth to the fifth centuries b.c.
are called J (for
Jahweh/Yahweh
the personal OT name for God)
E (for Elohim
a generic name for
God)
D (for Deuteronomic) and P (for Priestly). Each of these documents is
claimed to have its own characteristics and its own theology
which often
contradicts that of the other documents. The Pentateuch is thus depicted as a
patchwork of stories
poems and laws. However
this view is not supported by
conclusive evidence
and intensive archaeological and literary research has
tended to undercut many of the arguments used to challenge Mosaic authorship.
Genesis speaks of beginnings -- of the heavens and the earth
of
light and darkness
of seas and skies
of land and vegetation
of sun and moon
and stars
of sea and air and land animals
of human beings (made in God's own
image
the climax of his creative activity)
of marriage and family
of society
and civilization
of sin and redemption. The list could go on and on. A key
word in Genesis is "account
" which also serves to divide the book
into its ten major parts (see Literary Features and Literary Outline) and which
includes such concepts as birth
genealogy and history.
The book of Genesis is foundational to the understanding of the
rest of the Bible. Its message is rich and complex
and listing its main
elements gives a succinct outline of the Biblical message as a whole. It is
supremely a book that speaks about relationships
highlighting those between
God and his creation
between God and humankind
and between human beings. It
is thoroughly monotheistic
taking for granted that there is only one God
worthy of the name and opposing the ideas that there are many gods (polytheism)
that there is no god at all (atheism) and that everything is divine
(pantheism). It clearly teaches that the one true God is sovereign over all
that exists (i.e.
his entire creation)
and that he often exercises his
unlimited freedom to overturn human customs
traditions and plans. It
introduces us to the way in which God initiates and makes covenants with his
chosen people
pledging his love and faithfulness to them and calling them to
promise theirs to him. It establishes sacrifice as the substitution of life for
life (ch. 22). It gives us the first hint of God's
provision for redemption from the forces of evil (compare 3:15 with Ro 16:17-20) and contains the oldest and most
profound statement concerning the significance of faith (15:6; see note there). More than half of Heb
11 -- a NT list of the faithful -- refers to characters in Genesis.
The message of a book is often enhanced by its literary structure
and characteristics. Genesis is divided into ten main sections
each beginning
with the word "account" (see 2:4;
5:1; 6:9;
10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1 -- repeated for emphasis at 36:9 -- and 37:2). The first five sections can be grouped together and
along with the introduction to the book as a whole (1:1
-- 2:3)
can be appropriately called "primeval
history" (1:1 -- 11:26). This introduction to the main story
sketches the period from Adam to Abraham and tells about the ways of God with
the human race as a whole. The last five sections constitute a much longer (but
equally unified) account
and relate the story of God's dealings with the
ancestors of his chosen people Israel (Abraham
Isaac
Jacob and Joseph and
their families) -- a section often called "patriarchal history" (11:27 -- 50:26). This section is in turn composed of
three narrative cycles (Abraham-Isaac
11:27 -- 25:11; Isaac-Jacob
25:19 -- 35:29; 37:1; Jacob-Joseph
37:2 -- 50:26)
interspersed by the genealogies of
Ishmael (25:12-18) and Esau (ch. 36).
The narrative frequently concentrates on the life of a later son
in preference to the firstborn: Seth over Cain
Shem over Japheth (but see NIV
text note on 10:21)
Isaac over Ishmael
Jacob over Esau
Judah and Joseph over their brothers
and Ephraim over Manasseh. Such emphasis
on divinely chosen men and their families is perhaps the most obvious literary
and theological characteristic of the book of Genesis as a whole. It strikingly
underscores the fact that the people of God are not the product of natural
human developments
but are the result of God's sovereign and gracious
intrusion in human history. He brings out of the fallen human race a new
humanity consecrated to himself
called and destined to be the people of his
kingdom and the channel of his blessing to the whole earth.
Numbers with symbolic significance figure prominently in Genesis.
The number ten
in addition to being the number of sections into which Genesis
is divided
is also the number of names appearing in the genealogies of chs. 5
and 11 (see note on 5:5). The number seven also occurs frequently.
The Hebrew text of 1:1 consists of exactly seven words and that of 1:2
of exactly 14 (twice seven). There are seven days of creation
seven names in
the genealogy of ch. 4 (see note on 4:17-18; see also 4:15
24; 5:31)
various sevens in the flood story
70 descendants of
Noah's sons (ch. 10)
a sevenfold promise to Abram (12:2-3)
seven years of abundance and then seven
of famine in Egypt (ch. 41)
and 70 descendants of Jacob (ch. 46).
Other significant numbers
such as 12 and 40
are used with similar frequency.
The book of Genesis is basically prose narrative
punctuated here
and there by brief poems (the longest is the so-called Blessing of Jacob in 49:2-27). Much of the prose has a lyrical
quality and uses the full range of figures of speech and other devices that
characterize the world's finest epic literature. Vertical and horizontal
parallelism between the two sets of three days in the creation account (see
note on 1:11); the ebb and flow of sin and judgment in
ch. 3 (the serpent and woman and man sin
successively; then God questions them in reverse order; then he judges them in
the original order); the powerful monotony of "and then he died" at
the end of paragraphs in ch. 5; the climactic hinge effect of the phrase
"But God remembered Noah" (8:1)
at the midpoint of the flood story; the hourglass structure of the account of
the tower of Babel in 11:1-9 (narrative in vv. 1-2
8-9; discourse in
vv. 3-4
6-7; v. 5 acting as transition); the macabre pun in 40:19 (see 40:13); the alternation between brief accounts
about firstborn sons and lengthy accounts about younger sons -- these and
numerous other literary devices add interest to the narrative and provide
interpretive signals to which the reader should pay close attention.
It is no coincidence that many of the subjects and themes of the
first three chapters of Genesis are reflected in the last three chapters of
Revelation. We can only marvel at the superintending influence of the Lord
himself
who assures us that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2Ti 3:16) and that the men who wrote it
"spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2Pe 1:21).
Literary Outline:
A.
"The account of the heavens and the earth" (2:4
-- 4:26)
Thematic Outline:
A.
Adam and Eve in Eden (2:4-25)
a.
The rising of the waters (7:11-24)
H.
The Spread of the Nations (10:1 -- 11:26)
III.
Patriarchal History (11:27 -- 50:26)
──《New International Version》
Introduction to Genesis
Genesis is a name taken from the Greek
and
signifies "the book of generation or production;" it is properly so
called
as containing an account of the origin of all things. There is no other
history so old. There is nothing in the most ancient book which exists that
contradicts it; while many things recorded by the oldest heathen writers
or to
be traced in the customs of different nations
confirm what is related in the
book of Genesis.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on Genesis》
00 Overview
INTRODUCTION TO THE
PENTATEUCH
The Title: Pentateuch
The title
Pentateuch
is the Greek name given by the LXX
translators to the five books of Moses
the name by which they were known among
the Jews being “The Law
” Torah. In the Scriptures it is called “The
Book of the Law” (2 Kings 22:8)
“The Book of the Covenant” (2 Kings 23:2;
2 Kings 23:21;
2 Chronicles 34:30)
“The Book of the Law of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 17:9;
2 Chronicles 34:14)
“The Law of Moses
” “The Book of Moses
” or “The Book of the Law of Moses” (see
2 Chronicles 25:4;
2 Chronicles 35:12;
Ezra 6:18; Ezra 7:6; Nehemiah 8:1;
Nehemiah 13:1).
The division into five books is by many thought to be also due to the LXX
interpp. The Jews
however
retain the division
calling the whole chamishah
chomeshc torah
“The five quinquernions of the Law
” though they only
distinguish the several books by names derived from a leading word in the first
verse in each. Thus Genesis they call Bereshith
i.e.
“in the
Beginning
” Exodus Shemoth
“the Names
” etc. (Speaker's Commentary.)
Israel’s Lawgiver: his
narrative true and his laws genuine
I. The man Moses.
That the Moses of the Bible is a Man and not an Idea
it is the leading object
of these pages to prove. The genuine impulse of the believing heart and the
first clear judgement of the unbiassed mind concur in rejecting with
indignation
as plainly incompatible with the Divine authority of the Holy
Scriptures
the unnatural and groundless fancy that the greater portion of the
laws and the history of Moses is a fiction in which Moses
the brother of
Aaron
had no personal part. Moses
the great Lawgiver of Israel
is in the new
criticism no longer a real man
as the Church both Hebrew and Christian has in
all ages believed him to be; but an Ideal Person made up of different men
of
whom Moses
the leader of Israel out of Egypt
is the first; and a thousand years
after his death Ezra
the leader of the second company of exiles out of
Babylon
is the greatest and nearly the last. Between these two the critics
interpolate
and after them they add
various unknown men in Jerusalem or in
Babylon; all of whom together
known and unknown
make up the ideal lawgiver
and historian whom they call Moses. Besides Moses
who is most unwarrantably
credited with having left only a few laws in writing
with others given by him
orally
and Ezra
who is quite arbitrarily accused of having written many laws
in the name of Moses
there is a third great writer of whose name the critics
make much use--the prophet Ezekiel. Him
indeed
they can by no means fashion
into their ideal figure of Moses; but they maintain the unfounded supposition
that his closing prophetic vision contains a sketch of new ceremonial laws for
Israel after the Captivity. But
if so
Ezekiel is a standing witness against
their scheme of Moses having been personated by subsequent priests or prophets
when they had new laws to introduce; for he openly announces all he has to
write
not in the name of Moses
but in his own name from the mouth of the
Lord. The critics conceive three Codes of Laws in the Mosaic Books: the first
in Exodus 21:1-36;
Exodus 22:1-31;
Exodus 23:1-33
probably given in substance by Moses; the second in Deuteronomy
written about
the time of Josiah; the third
the Levitical or Priestly Code
scattered
through Exodus
Leviticus
and Numbers
and held to have been written mainly
during the Exile.
II. The ideal
Moses of the critics. In proceeding to examine the subject we note that this
ideal Moses of the critics disowns his own ritual
that he denies their alleged
fact of the degradation of the Levites in Babylon
and that his personation of
Moses extending over a thousand years is an impossible unity.
1. Their ideal Moses in the Second Temple disowns half its ritual.
(1) The critics’ ideal Moses ordains no vocal praise
which constituted half
the ritual of the Second Temple. This part of the Temple service is
described by Kuenen in these glowing terms: “In the period of the Sopherim
(scribes) temple song and temple poetry were at their prime. The Psalms which
we still possess have been rightly called ‘the songs of the Second Temple.’
Sacrifices were killed and part of them burnt upon the altar just as formerly.
But their symbolic signification could very easily be lost sight of. On the
contrary
there was no need for anyone to guess at the meaning of the Temple
songs. The service itself had thus assumed a more spiritual character
and had
been made subservient
not merely to symbolic representation
but also to the
clear expression of ethic and religious thoughts. What a pure and fervent love
for the sanctuary pervades some of the Psalms! The Temple which could draw such
tones from the heart must in truth have afforded pure spiritual enjoyment to
the pilgrim.” Yet no place for these songs is provided in the entire Levitical
ritual
although they formed
not indeed the most essential part
yet the
second half of the sacred service. The framework of the Levitical ritual
as we
now have it
is accepted by the critics for their ideal Moses
and held by them
to be complete; having received its crowning ordinance in the solemn service of
the great Day of Atonement more than a thousand and fifty years after the
giving of the Law on Mount Sinai. For the perfect consummation of this ritual
there was every possible facility; there was ample time to frame it in one
century after another; there was no check of conscience in attributing new ordinances
to Moses
and in surrounding them with fictitious incidents in his life; and
when the ecclesiastical and civil authorities concurred in new laws or
ceremonies they could either be added in a mass like Deuteronomy
or
interpolated piece by piece as in the other Mosaic books. In the new theory
this ritual was meagre and imperfect till the time of the Second Temple; new
ordinances had been suggested and ordained by Ezekiel; these were modified and
greatly extended by the priests in Babylon
most of all by Ezra; and after him
they were still further supplemented in Jerusalem till they took the final form
in which we now possess them. Now there can be no conclusion more certain than
that
when the Levitical ritual under the name of Moses was completed
the
songs of the Levites in the Temple formed no part of that ritual. If they had
they could on no account have been omitted; they were sung by ministers in the
Temple divinely appointed to the office; at the great annual feasts they formed
a leading and a most attractive part of the festival; and at the daily
sacrifices in the Temple the Levites “stood every morning to thank and praise
the Lord
and likewise at even.” If we believe the Holy Scriptures the
Levitical ritual for the Tabernacle was absolutely completed by Moses himself;
and this magnificent service of song was by Divine command added afterwards by
David in preparation for the Temple. All this is set aside by the new critics
according to whom Ezra comes up from Babylon with more than half of the
ordinances in Exodus
Numbers
and Leviticus added by himself and inserted
under the name of Moses. But he adds no ordinance of song! He inserts in the
law the minutest ceremonial observances; he thinks it needful to prescribe how
many days the cleansed leper after entering the camp is to live outside of his
own tent
although camp and tent had both been removed a thousand years before
the ordinance was written; yet in his institutions he entirely omits one half
of the daily service in God’s Temple!
(2) The critics’ ideal Moses ordains music without song for the Sanctuary. Whilst
Ezra’s ritual is absolutely silent on the worship of God in His temple with
song or with harp
it is by no means silent on the sacred music with which
and
with which alone
the Lord was to be praised in his Tabernacle. The acceptable
praise of the Holy One in His holy place was not left to the will of man
or to
observances casually arising
but was expressly and most definitely ordained.
Not however by Moses himself
according to the critics
but either by Ezra
or
by an unknown priestly scribe of the Exile
writing in the name of Moses
the
sacrificial praise was ordained in these very definite terms (Numbers 10:1-10).
It is inconceivable that Ezra should have written such an ordinance in Babylon
and brought it up with him as the ritual to be followed in the Temple
for he
brought up Levites and singers with him to Jerusalem
and in his day there was
confessedly the full service of song in the Temple. But this severe and simple
institution expressly limits the whole sacrificial service to the priests
it
excludes the Levites from sounding the trumpets
and allows no voice of song or
sound of harp over the sacrifices. If it be pleaded that although this
ordinance was by no means appointed by the personal Moses
it may have been
written by some unknown priest before Ezra’s time
the difficulty is not
lessened; for Ezra lets it remain as his own ritual
and as such he ordains it
with authority in Israel. Nor is it any outlet to plead that Ezra and his
successors made a shift for the omission by inserting in their histories what
according to the new criticism
they knew to be false
and ascribing the
service of praise to David; for Ezra’s code comes with the superior authority
of Moses five hundred years after David
and cancels all that differs from it.
According to the new critics the sounding of the two silver trumpets by the
priests is the entire service of praise that is allowed by the Levitical
ordinances of the Second Temple! The ideal Moses of the critics therefore wants
one-half of their own idea; their idea is the ritual of the Second Temple; and
their ideal Moses severely disowns the magnificent half of the service which
morning by morning and evening by evening filled that Temple with the lofty
praises of the Lord of Hosts
whose mercy endureth forever.
2. Their Moses in Babylon denies their Babylonian origin of the
order of the Levites. The Babylonian origin of the Levitical office is one of
the main pillars on which the Levitical structure of the critics rests. If the
distinction between the priests and Levites in the Book of Numbers was made by
Moses
their theory of the Priestly Code loses one of its chief supports
or
rather falls into pieces. Ezra
who is fancifully made either to write the
ritual laws of Moses
or to be responsible for them
writes for us really with
his own pen
and clearly states that the distinction between the priests and Levites
did not originate in Babylon. But before considering the positive testimony of
Ezra on the subject
we shall briefly notice--
(1) The argument against the antiquity of the Levites. The negative
argument of the critics is that the distinction between Levites and priests
made by the Levitical law in Numbers is not elsewhere recognized before the
Exile. But the argument from subsequent silence regarding an institution that
professes to have been clearly laid down and fully recognized in the nation
is
extremely fallacious; and in this case it is maintained only by denying the
historical truth of the Books of Chronicles
which is to set aside their
inspiration
and by arbitrarily refusing the testimony to “the priests and the
Levites” in 1 Kings 8:4.
Whilst
however
the complete silence of the few prophetical books after the
Exile
when the distinction confessedly existed
is to be taken in so far
over-against the previous silence
the evidence from the last book of the Old
Testament is very remarkable. The prophet Malachi not only does not recognize
the existence of the two orders
but appears even to set it aside
and to
regard the whole tribe of Levi as sacrificing priests
at a time when
according to the critics
the distinction between priests and Levites had
existed for more than ninety years
and had been recently laid down in the code
of Ezra with the severest penalties for neglecting it. The evident explanation
is that from the days of Moses the distinction had been so universally
acknowledged that there could be no risk of mistake in designating the priests
as Levites
which they were
although the mere Levites were not priests.
(2) Ezra’s testimony to their antiquity. The affirmative evidence
of the pre-Exile distinction between the priests and the Levites is clear
and
determines both this special question
and with it one chief part of the whole
controversy. The affirmative proof adduced by the critics is in the last portion
of Ezekiel
which is neither law nor history
but a prophetic vision of a
character that cannot be taken in a literal sense
as shown by its accounts of
the division of the land and by the living waters flowing east and west from
the Temple. But if it were to be taken into account in this inquiry
all that
it could be proved to indicate is that Ezekiel appears to use the term
“Levites” for the “Priests” exactly as Malachi uses the corresponding term
“sons of Levi.” The most probable meaning of his language is that “the Levites
[i.e.
the priests
the Levites] that are gone away far from Me shall
not come near unto Me to do the office of a priest unto Me. But the priests the
Levites
the sons of Zadok
that kept the charge of My sanctuary
shall come
near to Me to minister unto Me” Ezekiel 44:10;
Ezekiel 44:13;
Ezekiel 44:15)
both the erring and the faithful having been Levite priests. The supposition of
the critics is that in this prophecy of Ezekiel the distinction of the two
orders had its origin; that as the fruit of his vision all the sons of Levi
who were not sons of Zadok
were shut out from the priesthood and degraded to
the lower rank of Levites; that this degradation may account for the small
number of Levites who were willing to leave Babylon; that it was incorporated
in the law of Moses by Ezra or some other priest in Babylon
not in its true
form of degradation
but under the false pretence of honour to the Levites; and
that it was first put into practical operation on the return of the exiles to
Jerusalem. Every thoughtful reader of the Bible ought to shudder at this
scheme
for it turns the Scriptural account of the Levites
in Numbers 8:5-26
not merely into a fiction
but into a base falsehood
invented to transform
their merited disgrace in Babylon into a high honour conferred on them by Moses
a thousand years before; and it makes the history in the sixteenth chapter
of
the awful destruction of Korah and his two hundred and fifty men by the direct
judgment of God
to be a mere fable devised in Babylon to exalt the priesthood.
Now Ezra in his own person states that the distinction between priests and
Levites existed four hundred years before the captivity
not that it originated
then
but was then in existence. In the narrative of the founding of the Temple
in Ezra 3:10
there is the clear testimony that “they set the priests in their apparel with
trumpets
and the Levites
the sons of Asaph
with cymbals
to praise the Lord
after the ordinance of David
king of Israel.” Quite apart from any theory of
our own
we accept equally all the Scriptures
but because these words are not
written in the first person many of the critics will not allow them to have
been written by Ezra; and against all reason they deny the authority of the
words that are against their own theories
while they magnify every word that
can be turned in their favour. We therefore pass on to refer to chap. 8:15-20
which some of them hold to be given to us in Ezra’s own words. If the vision of
Ezekiel in Babylon ordained for the first time the distinction of the Levites
from the priests
Ezra the scribe could not but be well acquainted with that
recorded ordinance; if the first practical operation of the new law was in the
first exodus from Babylon
Ezra the priest must have known exiles in Babylon
both priests and Levites
who witnessed that exodus; and if the slowness of the
Levites to go up to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and with Ezra was caused by their
official degradation
the fact must have been very familiar to Ezra. Now in
Ezra the Levites are named twenty times
and always in distinction from the
priests; in the following narrative Ezra expressly distinguishes between the
two orders; and he states plainly that David and his princes appointed the
Nethinim as servants to the Levites. That under the name of Levites
Ezra does
not include the priests
but designates those whom he had just called “sons of
Levi” (verse 15)
is clear from the whole connection; in verses 29 and 30 he
speaks again of “the priests and the Levites”; and in Genesis 7:3; Genesis 7:24
we read of “the priests and the Levites and the Nethinims.” Ezra
who most of
all represents the ideal Moses of the critics
thus plainly denies the
degradation of the Levites in Babylon
which is the main prop of all the alleged
Priestly Code.
3. Their ideal Moses of a thousand years is an impossible unity.
Receiving the sacred books in their natural sense
we have from the second
chapter of Exodus to the last chapter of Deuteronomy
including Leviticus and
Numbers
the space of forty years with the history of Israel and the laws given
by Moses during that period. It would not invalidate the argument to allow
as
many hold
that certain brief parenthetic explanations may have been added
as
by Ezra; but there is no need for such an allowance
and the simple position is
the best
that every line in these books from Ex
2:11 to Deuteronomy 33:29
is such as may have been written by Moses himself. In some parts another may
have written what Moses spoke
but all may naturally have been written by him.
Of Genesis also and the beginning of Exodus we fully believe him to be the
author
but in them he does not write from personal acquaintance with the
facts. On the other hand
the position taken by recent critics is that Moses
was or may have been the writer of the greatest of these laws
as well as of
institutions put into writing at a later period
that in the ages between Moses
and Manasseh other laws may have had their origin
that about the time of
Josiah Deuteronomy was written
that during the captivity in Babylon a new code
filling a large part of Exodus and of Numbers
and nearly the whole of
Leviticus
was written
chiefly by Ezra
and supplemented by other writers
after his death. The critics who take this view hold at the same time that the
scriptural writers constantly depict past events with a colouring of their own
time
which would inevitably lead them into obvious and numerous mistakes both
in time and place
in the fictitious productions of a thousand years. It is
incredible and impossible that writers in the wilderness
in Jerusalem
in
Babylon
and in Jerusalem again
should have pieced together a great body of
laws and ordinances
each man inventing and interpolating according to his own
mind; that they should all have agreed to sink their own names and to personate
Moses in the wilderness where none of them but himself had ever been; and that
none of them
prophet
priest
or scribe
after one or five
or seven or ten
centuries
should have written what was incongruous to Moses
in time
or
place
or language
or circumstance
or character. The unity of the acts and
writings of a living man through a period of forty years confirms his identity;
the unity of an ideal man through an alleged millennium of time
as if through
a single life
proves that the allegation is untrue
because such a unity is
impossible.
III. The author of
the Mosaic books the same throughout. The historical Moses of the Bible
the
author of the four specially Mosaic books
is thoroughly consistent in all his
writings; he is the same man in them all; in all his words
in all his recorded
events
in all his ordinances
in all his laws
and in all his character. He
employs no words which Moses
the brother of Aaron
could not have used
narrates no event he could not have known
frames no ordinance he could not
have prescribed
writes no law he could not have issued
and assumes no
character in which he could not have acted.
1. There are no words in these books that could not have been used
by Moses. There are expressions in the books of Moses that are never used
afterwards; of which one of the most remarkable is in the frequent description
of the end of life
first applied to Abraham
that he was “gathered unto his
people
” and occurring in Genesis
Numbers
and Deuteronomy
but in no later
books. There are also expressions common in the other books of the Bible
which
never occur in the books of Moses; such as the title “The Lord of Hosts
” which
is so frequent afterwards
but is never used by Moses. While these books of
Moses have thus their own peculiarities
there is no word or phrase found in
them which Moses himself could not have used. A very sufficient proof of this
statement is presented in the following passage
in which the phrases or words
that are adduced must be regarded as the most decided instances that can be
found of alleged terms which Moses could not have employed: “There has been a
great controversy about Deuteronomy 1:1
and other similar passages
where the land east of the Jordan is said to be
across Jordan
proving that the writer lived in Western Palestine. That this is
the natural sense of the Hebrew word no one can doubt
but we have elaborate
arguments that Hebrew was such an elastic language that the phrase can equally
mean ‘on this side Jordan’ as the English version has it. The point is really
of no consequence
for there are other phrases which prove quite unambiguously
that the Pentateuch was written in Canaan. In Hebrew the common phrase for
‘westward’ is ‘seaward
’ and for ‘southward’ ‘towards the Negeb.’ The word
Negeb
which primarily means ‘parched land
’ is in Hebrew the proper name of
the dry steppe district in the south of Judah. These expressions for west and
south could only be formed in Palestine. Yet they are used in the Pentateuch
not only in the narrative but in the Levitical description of the tabernacle in
the wilderness (Exodus 27:1-21).
But at Mount Sinai the sea did not lie to the west
and the Negeb was to the
north. Moses could no more call the south side the Negeb side of the tabernacle
than a Glasgow man could say that the sun set over Edinburgh. The answer
attempted to this is that the Hebrews might have adopted these phrases in
patriarchal times
and never given them up in the ensuing four hundred and
thirty years; but that is nonsense. When a man says ‘towards the sea
’ he means
it. The Egyptian Arabs say seaward for northward
and so the Israelites must
have done when they were in Egypt. To an Arab in Western Arabia
on the
contrary
seaward means towards the Red Sea.”--(The Old Testament in the
Jewish Church
p. 323). The objection to the employment by Moses of the
phrase in Deuteronomy 1:1
translated “this side of Jordan
” is not here pressed: and for its use by him
we must refer to our previous examination of the objection (Our Old Bible:
Moses on the plains of Moab
p. 18). The literal translation “on the other
side of Jordan” is certainly the best
if it is clearly understood that Moses
means by these words the same eastern bank of the river on which he now stands.
Of men before or since
“the man Moses” was the one to whom most of all that
final stand on the plains of Moab was “the other side of Jordan
” from the
earnestly coveted land of rest for the “wandering foot” of the tribes of
Israel. But the author leaves this point as of no consequence
and takes up the
expressions used for the South and the West in Exodus 27:1-21
and elsewhere
not only in the narrative
but in the description of the
Tabernacle
which he holds to prove beyond all question that the Pentateuch was
written in Canaan. If these strong assertions were true
they would take a
chief place in the whole argument of the book. Let us look first at the more
general arguments on the two phrases
and then at the special arguments on
each.
2. The general argument on the South and the West. “In
Hebrew
” Professor Smith says
“the common phrase for ‘westward’ is ‘seaward
’
and for ‘southward’ ‘towards the Negeb
’” and because these designations
as he
holds
could only have been formed in Palestine originally
he repudiates the
idea that they could have been used by Moses for the description of the
Tabernacle in the wilderness; thus disproving
as he believes
the historical
authenticity of the account given to us in Exodus. That the common Hebrew word
for the west originally meant the sea is allowed by all
though not that the
term for the south was derived from the Desert of Judah; but words often lose
their original meaning in all languages
and it seems probable that in the days
of Abraham these terms were used for the west and the south in general without
any definite reference. In the promise of the land in Genesis 13:14
Abraham is asked first to look northward in a Hebrew term that is entirely and
confessedly general; and when he is asked next to look southward
it is
probable that this term is taken like the corresponding one in a merely general
sense. Then he looks eastward
for which again the Hebrew term is absolutely
general
rendering it in like manner probable that the corresponding westward
is also general. As regards the alleged foolishness of supposing that Moses in
the wilderness used the terms for the south and the west which the patriarchs
had employed in Canaan
in must be remembered how distinct Israel must have
been kept from the Egyptians although dwelling amongst them
how ardently they
clung to the promised land and all its associations
and how Egypt was for them
only a place of temporary exile. Canaan was to Israel the land alike of the
past and of the future; there they had already buried their father Jacob
who
had bound them by oath not to leave his body in Egypt; and they kept the bones
of Joseph to carry up with them in their exodus. There is no reason to think
that in coming out of Egypt
“where they heard a language that they understood
not
” they spoke a different Hebrew from that of their fathers in Canaan; and
as already noted
words once embodied in a language often retain their meaning
without reference to their origin. For Moses himself Canaan was the promised
land to which he was to lead his people Israel; the north
south
east
and
west in the promise that constituted Israel’s claim to the land were written on
his memory and in his heart as with a pen of iron and the point of a diamond;
and when he was recording the history of Israel
wherever he stood
there could
be nothing so natural to him as to retain those hallowed terms
alike on
account of the past and of the future
unaffected by Israel’s passing exile
from the land of their fathers.
(2) The argument from the South. As regards the South
before it can be said that “at Mount Sinai the Negeb was to the north
” it must
first be proved that the Negeb derived its name from the dry steppe of Judah
and next that it always retained this purely local meaning
and was not used to
signify the south in general. Gesenius
taking parchedness for the origin of
the word
makes first of all its general meaning to be the south
of which he
gives several examples
as in Exodus 27:1-21
and Psalms 126:1-6.
Afterwards he gives two specific meanings
of which the first is the southern
district of Palestine and the second is Egypt
both of which he takes merely as
special applications of the more general term for the south. Furst
in his
Hebrew Concordance and in his Lexicon
agrees with Gesenius in giving the south
as the meaning of the Negeb
in deriving it from parchedness
and in
recognizing the Negeb of Judah as a name originating in the general term for
the south. That critics should hold their different opinions on the origin of
one of the Hebrew words for the south is of slight importance; but the argument
takes a graver form when it is held out merely that the Negeb was originally the
Desert of Judah
but that it retained this restricted meaning exclusively
and
did not come to signify the south in general. The author’s affirmation on this
point is so decided as to call for a detailed proof of the error. In the nature
of the case many or most instances of the occurrence of the term Negeb
determine nothing on its more special use
as in the designation of the
southern aspect of the temple (1 Kings 7:25)
which will be held to refer to the south of Judah
although the only natural
reference is to the south in general. But a testing example occurs in Ezekiel 20:46-49;
Ezekiel 21:1-5
where the prophet living in Chaldea
north of Palestine
prophesies against
“Jerusalem
the holy places
and the land of Israel
” under the designation of
the south in three different Hebrew terms. One of these terms
and the only
repeated one
is the Negeb; but here it cannot possibly mean the Southern
steppe
for this would lower a great and leading prophecy against Jerusalem and
the whole land to a mere denunciation of the wilderness of Judah. In like
manner in the Book of Daniel the Negeb is used twice in the eighth chapter for
the south in general quite apart from Palestine (Daniel 8:4; Daniel 8:9);
and ten times in the eleventh chapter for the land of Egypt (Daniel 11:5-40).
It is
then
most certain that the critic is in error; and that the Hebrew word
used by Moses for the south side of the Tabernacle is a general designation of
the south
and would be used at Mount Sinai as freely and as correctly as in
Palestine.
(3) The argument from the West. If Professor Robertson
Smith’s opinion on the origin of the term for the south were correct
there
would be little occasion left for discussion concerning the west
for if the
dry steppe of Southern Judah gave its Hebrew name to the south in general
still more readily might the name of the Mediterranean Sea become a general
designation for the west. There is conclusive proof that when a Hebrew said
“towards the sea
” he might simply mean the west and not the sea. Professor
Smith writes that “the Egyptian Arabs say seaward for northward
and so the
Israelites must have done when they were in Egypt.” But the author of the book
of Exodus
writing either in Egypt or of it
and with an intimate knowledge of
the country
speaks of a strong “sea wind” Exodus 10:19)
carrying the locusts into the Red Sea. According to this view
it must have
been a “north wind
” as in the present speech of the Egyptian Arabs; but a
north wind would not have carried the locusts into the Red Sea. The Vulgate
our English Bible
Gesenius
Furst
Keil
and Delitzsch render it a west wind.
There are good critics who hold that it may be taken more widely for a sea
wind
in the sense of a wind from the northwest; but we are not aware that any have
rendered it a north wind.
The evidence is not for
but against the supposition that Israel
in Egypt called the north wind a sea wind; for it seems probable that it is the
west wind that is here spoken of under the old Hebrew term for the sea without
any reference to the origin of the word. But there are other passages where the
term has clearly no reference to the sea
that is
the Mediterranean or Great
Sea
but simply means the West; and in that sense it might be equally used in
Palestine or anywhere else. In Canaan it is so used in Joshua 15:12
“and the west border was to the great sea
and the coast thereof.” If Professor
Smith’s contention were right
these words would signify
“and the (great) sea
border was to the great sea”; but
although he maintains that when a man says
“towards the sea
he means it
” it is evident
on the contrary
that the writer
does not at all refer to the sea
but simply to the west. In like manner before
entering Canaan
in Numbers 34:6
Moses is commanded to say to Israel
“As for the western border
ye shall even
have the great sea for a border; this shall be your west border.” But according
to the view before us the verse must bear this impossible meaning
“As for the
(great) sea border
ye shall even have the great sea for a border; this shall
be your (great) sea border.” Ezekiel in the same way uses the term for the west
as distinguished from the sea: “The west side also shall be the great sea”
(chap. 47:20). That the word is constantly used for the west is allowed by all
but Professor Smith maintains that it could be so used only as meaning the
Mediterranean Sea. But in these three passages it is used not only with no
reference to the Mediterranean
but with a most definite and express
distinction of the term from that which is used for that sea. It is
therefore
exactly equivalent to our English term west; and there can be no reason why
Moses should not have used it in describing the tabernacle in the wilderness of
Sinai.
3. These books narrate no facts which Moses could not have recorded.
The most conspicuous example of a supposed error in date is presented by the
old and oft repeated objection to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy from the
statements in Deuteronomy 2:12
that “the children of Israel succeeded them (the Horims)
when they had
destroyed them from before them
and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto
the land of his possession
which the Lord gave unto them;” and again in chap.
4:38
“to drive out nations from before thee
greater and mightier than thou
art
to bring thee in
to give thee their land for an inheritance
as it is
this day.” These statements
however
instead of being objections
serve as
proofs of the Mosaic authorship of the book
because so skilful an imitator of
Moses
as the Deuteronomist is allowed by our opponents to have been
would
have avoided the use of expressions that might lead to searching questions. In
Moses himself there was no occasion to avoid them
because his own
previous narrative had amply explained them. The supposed reference in these
passages to “the conquest of Canaan” is an entire mistake; there is in them no
mention of the conquest of central Canaan
and there is no allusion to it. In
the second and third chapters there is a full rehearsal by Moses of the
conquest by Israel of the kingdoms of Sihon
king of Heshbon
and of Og
king
of Bashan
“nations greater and mightier” than Israel; and the reference is to
the “possession” and “inheritance” of their lands “as it is this day.” There is
no ground whatever for the plea of a later date which the critics have founded
on these expressions
as if they referred to the central land of Canaan. Again
in Deuteronomy 4:38
“To drive out nations before thee greater and mightier than thou art
to bring
thee in
to give their land for an inheritance
as it is this day
” there is
likewise no difficulty
for the verse describes exactly the historical
situation of Israel in the closing days of Moses.
4. These books contain no religious ordinance that Moses could not
have instituted. The work of Ezra in Jerusalem is held by the critics to
constitute an epoch in the history of Israel
not in the true sense of moving
his people to keep the original law of Moses
but of inducing them to accept a
new ritual under the old authority of his name. But the whole proof of the new
keeping of ritual Egyptian Arabs say seaward for northward
and so the
Israelites must have done when they were in Egypt. But the author of the book
of Exodus
writing either in Egypt or of it
and with an intimate knowledge of
the country
speaks of a strong “sea wind” (Exodus 10:19)
carrying the locusts into the Red Sea. According to this view
it must have
been a “north wind
” as in the present speech of the Egyptian Arabs; but a
north wind would not have carried the locusts into the Bed Sea. The Vulgate
our English Bible
Gesenius
Furst
Keil
and Delitzsch render it a west wind.
There are good critics who hold that it may be taken more widely for a sea
wind
in the sense of a wind from the northwest; but we are not aware that any
have rendered it a north wind. The evidence is not for
but against the
supposition that Israel in Egypt called the north wind a sea wind; for it seems
probable that it is the west wind that is here spoken of under the old Hebrew
term for the sea without any reference to the origin of the word. But there are
other passages where the term has clearly no reference to the sea
that is
the
Mediterranean or Great Sea
but simply means the West; and in that sense it
might be equally used in Palestine or anywhere else. In Canaan it is so used in
Joshua 15:12
“and the west border was to the great sea
and the coast thereof.” If Professor
Smith’s contention were right
these words would signify
“and the (great) sea
border was to the great sea”; but
although he maintains that when a man says
“towards the sea
he means it
” it is evident
on the contrary
that the writer
does not at all refer to the sea
but simply to the west. In like manner before
entering Canaan
in Numbers 34:6
Moses is commanded to say to Israel
“As for the western border
ye shall even
have the great sea for a border; this shall be your west border.” But according
to the view before us the verse must bear this impossible meaning
“As for the
(great) sea border
ye shall even have the great sea for a border; this shall
be your (great) sea border.” Ezekiel in the same way uses the term for the west
as distinguished from the sea: “The west side also shall be the great sea” (Ezekiel 47:20).
That the word is constantly used for the west is allowed by all
but Professor
Smith maintains that it could be so used only as meaning the Mediterranean Sea.
But in these three passages it is used not only with no reference to the
Mediterranean
but with a most definite and express distinction of the term
from that which is used for that sea. It is
therefore
exactly equivalent to
our English term west; and there can be no reason why Moses should not have
used it in describing the tabernacle in the wilderness of Sinai.
5. These books narrate no facts which Moses could not have recorded.
The most conspicuous example of a supposed error in date is presented by the
old and oft repeated objection to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy from the
statements in Deuteronomy 2:12
that “the children of Israel succeeded them (the Horims)
when they had
destroyed them from before them
and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto
the land of his possession
which the Lord gave unto them;” and again in Deuteronomy 4:38
“to drive out nations from before thee
greater and mightier than thou art
to
bring thee in
to give thee their land for an inheritance
as it is this day.”
These statements
however
instead of being objections
serve as proofs of the
Mosaic authorship of the book
because so skilful an imitator of Moses
as the
Deuteronomist is allowed by our opponents to have been
would have avoided the
use of expressions that might lead to searching questions. In Moses himself
there was no occasion to avoid them
because his own previous narrative had
amply explained them. The supposed reference in these passages to “the conquest
of Canaan” is an entire mistake; there is in them no mention of the conquest of
central Canaan
and there is no allusion to it. In the second and third
chapters there is a full rehearsal by Moses of the conquest by Israel of the
kingdoms of Sihon
king of Heshbon
and of Og
king of Bashan
“nations greater
and mightier” than Israel; and the reference is to the “possession” and
“inheritance” of their lands “as it is this day.” There is no ground whatever
for the plea of a later date which the critics have founded on these
expressions
as if they referred to the central land of Canaan. Again
in Deuteronomy 4:38
“To drive out nations before thee greater and mightier than thou art
to bring
thee in
to give their land for an inheritance
as it is this day
” there is
likewise no difficulty
for the verse describes exactly the historical
situation of Israel in the closing days of Moses.
6. These books contain no religious ordinance that Moses could not
have instituted. The work of Ezra in Jerusalem is held by the critics to
constitute an epoch in the history of Israel
not in the true sense of moving
his people to keep the original law of Moses
but of inducing them to accept a
new ritual under the old authority of his name. But the whole proof of the new
keeping of ritual institutions at this great historical epoch consists in
Israel erecting green booths for the Feast of Tabernacles on the roofs of their
houses
and in their courts
and in the courts of the Temple
and in the
streets of the water gate and of the gate of Ephraim; and this is expressly
stated to have been only the revival of an old ordinance of the personal Moses
the predecessor of Joshua. This is all that can be proved to constitute the new
epoch under Ezra. In the reading of the Law and the observance of its
ordinances the marked noting of this solitary instance of neglect clearly
warrants the inference
that the people were not aware of a similar neglect in
the range of other ceremonial institutions
but that they knew them to have
been kept by the nation
at least under their better kings. But against all
reason the contrary conclusion is drawn
that this exceptional instance is
given as an example of a universal neglect of the ceremonial law. In other
respects
however
this particular record is of primary importance; but before
examining it we shall look at the notices of other ordinances in the post-Exile
Scriptures.
According to the law of Moses
or according to any supposed
traditional law of which there is any trace in the Scriptures
he could not
have been sentenced to this punishment for theft or for any other crime
whatever save the one of putting out his brother’s eye or his brother’s tooth.
Therefore the law of retaliation is of necessity recognized in the Deuteronomic
Code as in full force
and is made the express basis of extending the same
penalties to the crime of perjury. If the law had become obsolete or been limited
to the case of false witness
the enactment as against perjury was a dead
letter; for the perjured man would not have forfeited his own eye or his own
tooth
if the man whom he accused was not liable to forfeit his for the imputed
crime of putting out his neighbour’s eye or his neighbour’s tooth.
(5) These books contain no circumstances or character in which Moses
could not have acted. The oldest are likewise the newest objections that have
been taken to the manner of writing in these books; it has been and is alleged
to be unnatural that an author should write his own history in the third
person. That the writer of a nation’s history
with which his own is
inseparably bound up
should speak of himself in the third person need not seem
artificial to us; and the usage was well enough known in ancient times
although it may seldom occur
for the obvious reason that historians for the
most part narrate the acts of others and not their own. The familiar and very
important example of Caesar’s “Commentaries” is acknowledged as an instance of
a narrative in which the narrator so speaks of himself; but exception may be
taken to the lateness of the date
and to the circumstance that the writer is
not a Hebrew. This is not
however
the earliest date of such a mode of
writing
and it was used by the Greek and by the Jew
as well as by the Roman.
Three hundred and fifty years before Caesar
Xenophon in his “Expedition of
Cyrus” constantly speaks of himself as Xenophon
just as Moses speaks of
himself; and also
like Moses
he narrates his own words in the first person.
Proof
however
is asked
“that any Hebrew ever wrote of himself in the third
person.” Our blessed Lord so speaks of Himself in John 3:13-18
and elsewhere; so does the disciple whom Jesus loved: and so also Ezra (Ezra 9:1; Ezra 9:5; Ezra 10:1; Ezra 10:5; Ezra 10:10
and in 7:6
11
27
28; 8:1). In later times
Josephus in his history of the
Jewish war constantly writes of himself in the third person
and gives his own
words in the first
using this form of writing quite as much as Moses did. The
following is a single instance out of many
and in it this author
so
familiarly known
furnishes a very definite reply to the demand for a Hebrew
writing in this manner: “Upon this
Josephus declared
to them what Caesar had
given him in charge
and this in the Hebrew language
But the tyrant cast
reproaches upon Josephus. In answer which Josephus said--‘Take notice that I
who make this exhortation to thee; I who am a Jew
do make this promise to
thee’” (Antiquities of the Jews
Book 6
Chap. 2)
. The old objection against Moses writing of himself as “very meek above all
the men that were upon the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3)
which Thomas Paine says is to “render him truly ridiculous and absurd
” rests
on not taking into account the circumstances of the case together with the
peculiarly high calling of Moses
who faithfully narrates for all generations
the Lord’s dealings with himself and with Israel
and records his own faults
and theirs. When a man’s character and motives are assailed
as with Job
David
and Paul
he is justified in vindicating himself; and Moses speaks of
himself as the meekest of men
in reference to the accusation by Aaron and
Miriam that he had usurped authority which belonged equally to them. This
meekness was contrary to his own natural character; was acquired through Divine
training in a retirement of forty years; and had so thoroughly imbued him
that
he insisted with the Lord to choose any man except himself for Israel’s
deliverance out of Egypt
on which his heart was so intently set. The record of
this meekness serves the threefold end of explaining the unjustifiableness of
the attack against him
his own singular silence under it
and the Lord’s
remarkable interposition on his behalf; whilst the accompanying record of the
words of the great God as distinguishing Moses from all other prophets by
speaking to him “mouth to mouth
” is in reality much more exalting to him than
the testimony of his being the humblest among sinful men.
IV. THE CHURCH IN
ALL AGES ACCEPTED ONLY THROUGH ATONING SACRIFICE. If the Levitical ritual were
accepted as instituted by Moses at Mount Sinai
there would be no question of
the Divine appointment of sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin under that
dispensation; but the refusal of the ceremonial law to Moses is accompanied by
the denial of pardon through sacrifice
either under Moses or in the previous
history of the Church from the beginning of the world. “The law was given by
Ezra” is the new interpretation or rather contradiction of the old Divine
words
“the law was given by Moses.” Let us
therefore
look first at the
earlier history before the prophets
and then at the position taken by the
prophets.
1. The character of sacrifice before the time of the prophets.
2. The teaching of the prophets regarding sacrifice.
1. Like Jeremiah he bids Israel in the Lord’s name to cease from
offering sacrifices to Him if they will not cease from sacrificing to idols
(chap. 23:39
20:39).
2. Like Jeremiah he proclaims the great acceptableness to the Lord
of sacrificial offerings from an obedient and single-hearted people (chap.
20:40).
3. Like the other prophets he does not definitely express the
connection of pardon with sacrifice
although the pardon of sin is at the very
foundation of the promised acceptance of their sacrifices. But
on the one
hand
pardon is promised to the penitent sinner (chap. 33:14
16); and on the
other hand the cleansing and the forgiveness of sin are represented as coming
not by the blood of slain beasts
but through an atonement provided directly by
God Himself and reaching the inmost conscience (chap. 37:25-26).
4. This promise of inward cleansing by sprinkling with clean water
clearly proves that the Levitical law was not introduced by Ezra
but was well
known both to Ezekiel and to the exiles for whom he wrote
to whom otherwise
the expression would have been unintelligible. It plainly refers either to the
command given to Moses for the Levites in Numbers 8:7.
The spiritual promise of the prospect as clearly refers to a ritual ordinance
taken in its spiritual sense as David’s prayer
“Purge me with hyssop and I
shall be clean
” which the critics so unwarrantably deny to David
who in their
account could not have known a law that was introduced by Ezra. In Ezekiel the
sprinkling with the cleansing water of the old Levitical rite is taken in a
spiritual sense
and plainly overturns the theory of the new critics. If it be
said that Ezekiel’s promise might have reference to Ezra’s future ritual
this
is plainly to reverse the Divine order and to put the spirit first and the
letter afterwards. But even so the argument fails
because according to the
critics Ezekiel sketched his own new code of ritual laws in considerable
detail
and if the “sprinkling with clean water” had not referred to the
ancient rites of Moses but to his own future code he could not have failed to
introduce it in his alleged ritual. But in his great vision there are abundant
spiritual waters flowing from the threshold of the sanctuary to give life and
beauty
but no ceremonial sprinkling of water on the unclean. The certain
inference is that the prophet
who was himself a priest
refers to the Levitical
ordinances given by Moses at Mount Sinai; and that this reference quite sets
aside the most uncritical conjecture of these ordinances having originated in
Babylon.
4. By the prophets
as by the Psalms
it is always to be borne in
mind that the Lord was preparing Israel for the Great Sacrifice by which all
the Levitical sacrifices were to be abolished
and of which they were all only
types and shadows. This great element in the prophetic writings serves to
explain any more difficult expressions
taken in connection with the bold
abruptness of the prophetic style. In answer to inquiring Israel
Micah says
concisely
“The Lord hath showed thee
O man
what is good; and what cloth the
Lord require of thee
but to do justly
and to love mercy
and to walk humbly
with thy God?” The prophet does not say that no more than these is required
but that no more is required “of thee
” because the Lord Himself had “shown man
what was good.” Now what is “the good” which the Lord had shown to Israel? not
doing justice
loving mercy
and walking humbly
which the Lord requires of
men; but the good which God Himself provides and reveals
and which had been so
brought out to Israel by Micah’s older contemporary
the great national
prophet
Isaiah (Isaiah 55:1-3).
This good is in the sure mercies of David
given as “a witness and leader to
the people
” the same as “the Servant whom the Lord upheld
” whom “it pleased
the Lord to bruise
” on whom “the Lord laid the iniquity of us all
” whose soul
He “made an offering for sin
” and through whose coming sacrifice the prophet
proclaimed
“Comfort ye my people
cry unto Jerusalem that her iniquity is
pardoned
for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” If
this suggested connection between the words of Micah and of Isaiah seem too
remote
there is no doubt of the meaning of Isaiah’s own words. While he
declares that “Lebanon is not sufficient to burn
nor the beasts thereof for a
burnt offering
” he proclaims a free pardon to Israel
because on His Righteous
Servant “the Lord hath laid the iniquities of us all
and made His soul an
offering for sin.” (A. Moody Stuart
D. D.)
History of the
Pentateuchal
Composition Controversy
Philo and Josephus both held that Moses actually penned the last
eight verses of the Pentateuch. The former was of opinion that Moses
as
prophet
could narrate his final earthly fate; the latter judged that Moses
told of his death and burial out of humility
in order to prevent his own
apotheosis. If the Mosaic origin of a part of the Pentateuch could be defended
only by such artificial assumptions
can we wonder that
after the time of
Philo and Josephus
the number of those constantly increased who doubted more
and more the Mosaic origin of the entire Pentateuch? Of course
the part of the
Pentateuch which was at first denied to Moses was small. So among the Jews the
editors of the Babylonian Gemara (Baba Bathra
fol. 14
15) ascribed
only eight verses of the book of the law to Joshua Deuteronomy 34:5-12).
“For they ask
” says the Talmud at this place
“if Moses while alive could have
written
‘And Moses died there’? Did not Moses write only as far as this verse
and Joshua add the following eight verses? “Outside of Jewry also it was the
account of Moses’ death which gave occasion in the first instance for doubting
the Mosaic composition of the entire Pentateuch. According to a passage contained
in the third of the Clementine Homilies
written about 160 A.D.
Moses intended
to hand down the primal religion by word of mouth only
and entrusted the law
to seventy wise men; but after his death
contrary to his own intention
the
law was committed to writing. From the account of Moses’ death Deuteronomy 34:5)
however
it is clear that this transcription of the law
the Pentateuch
did
not come from him. Later
moreover
the Pentateuch was repeatedly destroyed
and then enlarged by additions which were made to it
again written down.
Celsus also
as is reported by Origen (4
42) in the eight books which he wrote
against him
held that the Pentateuch did “not come from Moses
but from
several uncertain persons.” There lurks something also of criticism of the
absolute Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch in the words with which the learned
Jerome addressed Helvidius: “Whether thou callest Moses the author of the
Pentateuch
or Ezra the restorer of this work
I do not object.” These words
contain an echo of the notice (Ezra 7:11; Ezra 7:14)
that Ezra came in order to teach in Israel statutes and judgments according to
the law of God which was in his hand. At a later date
in the mediaeval
centuries
as in regard to many other things
so also in regard to the origin
of the Pentateuch
the sparks of historical discernment
which had blazed up
earlier
were almost entirely extinguished. But as it was generally the chief
purpose and achievement of the reformers to dig through the strata of
ecclesiastical tradition to the primary sources of Christianity
so the friends
of the Reformation waked to a new and vigorous life the knowledge which had
existed in earlier centuries regarding the origin of the Pentateuch. In 1520
Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt
at whose hands Luther had received the oath in
1512 when he became doctor of the Holy Scriptures
declared
in his “Treatise
on the Canonical Scriptures”: “It is certain that Moses gave the people the
God-delivered law; but to whom the wording of the five books and the thread of
the representation belong
--as to that there may be doubt” (§ 81). And farther:
“The proposition can be defended that Moses was not the composer of the five
books
because after his death we still find the self-same thread of
representation” (§ 85). Perhaps
however
someone may forget that the
evangelical Church owes its origin to the striving after historical truth
and
affirm that Carlstadt was a radical spirit. But Luther also
in his lectures on
Genesis (delivered 1536-1545; Opera Latina
Erlangen edition
vol. 9
p.
29 et seq.)
commenting upon Genesis 36:31
says: “The question arises whether these kings lived before or after Moses. If
they lived after Moses
then he himself could not have written this
but an
addition has been made by another; such as is also the last section of
Deuteronomy. For he did not say of himself: ‘There hath not arisen another
since Moses with whom God spake face to face.’ The same is true again of what
is there narrated concerning” the grave of Moses
etc.
unless
one should say
that he foresaw and prophesied this with the help of the prophetical sprat.
There is another fact also from which it can be perceived that doubts regarding
the absolute Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch were called forth by the plain
finger marks which existed; namely
that in the sixteenth century several
scholars of the Roman Catholic Church
although in general friends of that
which had been handed down
shook violently the tradition regarding the origin
of the Pentateuch. For example
Andreas Masius wrote
in the preface to his
commentary on the book of Joshua
which was printed in Antwerp in 1574 (p. 2):
“Easily refuted
yes
even invented
is the opinion of the ancientJews
which
they have left behind in their Talmud
regarding the authors of their holy
books. I at least am of the opinion that Ezra
either alone or together with
cotemporaries who possessed distinguished piety and scholarship
illuminated (afflatum)
by the heavenly Spirit
compiled (compilasse) not only this book of
Joshua
but also that of the Judges
that of the Kings
and other books of the
Holy Bible
from various records which had been preserved by the congregation
of God. Good arguments can even be adduced to show that the work of Moses
which is called Pentateuch
was pieced and elucidated long after Moses’ time at
least by the interpolation of words and sentences. To mention
for example
only one argument
Cariath-arbe [Kiriath-arba] is there often named Hebron
and
yet weighty authorities have reported that this name was given to that city by
Hebron
the son of Caleb.” The heaping up of proofs tending to show that Moses
was not the real author of the Pentateuch
has had
in general
the following
course:--
1. As far as the argument from matter is concerned
the so-called
post-Mosaica were at first presented in a more and more complete form; that is
all those statements of the Pentateuch which
according to a natural
interpretation
could not have been made until after the time of Moses: “And
the Canaanites were then in the land” (Genesis 12:6);
Bethel Genesis 12:8;
Genesis 13:3;
comp. Joshua 18:13;
Judges 1:23);
Hebron Genesis 13:18;
comp. Joshua 14:15;
Joshua 15:13;
Judges 1:10);Daniel
(Genesis 14:14;
Deuteronomy 34:1;
comp. Jos Judges 18:29);
mention of the kingdom (Genesis 36:31);
land of the Hebrews (Genesis 40:15;
for a difference
see Ex Leviticus 18:25;
Leviticus 18:28;
Numbers 15:32);
the villages of Jair Deuteronomy 3:14;
Joshua 13:30;
Judges 10:3 et
seq.); the law for the king (Deuteronomy 17:14-20)
etc. Then
after the appearance of the first edition of Eichhorn’s
“Introduction to the Old Testament” (1780-1783)
the material differences
between the three middle books of the Pentateuch on the one side and
Deuteronomy on the other
were more and more clearly recognized (by Vater
De
Wette
Riehm
and Kleinert). In distinction from Exodus 20:24-26
Deuteronomy demands most strongly unity in the place of worship (chap. 12.)
and over against Leviticus 10:3;
Numbers 18:4;
Numbers 18:7
Deuteronomy accords to all members of the tribe of Levi the same right to
exercise the priestly office Deuteronomy 18:1-7).
In spite of this
the five scholars named
as well as many others
decided that
all the books of the Pentateuch agree
at least in their religious and ethical
principles
and therefore they concluded that the kernel of the Pentateuch can
be
and actually is
the work of Moses. But finally a new succession of
scholars believed themselves to have made the discovery that even the religious
and ethical principles of the Pentateuch differ from those which
according to
their view
actually prevailed in the earliest ages of Israel. These latter
principles they have constructed out of those circumstances which
according to
the judgment of the Old Testament writers
and especially of the prophets
were
rather violations of the legitimate religion of Israel. This construction was
supported also by the assumption that Israel’s religion is only one phase of
the general evolution of all religions.
2. The stylistic peculiarities of the individual parts of the
Pentateuch were found in the following manner. To begin with
even in the earliest
times it had been observed that the words for “God” (Eloheem)
and “the Lord” (Jahve) alternate in a remarkable manner in the opening
chapters of Genesis (Tertullian adv. Hermogenem
Cap. 3
and Augustine
De
Genesi ad literam 8:11) . But
inasmuch as this interchange can also be
regarded as a material difference
it is not amazing that Spinoza referred to
no predecessor when he remarked (1670) that the words of different parts of the
Pentateuch are different
that the order of arrangement is careless
and that
tautologies exist. Eight years later
Richard Simon pointed out that
from the
divergent writing of many proper names
from repetitions
from the fragmentary
order
and from the varieties of style
it must be concluded that the
Pentateuch did not receive its present form from Moses. It was
however
Eichhorn who later gave (1780) to a chapter of his introduction the title “The
Proof from Style” (Der Beweis aus der Sprache). Ilgen
who was
the first (1798) to apply the names “Elohist” and “Jehovist
” was also the
first to find that
of these two writers
one alone always uses certain
expressions. But it was Vater (1805) who
with the greatest acumen
investigated the literary construction of the whole Pentateuch
and especially
of Deuteronomy. Following him
Staihelin (1831)
Knobel (1861
in the
concluding part of his commentary on the Pentateuch)
and Kleinert (1872
in Das
Deuteronomium und der Deuteronomiker)
have rendered especially
valuable service in the detection of the stylistic differences in the
Pentateuch These have been the kinds of critical observations
and this the way
in which their volume has been constantly increased.
Thus it is that exegetes and historians
in the course of the last
two centuries
have been led to propose the following views as to the sources
of the Pentateuch
and the origin of that work.
1. On account of the post-Mosaica discovered in the Pentateuch
it
was supposed that the original work of Moses had been added to in individual
passages.
2. Since the events narrated in the first book occurred in part
several centuries before Moses
and in part at a still earlier period
to the
former supposition was added this--that the contents of Genesis were drawn by
Moses from the writings of the patriarchs
which are distinguishable by
characteristics both of matter and manner.
3. The path once entered upon was pursued ever further. All five
books of the Pentateuch were divided into sections
according to their peculiar
characteristics of matter or manner. Vater was the first who
in his commentary
on the Pentateuch (vol. 3
pp. 395
423 note)
put forth the opinion
that the Pentateuch had resulted from the conjunction of several compositions
which from the outset had stood in no relation to one another--the fragmentary
hypothesis. Several scholars give their assent to this theory.
4. But it was soon recognized that a very large number of sources of
the Pentateuch had been assumed without sufficiently cogent reasons. Therefore
various scholars put forth and supported the proposition that only two
documents can be distinguished in Genesis and the first part of Exodus
a basal
document (the Elohist)
and a supplemental document (the Jehovist)
--the
supplementary hypothesis.
5. But
much as this view was recommended by its simplicity
it
could not maintain the supremacy forever. It suffered from the fault of being
altogether too simple; for it gave no satisfactory answer to the question why
the supposed supplementer had brought in so many repetitions
for example
in
the story of the flood; why
for example
he had inserted before Genesis 6:9-22
the Genesis 6:1-8.
Further
a document could not properly be regarded as supplementary to
which--for example
in the twelfth chapter--by far the greater part belongs.
Finally
that which Ilgen had already recognized could not be forgotten
namely
that those parts belonging to the supposed supplementer do not form a
consistent whole; for example
chapter 22
because there the names Eloheem and
Jahve alternate
and because the notice of the second appearance of the angel (Genesis 22:15)
begins without any words of preparation
while the promise pronounced by the
angel (Genesis 22:16-18)
constitutes a causeless repetition of 12:3
4. On similar grounds Knobel and Delitzsch
in their commentaries on
Genesis
both of which made their first appearance in 1852
decided that the
Jahvist has borrowed his materials mainly from two ancient books
which are
mentioned as “Book of the Wars of Jahve” (Numbers 21:14)
and as “Book of the Righteous” (Joshua 10:13;
2 Samuel 1:18).
Next Hupfeld
in “The Sources of Genesis” (Die Quellen der Genesis
1853
pp. 103
125
152)
put forth these three propositions. The Book of the Jahvist
(Genesis 2:4
b
etc.) was once a connected and independently existent narrative of the
oldest recollections of Israel. Further
a second Elohist must be distinguished
from the first. Finally
parts of all these three independent documents were
worked together by one editor to form our present Pentateuch. This is the
renewed documentary hypothesis. Since Hupfeld
almost all of those scholars who
are at all friendly to Pentateuchal criticism have adhered
and still adhere
to this theory.
6. Quite recently a new advance seems to have been begun; for some
think that they have discovered reasons for separating the work of the Jahvist
into a first
second
and third stratum. Such
in particular
has been
Wellhausen’s position
expressed in his articles on the composition of the
Hexateuch
under which name he embraces the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua.
But the grounds on which this splitting up of the Pentateuch
this dissolution
of the tradition of Israel
is demanded
are untenable: and equally incorrect
is the opinion of a second group of critics who hold that no part of the
Pentateuch
not even the Decalogue
was derived from Moses. This is the latest
position maintained by Wellhausen in his “Prolegomena to the history of
Israel.” Now
since Israel possessed an especial and lively sense for the
cultivation of its history (comp. Exodus 13:8-10;
1 Samuel 7:12;
1 Samuel 30:25;
2 Samuel 1:18;
2 Samuel 18:18
etc.); since it actually kept the patriarchal and the Mosaic stages separate;
since furthermore
a progress of a varied character has been reported; since
also the faults of individual heroes and of the people have not been concealed;
and since
finally
the degrees of the aberrations from virtue are
distinguished--for all these reasons it is to be maintained that essentially
correct traditions of Israel’s history
not excluding even the times of the
patriarchs
have reached us. Further
since all the historical recollections of
Israel contain innumerable echoes of Moses’ activity; since also the very
earliest prophets knew a legitimate national religion
which they derived from
Moses (for example
Hosea 12:10-14);
since
furthermore
all the prophets make mention of a sum of laws as the basis
of the common jurisprudence (Amos 2:4; Hosea 4:6; Hosea 8:12);
since
finally
individual parts of the Pentateuch correspond in fact to that
stage of the religious
moral
and ritual history of Israel which is described
in the oldest sources of the Books of Judges
Samuel
and Kings--therefore the
Mosaic origin of these parts of the Pentateuch at least cannot be denied. These
are
in the first place--
On the Authenticity of the
Pentateuch
The Truth of the History
both of common and miraculous events
contained in the Four Last Books of it.
I. That the Jews
have acknowledged the authenticity of the Pentateuch
from the present time
back to the era of their return from the Babylonish Captivity
a period of more
than two thousand three hundred years
admits not a possibility of doubt. But
how far have we reason to believe that the Pentateuch was not first compiled
after the Babylonish Captivity
from the indistinct traditions of the history
of the Jewish nation
which
in an absence of seventy years from their country
may perhaps have lost all clear records of former events? In answer to this
suspicion I observe
that it is not supported by any semblance of probability
because the period of seventy years was not long enough to lose all clear
public records of former events: nineteen years of the Captivity of the Jewish
nation had elapsed before the burning of the Temple
and the carrying away the
last of the people; it is therefore perfectly credible that many individuals
then alive may have survived the close of the Captivity
and witnessed the
rebuilding of the second Temple; and of this really having taken place we have
direct testimony (Ezra 3:12; Nehemiah 7:64).
Still further. Not only the individuals who remained could compare the
circumstances which had existed before the Captivity
and thus could not be
deceived by so gross an imposition as any attempt to fabricate
as the public
code of the national religion and government
a new compilation never before
heard of; but we know that writings of far less importance were preserved. For
example: no priests were admitted to resume their offices who could not trace
back their genealogy to Aaron and the heads of the Levites contemporary with
Moses. In the book of Ezra
who presided over the Jews after their restoration
from the Babylonish Captivity
the particular families are specified
“who
sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy
but they
were not found; therefore were they
as polluted
put from the priesthood” (Ezra 2:62).
Nor was this exactness in tracing genealogies confined to the priests; we are
told of others
who “could not show their father’s house and their seed
whether they were of Israel” Ezra 2:59-60).
And the reason of this exactness is plain from this: that such of the Jews as
believed their prophets
expected a return into their native land after a
period of seventy years
and preserved their genealogies
as the titles on
which they might resume their properties
with the same care which they had
always employed from the very first commencement of the state. Now is it
possible that the whole nation should lose all public records of their public
law
when they preserved public records of the descent of private families? Is
it possible that the genealogies of the priests and their distinct offices
should be preserved
while the Law that describes these offices
and assigned
them to different families
was forgotten? Is it probable the identical vessels
(Ezra 6:5)
and furniture of the Temple which had been carried away at the beginning of the
Captivity
should be restored as they are recorded to have been
and that no
one copy of whatever code existed to regulate the laws and religion of the
whole nation
as well as the Temple worship
should be preserved? The only
thing which gives the least plausibility to this suspicion is
that we are told
that the Jews had during the Captivity (as these objectors say) lost their
language; hence it is rashly inferred that they also lost all records in the
language. Now the real fact is this: that the original language of the Jews had
indeed degenerated among the great mass of the people
by the corruption of
foreign dialects; but the learned part of the nation still perfectly understood
it
and were able to interpret it with ease; and the records contained in it (Ezra 2:2; Ezra 6:18)
lost nothing of their clearness or their use. Further
this very circumstance
supplies no weak presumptive argument
that as the Pentateuch which now exists
is written in pure Hebrew
it was composed before the Captivity. This probable
conclusion acquires almost resistless force
when we consider the direct
testimony
first of the Jews
and next of the Samaritans. The tenor of their
history after the Captivity represents the Jews
not as regulating their
religion and policy by any new Law
but as reviving the observance of the old
Law given by Moses
interpreting it with humble veneration
and submitting to
it with the most prompt obedience. Ezra is distinguished as the scribe
because
he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses
which the Lord God of Israel had
given; and very many others also are mentioned
“who caused the people to
understand the Law.” Undoubtedly it is probable that Ezra prepared for use new
copies of the Mosaic Law
that a sufficient number might be ready to supply the
demands of the people. In doing this he may have inserted some notes
to
explain or complete passages obscure or defective. But what symptoms are there
in this history of a new compilation
a code of doubtful authority
a
collection of uncertain traditions? How idle is it to talk of these things
when the fact is so plainly the reverse. We have yet a stronger proof that the
Law thus offered to the people was not a selection and revival of such former
Laws alone as suited their present temper and situation; such laws as were
agreeable to the general wishes of the people
and therefore might be supposed
to obtain general submission without any minute inquiry into their authority.
No
the case was otherwise; the code thus received enjoined in some instances
sacrifices the most severe and distressing to individuals
sacrifices which no
politic governor would have ventured to propose
and which no people would have
submitted to
if any doubt could have been raised as to the authority of the
Law requiring them. For
as the Scribes read the book of Moses in the audience
of the people
therein was found written Nehemiah 13:1;
Nehemiah 13:3)
that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of the
Lord forever; now it came to pass
that when they had heard the law
that they
separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.” Even this must have created
great discontent
and excited much opposition
if the authority of the law
requiring it had not been clear and unquestioned. But there was yet a more trying
proof of obedience required. The Mosaic code commanded that Jews should not
intermarry with any of the neighbouring idolatrous nations. On the dissolution
of the state and the dispersion of the people at the Captivity
this law was
violated in numerous instances; on the reassembling of the people
the
violation was too glaring to escape the notice of the zealous supporters of the
Divine code. The history of Ezra describes in the strongest colours the
feelings of grief and alarm which this discovery excited
the vast numbers who
were involved in this guilt
and the high rank and authority of many of the
offenders (Ezra 9:1-15; Ezra 10:1-44).
The greatness of the sacrifice may be estimated by the severity of the
penalty under which it was enjoined: “Whosoever would not come within three
days
to comply with this law
all his substance was to be forfeited
and himself
separated from the congregation.” And the offenders assembled in great numbers
and certain of the elders and judges were appointed to examine the matter
and
so many did the inquiry extend to
that it held for three entire months; and
among the offenders we find many of the Priests and Levites; it was not
therefore a contrivance of theirs to strengthen their influence. In a word
I
rely on this fact as a full proof
that the code the Jews received after the
Captivity was in all respects the very same they had been subject to before it;
not then newly compiled
not then artfully modified; but brought forward
exactly as they found it
in the known records of the nation
and submitted to
with scrupulous reverence
as of undoubted and Divine authority. Strong as this
proof is
we have another
which may perhaps be deemed even stronger; the
Samaritans 2 Kings 17:24
to the end; Ezra 4:1-24; Nehemiah 4:1-23;
Nehemiah 6:1-19)
we know
from the period of the Captivity became the most bitter enemies of
the Jews; this animosity was greatly enflamed at the close of the Captivity
because the Jews would not permit them to join in building the Temple. These
Samaritans must then have derived their knowledge of the Mosaic institutions
from a code which existed at the commencement of the Captivity. They would
never have received as the rule of their religion a new compilation
formed by
their enemies at the very moment when they rejected their alliance
and would
not acknowledge them as partakers of their religion
or admit them to worship
at their Temple. And what is the code which the Samaritans acknowledged? The
Pentateuch
and nothing but the Pentateuch. This they preserved
written indeed
in a different character from that which the Jews use; they have in some few
places altered it
to support the claim of their Temple to a precedence and a
sacredness above the Temple at Jerusalem; but in all other respects it is
precisely the same with the Pentateuch which is preserved by the Jews with the
same scrupulous reverence
as of unquestioned Divine authority. Does it then
admit a doubt that the code thus received by these two hostile nations bad been
acknowledged by both as of Divine authority before that hostility took place? I
conclude that the Pentateuch was the known sacred Law of the Jews before the
Babylonish Captivity commenced
about 580 years before our Saviour’s death.
Further: An argument of a similar nature brings us through a period of 377
years
and establishes the authority of the Pentateuch
from the destruction of
the kingdom of Judah by the Babylonish Captivity
back to its separation from
the kingdom of Israel under the son and immediate successor of Solomon. From
the revolt of the ten tribes
it became the decided political interest of their
monarchs
to alienate them as far as possible from the religion and the Temple
of the monarch of Jerusalem. The very first king of Israel discerned this
interest
and prosecuted it to the utmost of his power
without the least scruple
as to the religious or moral consequences of the means which he determined to
adopt (1 Kings 12:26).
Now
to the full and secure completion of this design
the Pentateuch interposed
the great obstacle. It allows no such separation of the tribes; it supposes
them all united in one confederate body
governed by the same common counsel
recognizing one High Priest
by whom they were to consult the oracle; and
commands all the males of the twelve tribes to repair three times a year to
their common Temple
to join in a common form of worship
in adoration of their
common God. This system was therefore entirely un-favourable to the views of
the kings of Israel. If
then
its authority had not been acknowledged before
the separation of the two kingdoms
would these monarchs
so watchful and so
politic in guarding their separate sway
have permitted it be introduced and
received
to be fabricated and imposed upon the whole Jewish race
and
published before the face of that part of it which they governed
as the system
which both nations
when united
had acknowledged as of Divine authority?
Assuredly not
except that code had been previously
and universally admitted as of Divine origin
which they knew
their subjects had been long habituated to reverence and obey. I conclude from
hence
that the authority of the Pentateuch was acknowledged antecedent to the
separation of the kingdom of Israel and Judah
above 970 years before the birth
of Christ. But perhaps it may be asserted
that the support which the
Pentateuch gives to the claims of the kings of Judah
renders it probable that
it may have been compiled for the purpose of favouring their views; and that
perhaps its authority was rejected by the kings of Israel and their subjects
though the history of their opposition is now lost--the kingdom of Judah having
long survived that of Israel
and reunited all the Hebrews under one common
government; and having perhaps taken care to obliterate all records that could
justify the past or lead to a future separation. To this I answer
that the
Samaritans
who
though hostile to the Jews
acknowledged the Pentateuch
succeeded to the ten tribes in the possession of their country; that they were
intermingled with their posterity; and that it is not possible such a
circumstance could have taken place
as that the original Samaritans should
have rejected the Law which the Jews received
and for a series of 230 years
should have combated its authority: and that immediately after their successors
should have received this Law
and this only
as of Divine origin
without
preserving the least trace of its ever having been disputed; though an
hostility as strong subsisted between them and the restored Jews as had before
the Captivity divided the separate kingdoms. Two particular examples
deserving
peculiar attention
occur in the Jewish history
of the public and solemn
homage paid to the sacredness of the Mosaic Law
as promulgated in the
Pentateuch
and by consequence affording the fullest testimony to the
authenticity of the Pentateuch itself; the one in the reign of Hezekiah
while
the separate kingdoms of Judah and Israel still subsisted; and the other in the
reign of his great-grandson Josiah
subsequent to the Captivity of Israel. In
the former we see the pious monarch of Judah assembling the Priests and
Levites
and the rulers of the people
to deplore with him the trespasses of
their fathers against the Divine Law
to acknowledge the justice of those chastisements
which
according to the prophetic warnings of that Law
had been inflicted upon
them
to open the house of God which his father had impiously shut
and restore
the true worship therein according to the Mosaic ritual (with the minutest
particulars of which he complied
in the sin offerings and the peace offerings
which
in conjunction with his people
he offered
for the kingdom and the
sanctuary and the people
to make atonement to God for them
and for all
Israel); and thus restoring the service of God as it had been performed in the
purest times. Not less remarkable was the solemn recognition of the Divine
authority of the Pentateuch by King Josiah and the whole people of the Jews
whose pious monarch while he was “yet young began to seek after the God of
David his father
” destroying idols and banishing idolatry throughout the
entire extent of his dominions
and proceeding to repair the House of the Lord
that he might restore His worship with due solemnity. On this occasion
says
the narrative
when they brought out the money that had been brought into the
House of the Lord (to receive which they had probably opened the most secret
and secure place for a deposit in the Temple) “the priests found a book of the
Law of the Lord given by Moses” (more accurately by the hand of Moses
possibly
the sacred autograph of Moses himself originally deposited in the Ark); “and
Hilkiah said to Shapham the Scribe
‘I have found the book of the Law in the
House of the Lord
and he delivered the book to Shapham
who read it before the
king.’” The passage read seems to have been that part of Deuteronomy which
contains the prophetic declarations of the Lawgiver against the future
apostasies of his people
which were so awful and severe as to excite the
utmost terror in the young and pious monarch (2 Chronicles 34:19-21).
And Huldah the prophetess
who was consulted
declared that God would certainly
fulfil the denunciations of that Book; but yet that
in consequence of the
humiliation and repentance of the king
“he should be gathered to the grave in
peace
neither should his eyes see all the evil which God would bring upon
Jerusalem.” The sacred history proceeds to detail the particular circumstances
of the Levites being employed in their due courses (2 Chronicles 35:18)
and the solemn celebration of the Passover
“as it is written in the book of
the covenant”; and there was no such Passover
says the history
kept in
Israel
from the days of Samuel the prophet; probably because the recent
captivity of the ten tribes awakened the fears and secured the universal
concurrence of all Judah and Israel
who were present
as well as of all the
inhabitants of Jerusalem
who now concurred with the king (2 Kings 23:24)
“to perform the words of the Law
which were written in the book that Hilkiah
the priest found in the House of the Lord.” Which could not possibly have been
any other than the Pentateuch of Moses; probably the very copy written by
himself. These facts and arguments seem sufficiently decisive. They may be
confirmed by another argument from the internal structure of the Pentateuch
which I do not recollect to have seen noticed; and which not only meets this
objection
but goes further
and seems to prove it highly improbable that the
Pentateuch should have been compiled and received
if of a late date or
doubtful authority
during any period of the regal government in Judah. The
argument is this: that the civil form of government which the Pentateuch
exhibits is not regal. The Jewish government was
what no other ever was
a
theocracy; in which the last appeal was to Jehovah himself expressing His will
by the oracle; and in which there was no power either to make or repeal new
laws
the laws of the nation being the laws of Jehovah. We must also observe
that the judge was rather an occasional than a constant magistrate
nominated
or at least approved by the oracle; never invested with authority for more than
his own life
and without the least idea of a hereditary right. Further
the
Mosaic code does not merely appoint a constitution
of which kingly government
was no part; but it notices this government as an innovation which the people
would introduce
after the example of the surrounding nations; and it lays the
kings under restraints which were equally irksome to their sensuality and their
ambition (Deuteronomy 17:16
etc.). When the Jews first solicited from Samuel a king
after they had lived
near four hundred years under their original form of government
he was displeased
and represented this demand as in some degree a rejection of God as their king;
and he stated in strongest terms the oppressions and the mischiefs they should
suffer under the kingly government. Now it is remarkable
that the restraints
imposed by the Mosaic Law were grossly and fatally violated by Solomon
the
most renowned and powerful of the Jewish kings. On this fact then I argue: that
if the Mosaic Law had not been universally known and revered as of Divine
authority long before the time of Samuel
it could never have been compiled and
received during the kingly government. He would not have ventured to oppose the
wishes of the people in appointing a king
on the pretext of its being a
rejection of God for their king; nor would he have attempted to impose such
restraints on the monarchs of the Jews
if unsupported by a previously admitted
authority. Such a fabrication would never have escaped detection and exposure
either by Saul
who for the last years of his life was in constant enmity with
Samuel; or by Solomon
who amidst his power and prosperity must have felt his
fame wounded
and his passions rebuked by the stern condemnation of the Mosaic
Law. The preceding argument shows the extreme improbability of a supposition
which has been sometimes resorted to: that Samuel was the compiler of the
Pentateuch. We have now ascended to within less than four hundred years from
the promulgation of the Mosaic Law; a period during which the Jews had lived in
the uninterrupted possession of the land in which they were settled by Moses
and his immediate successor; and without any fundamental alteration in the form
of that government under which they were originally placed. And if we have
reason to believe that the Pentateuch was admitted as the true system of the
Mosaic Law at the close of that period
no possible era during its continuance
can be pointed out
at which the fabrication of such a code may be supposed
probable or so much as credible; no motive or circumstance can be assigned as
the origin of such a fabrication
or to account for the ready and universal
credit which it must have obtained; no body of men
even no individual
can be
discovered whose interest it was to form such a fabrication
or who could have
had an influence sufficiently powerful and permanent to give currency. The
history of the Jews proves
indeed
that they were very far from adhering
strictly to the Mosaic Law during that period. We find that they frequently
violated it in the grossest manner
and fell into great disorders and idolatries
and in consequence suffered great calamities. But what was the general effect
of these calamities? That they repented of their disobedience
and again
submitted to the Law of Moses as the Law of God. Now would this have been
natural if they entertained any doubts of the authenticity of the code
containing that Law? We are not
however
driven to rest the universal
reception of the Pentateuch on presumptive arguments or probable conjecture
alone. We have the most decisive and uninterrupted
the most positive and
direct external testimony. We have a number of different tracts
acknowledged
by the Jews as not only genuine
but Divine. These works are
the latest of
them
written during or shortly after the Babylonish Captivity
as their very
language indicates. They take up the history of the Jews from that period
and
carry it regularly back to their first settlement in their country by Joshua
the successor of Moses
and thus bring us into contact with the legislator
himself. They are to a certainty written by a great variety of persons and for
very different purposes; some of them plain histories
and almost chronological
annals; other of them prophetical and mysterious; others poetical and popular;
hymns in praise of God
His providence
and laws
or celebrating great national
events or deploring national calamities. And all these multiplied and various
compositions unite in presupposing the existence and the truth of the
Pentateuch; and uniformly refer to and quote it as the only true and genuine
account of the ancient history and known laws of the Jews. They recite its
facts
they refer to its laws
they celebrate its author; they appeal to the
people
to the kings
to the priests; they rebuke and threaten them for
neglecting the Mosaic Law
as it is contained in the Pentateuch; and what is
most decisive
they never once give the least hint of any rival law
of any new
compilation of any doubt as to its authenticity.
II. We may also
remark
that the nature of several laws concerning property was such
that if
they had not been enacted before its distribution among the people
and
established as the tenure and condition on which it was held
their
introduction at any subsequent period would have excited a great ferment and
great opposition. Such was the Law of release from all debts and all personal
servitude every seventh year (Deuteronomy 15:1-23;
Leviticus 25:1-55);
and that Law which ordered that if the property of any family had been
alienated by sale
it should be restored to the family every fiftieth year
or
year of jubilee. All who know the commotions which attempts to discharge debts
and change the distribution of property
have always excited
and who recollect
the examples of Sparta
Athens
and Rome
in this matter
will be sensible that
a code containing such regulations as these could not have been established as
the regular Law of the Jewish state
without opposition
except before the
distribution of property
and as the condition on which it was held; and
therefore before the settlement of the Jews in the land of their inheritance.
Another regulation as to property occurs in Leviticus 19:23-25
of a singular kind. Now
would such a regulation as this have been observed
if
it had not been established on clear authority
before the Jews took possession
of the Promised Land? And if it never had been established and observed
what
motive could have induced a fictitious writer to load his account with so
improbable and so apparently useless a circumstance? I now proceed to confirm
the conclusion thus derived from the testimony of the Jewish nation
still
farther
by considering the internal structure of the history itself. If the
Pentateuch is not the work of Moses
it is a forgery imposed upon the nation in
his name. It is totally impossible this should have been done during the life
of the legislator
or immediately after his death
during the lives of his
contemporaries. If then the Pentateuch was not the original record of Moses
himself
it was the work of some compiler in a period long subsequent
who
assumed the character
and wrote in the name of the Jewish Lawgiver
to answer
some design different from genuine truth. And if so
we can hardly fail of
discerning
in the texture of the work itself
marks of a compilation long
subsequent to the facts it relates. We cannot but perceive some traces of the
particular purpose for which it was composed. On the most cursory perusal of
the four last books of the Pentateuch
it seems most evident that the main
facts (considering at present only such as were not supernatural) were so
public
so singular
and so important
affecting in their consequences the most
valuable rights and interests of every order of society
nay
almost of every
individual; that we cannot suppose any man could have ventured to fabricate a
false account of them
and have been successful in gaining for such a
fabrication that universal credit and permanent authority which it has been
proved the Pentateuch certainly obtained amongst the Jews from the very
commencement of their state. The rapid increase of the Jews in Egypt
the
severe oppression they sustained there
the treasure cities
and other public
works raised by their labours
above all
the cruel edict to destroy all their
male children
in order
gradually and totally
to exterminate the nation; all these
were facts which must have been engraven on the hearts
and handed down in the
traditions of every Hebrew family. Nor were the circumstances which led to
their departure from the Land of Bondage
less public and notorious. Let it be
remembered that this history does not recount the origin and growth of an
infant colony
or the emigration of a savage horde
but the march of a numerous
nation; for they “journeyed about six hundred thousand men
besides women and
children; and a mixed multitude went up also with them
and flocks and herds
and very much cattle”; while the magnificent structure of their Tabernacle
the
distribution of property
the tribe of the Levites set apart for ministers of
Divine worship and for public instructors
and the code of their religious and
civil institutions
prove that a great degree of civilization prevailed amongst
the Jews at the very time when these facts were said to have taken place. Now
can we believe a nation so great and so civilized were universally and palpably
deceived as to a whole series of facts
so public and important as this history
details? If
then
the leading events of the Pentateuch were so public
so
momentous
and so recent
that the history detailing them could have found no
credit had it not been true; if the laws and institutions it contains were so
important
and of such a singular nature
that had they not been derived from
unquestioned authority they could never have been adopted; it remains to
enquire how far the relation carries with it marks of truth
even in its
minutest detail. Now in this view
the first character of the Pentateuch which
strikes us is the perfect artlessness and simplicity of its style and
structure. Nothing is more evident in the entire structure of the Pentateuch
than its being written without the least effort to form an elaborate and
engaging history
an impressive and beautiful composition. A writer who had
such a design would have separated the history from the laws; the former he
would have related with such a selection of circumstances as would most
interest and affect his reader; the latter he would have delivered in some
regular system
and avoided minute detail and frequent repetitions. On the
contrary
the author of the Pentateuch proceeds in such an order as was indeed
most natural to a writer relating the different occurrences which took place
exactly as they took place; but which renders his work exceedingly irregular
and even tedious as a composition. Additional proofs that the writer of the
Pentateuch was careless of ornament
and attentive to objects which no mere
inventor of a fiction would have thought of
and no compiler even of a true
history
who designed to interest and amuse his readers
would have dwelt on
may be derived from the manner (see Deuteronomy the first twenty-three
chapters) in which the rules about sacrifices
the distinctions of meats
clean
and unclean
the different modes of contracting pollution
and the rules about
purification
and
in particular
about the symptoms and the cure of leprosy
are detailed. We must not forget that these rules continued to be observed
amongst the Jews; that they are so minute
they could scarcely have been
remembered distinctly for any length of time
if they had not been written;
that this account of them must therefore have been published very soon after
they were first observed; that many of them are so tedious and burdensome that
they would not have been submitted to
if the authority inculcating them had
been at all doubtful; in short
if they had not been inculcated by the same
authority which regulated the rest of that religious and civil system of which
they form a part. It follows
that they were observed from the time when the
Jewish Lawgiver established his code
and that they were published either by
him
or immediately after him. The frequent genealogies (see Numbers 1:1-54;
Numbers 2:1-34;
Numbers 3:1-51
and especially 26 and 34) which occur in the Pentateuch
form another strong
presumptive proof that it was composed by a writer of a very early date
and
from original materials. The genealogies of the Jewish tribes were not mere
arbitrary lists of names
in which the writer might insert as many fictitious
ones as he pleased
retaining only some few more conspicuous names of existing
families
to preserve an appearance of their being founded in reality. But they
were a complete enumeration of all the original stocks
from some one of which
every family in the Jewish nation derived its origin
and in which no name was
to be inserted whose descendants or heirs did not exist in possession of the
property which the original family had possessed at the first division of the
Promised Land. The distribution of property by tribes and families proves some
such catalogue of families as we find in the Pentateuch must have existed at
the very first division of the country. These must have been carefully
preserved
because the property of every family was unalienable
since
if
sold
it was to return to the original family at each year of jubilee. The
genealogies of the Pentateuch
if they differed from this known and authentic
register
would have been immediately rejected
and with them the whole work.
They therefore impart to the entire history all the authenticity of such a
public register. Again
we may make a similar observation on the geographical
enumerations of places in the Pentateuch Exodus 14:2; Exodus 15:27;
Exodus 17:7;
comp. Numbers 20:1-29;
Numbers 21:1-35;
Numbers 33:1-56;
Numbers 34:1-29;
Numbers 35:1-34;
also Deuteronomy 1:1-46;
Deuteronomy 2:1-37;
Deuteronomy 3:1-29);
the accounts constantly given of their deriving their names from particular
events and particular persons; and on the details of marches and encampments
which occur
first in the progress of the direct narrative
when only some few
stations distinguished by remarkable facts are noticed
and afterwards at its
close
where a regular list is given of all the stations of the Jewish camp.
All this looks like reality. Whenever the Pentateuch was published
it would
have been immediately rejected
except the account it gives of the origin of
these names
and of the series of these marches
had been known to be true by
the Jews in general. An inventor of fiction would not venture upon this
as it
would facilitate the detection of his falsehood; a compiler long subsequent
would not trouble himself with it
except in some remarkable cases. The very
natural and artless manner in which all circumstances of this nature are
introduced in the Pentateuch increases the probability of its being the work of
an eyewitness
who could introduce them with ease; while to anybody else it
would be extremely difficult and therefore unnatural; since it would render his
work much more laborious
without making it more instructive. All these things bespeak
a writer present at the transactions
deeply interested in them
recording each
object as it was suggested to his mind by facts
conscious he had such
authority with the persons to whom he wrote
as to be secure of their
attention
and utterly indifferent as to style or ornament
and those various
arts which are employed to fix attention and engage regard; which an artful
forger would probably have employed
and a compiler of even a true history
would not have judged beneath his attention. Now
though it does not at all
follow that where these arts are used
falsehood must exist; yet their absence
greatly increases our confidence that we shall meet nothing but truth. But the
most decisive character of truth in any history is its impartiality. And here the
author of the Pentateuch is distinguished perhaps above any historian in the
world; whether we consider the manner in which he speaks of the Hebrew
patriarchs
the Jewish nation in general
or of its legislator and his nearest
relations. Of the patriarchs
he speaks in such a way as not only did not
gratify the vanity of his countrymen
but such as must have most severely
wounded their national pride. He ranks some of their ancestors very high
indeed
as worshippers of the true God
and observers of His will
in the midst
of a world rapidly degenerating into idolatry; yet there is not one of them
(Joseph perhaps excepted) of whom he does not recount many weaknesses
which a
zealous partisan would have been careful to suppress; and to many he imputes great
crimes
which he never attempts to palliate or disguise. Of the Jewish nation
in general
the author of the Pentateuch speaks
it may be said
not only
impartially
but even severely. He does not conceal the weakness and obscurity
of their first origin
that “a Syrian ready to perish
was their father”; nor
their long and degrading slavery in Egypt; their frequent murmurings and
criminal distrust of God
notwithstanding his many interpositions in their
favour; their criminal apostasy
rebellion
and resolution to return to Egypt;
first
when they erected the golden calf at Mount Sinai; and next on the return
of the spies from the land of Canaan
when they were so afraid of the
inhabitants that they durst not attack them: he repeatedly reproaches the people
with these crimes
and loads them with the epithets of stiff-necked
rebellious
and idolatrous. He inculcates upon them most emphatically
that it
was not for their own righteousness that God gave them possession of the
promised land. He declares to them his conviction that in their prosperity they
would again relapse into their rebellions and idolatries
and imitate the foul
vices of those nations
whom God had driven out from before them for there very
crimes. The impartiality of the author of the Pentateuch is not less remarkable
in the mode in which he spoke of the nearest relations and connections of the
Jewish lawgiver. His brother Aaron is related to have been engaged in the great
crime of setting up the golden calf
to have joined with his sister Miriam in
an unjustifiable attack on the authority of Moses
and to have offended God so
much that he was excluded from the promised land; and the two eldest sons of
Aaron are related to have been miraculously put to death by God Himself
in
consequence of their violating the ritual Law. The tribe and kindred of the
Lawgiver are not represented as exempt from the criminal rebellion of the Jews
on the return of the twelve spies. Caleb and Joshua
who alone had opposed it
were of different tribes
one of Judah
and the other of Ephraim. In a word
nothing in the narrative of the Pentateuch exalts the characters of any of the
near relatives of Moses and Aaron
except only in the instance of Phinehas
the
grandson of Aaron; who
for his zeal in restraining and punishing the
licentiousness and idolatry into which the Midianitish women had seduced his
countrymen
was rewarded by the high priesthood’s being made hereditary in his
family. The most decisive proof of impartiality is
however
found in the
manner in which the Pentateuch speaks of Moses himself. The entire account
which the book of Exodus delivers of the private life of Moses
for the eighty
years which preceded his Divine mission to deliver the Israelites
is comprised
in twenty-two verses. All is plain and artless
full of the simplicity of
patriarchal life
and unmixed with a single circumstance tending to exalt the
personal character of the Lawgiver
or mark him out as peculiarly fitted for so
high a destiny. Compare with this short and modest narrative
the
embellishments which national vanity added in subsequent traditions
and which
Josephus collected and adorned. Now
what I contend for is this
that if the
Pentateuch had been compiled by any historian guided by the mere uncontrolled
feelings and partialities of the human mind
we should discover them in his
describing the character of the man who is represented as the legislator and
head of the nation who were the chosen people of God. I could show by a minute
induction
that nothing of this kind occurs in the Pentateuch
and that
multiplied instances of it are found in Josephus
who is yet admitted to be an
historian of general veracity and integrity. I have but one further remark to
make
and that is
that we find
although the subject matter of Josephus is
essentially the same with that of the Pentateuch
yet
in the selection and
order of their circumstances they differ
exactly as we should expect the works
of a compiler anxious to interest and keep up his reader’s attention
would
whenever composed
differ from the original narrative of an eyewitness
detailing (as Moses did) every circumstance as it occurred
and totally
careless of everything but minute precision and strict fidelity. All these
differences
I contend
strongly illustrate and confirm the originality and the
truth of the Pentateuch; and tend to prove it was the work of an eyewitness
and even of an eyewitness whose business and anxious care it was to superintend
and direct every circumstance of what he described; such an eyewitness was
Moses
and Moses alone. If then he was the author
can we doubt the truth of
the narrative? Were not the leading facts too recent
too important
to admit
of the least falsification? Is not the detail formed with such artlessness and
simplicity
such particularity and minuteness
such candour and impartiality
that we cannot doubt of its truth
even in the most minute particulars?
III. The exordium
to the book of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 1:1-3)
is exceedingly remarkable. It states that it is not
like the books of Exodus
Leviticus
and Numbers
a direct narration or journal of the various events
which occurred to the Jewish legislator and nation
from the commencement of
their deliverance from Egypt; but that it was a recapitulation of everything
which Moses thought it necessary to notice
in addressing the people shortly
before his death
at the close of the forty years
during which he had acted as
their Lawgiver and judge. I direct attention to this peculiar character of the
last book of the Pentateuch
because it seems to me to supply the ground work
of an argument for the genuineness and truth of the entire
somewhat different
from those which I have seen generally and distinctly noticed. I have
endeavoured to collect the topics in proof of the authenticity and truth of the
works ascribed to Moses; from their general reception among the Jews; from the
important and public nature of the facts they relate; from the simplicity of
their style and structure; from the particularity of their narrative
natural
to an eyewitness
and to an eyewitness alone; and especially from the admirable
impartiality they everywhere display. But if the distinct nature and purpose
ascribed to the book of Deuteronomy really belongs to it
a comparison of this
with the preceding books of the Pentateuch
ought to afford a distinct proof of
the truth and authenticity of all
from the undesigned coincidences between
them. The direct narrative was written at the time of the transactions as they
were passing; the recapitulation was delivered at a period long subsequent to
many. The former was intended to record all the particulars of the events most
necessary to be known. In the latter it was intended to notice only such
particulars as the immediate object of the speaker
in addressing the people
rendered it expedient to impress upon their minds. In each the laws are
intermixed with the facts
and both laws and facts are referred to for
different purposes and on different occasions. This gives room for comparing
these statements and allusions
and judging whether they agree in such a manner
as appears to result
not from the artifice which forgery or falsehood might
adopt
but from the consistency of nature and truth. We may thus weigh the
different testimonies of the same witness
delivered at different times and on
different occasions
and judge
as it were
by a cross-examination of their
truth. And we may remark that if a coincidence appears in minute and unimportant
circumstances
it is therefore the more improbable it should have been
designed:--also the more indirect and circuitous it is
the less obvious it
would have been to a forger or compiler. If the situations in which the writer
is placed
and the views with which at different times he alludes to the same
facts are different
and the terms which he employs are adapted to this
difference
in an artless and natural manner
this is a strong presumption of
truth. Finally
if the direct narrative
and the subsequent references and
allusions
appear in any instance to approach to a contradiction
and yet
on
closer inspection
are found to agree
this very strongly confirms the absence
of art
and the influence of truth and reality. Having thus expounded the
general meaning of my argument
I proceed to exemplify it by some instances
which seem sufficient for establishing the conclusion contended for. Some
presumption that the four last books of the Pentateuch were really composed by
an eyewitness
at the time of the transactions
arises from their describing
the nation and the lawgiver in circumstances totally different from any which
ever existed before or after that peculiar period; from their adapting every
incident
however important
every turn of expression
however minute
to these
peculiar circumstances. The Jews are supposed to have left the land of Egypt
and not yet possessed themselves of the land of Canaan. In this interval the
nation was all collected together
never before or after; it then dwelt in
tents
never before or after; no one possessed any landed property or houses;
no local distinctions
no local tribunal could then exist; these and a variety
of other circumstances of the same nature necessarily attended this peculiar
situation. Now such is the nature of the human mind
that though it may be easy
to imagine a peculiar situation of fictitious characters
and describe their
conduct in this situation with sufficient consistency
as in a poem or a
fiction entirely unconnected with reality
yet
when characters that have
really existed are described in circumstances entirely or even partly
fictitious; when it is necessary to combine a considerable degree of truth with
a certain portion of fiction; when it is necessary to describe this unprecedented
and fictitious situation
not merely in general terms
but in a very minute
detail of facts and regulations; to connect it with particular times and places
and persons
to combine it with subsequent events which were real
and with the
laws and customs which the writer himself lives under
and which prevail
through an extensive nation; then
indeed
it requires no ordinary ingenuity
and no common caution
to preserve a perfect consistency; never once to suffer
the constant and familiar associations which perpetually obtrude themselves
upon the mind from present experience to creep into our language or sentiments
when we wish to describe or relate facts suitable only to past experience. Nay
admit that all this may possibly be done
it certainly can be done only by
great care and art; and it is
I should conceive
next to impossible but that
this care and art should somewhere or other betray itself in the turn of the
narrative or the expression. Now
an attentive perusal of the Pentateuch will
I doubt not
prove that it is written without any the least appearance of art
or caution; and it is certain
beyond all doubt
that its facts
sentiments
and language are adapted to the peculiarities of the situation which have been
noticed. The present tense is constantly used in speaking of the facts in the
wilderness: “I am the Lord
who bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt”: the
future
in speaking of anything to be done in the land of Canaan Exodus 34:11-13;
Exodus 34:23-24).
Thus
also
it is perpetually supposed in every direction
as to public
matters
that the whole congregation can be collected together at the shortest
warning. We are told (see Leviticus nine first chaps.; also Leviticus 10:5)
of dead bodies carried out of the camp; of victims on particular occasions
being burned without the camp Leviticus 4:21;
Leviticus 8:17;
Numbers 19:9).
This peculiarity of situation mixes itself with every circumstance of the
narrative
directly and indirectly
in express terms
and by incidental
allusions
and always without any appearance of art or design. But to proceed
to compare the direct narrative with the recapitulation. We may observe
that a
variety of circumstances which it was natural and necessary to notice on the
entrance of the Jews into the land of their inheritance
occur for the first
time in the last address which Moses delivered to the people on the borders of
Canaan. Then
and not before
does the legislator speak of the “place which the
Lord should choose to put His name therein” (Deuteronomy 12:5).
Then
and not before
does he add to the precepts concerning the observance
of the three great feasts
that they were to be celebrated at that holy place.
Then
and not before
does he enjoin the Jews to bring their offerings
their
sacrifices
their tithes
and the firstlings of their flocks and of their
herds
to the same holy place
and not to eat them in the gates of their own
cities; and if that House of the Lord should be too far for them Deuteronomy 14:23)
to turn their offerings into money
and employ that for the celebration of the
religious festivals
at the place which the Lord should choose. Now also does
the legislator add to the rules relating to the Levites
that which gave them a
right of (Deuteronomy 18:6)
migrating from any other city
and joining with those who were employed in the
service of God at the place which He should choose. Thus
also
in
recapitulating the regulations of the civil law
the legislator now
for the
first time
introduces the (Deuteronomy 16:13;
Deuteronomy 19:11;
Deuteronomy 21:18)
appointment of judges and officers in the different cities which they should
inhabit; and fixes the right of appealing in difficult eases from these judges
to the high priest and his assessors at the place which the Lord should choose;
and determines what the elders of each city may finally decide on
and the
manner in which they should examine the cause
as in the instances of an
uncertain murder (Deuteronomy 21:1-23)
of the rebellious son
and in the ceremony of taking or refusing the widow of a
brother who had died childless. The city
the gate of the city
the elders of
the city
are now perpetually introduced
never before. We may also observe
that in this last address
when the people were going to attack the great body
of their enemies
and as they conquered them
were to inhabit their land
different
circumstances are mentioned
suited to this new situation. The causes which
were to excuse men going to war are now first stated: “Having built a new
house
planted a new vineyard
” or “betrothed himself to a wife” Deuteronomy 20:5
etc.); all of which supposed a separation of the people from the common camp of
the whole congregation
in consequence of possessing the promised land. Now
also the rules about Deuteronomy 20:19)
besieging cities
about not destroying such trees round them as were good for
food
are specified much more minutely than before
because now sieges would be
frequent. Now
also
Moses enlarges more frequently and more fully than he ever
did before on the fertility and the excellence of the promised land. This was
natural; such a topic at an earlier period would have increased the murmurings
and the impatience of the people at being detained in the wilderness; whereas
now it encouraged them to encounter with more cheerfulness the opposition they
must meet with from the inhabitants of Canaan. These general and obvious
features of difference
which distinguish the last book of Moses from the preceding
ones
when compared with the evident artlessness and simplicity of the
narrative
seem to result from truth and reality alone. Such differences were
natural
nay
unavoidable
if these books were really composed by Moses who was
the witness of the facts
and the author of the Laws which these books contain.
They would be much less likely to occur
if any other man were the author
even
if he were an eyewitness; and they are totally unlike the general detail of a
remote compiler
or the laboured artifice of fiction and forgery.
IV. I shall now
state a few instances where the undesigned coincidence
the exact suitableness
which we have been noticing in the recital of the natural events of the
history
are also observable in the relation of the miraculous facts and
allusions to them. We may remark
then
that in the direct narrative
the
miracles are related minutely and circumstantially. The time
the place
the
occasion of each being wrought
are exactly specified; and such circumstances
are introduced
as
when considered
prove the miraculous nature of the fact
though no argument of that kind is instituted. The miracles also are related in
the exact order of time when they happened
and the common and supernatural
events are exhibited in one continued
and
indeed
inseparable series. Now
had the recapitulation of events been formed for the purpose of gaining credit
to a doubtful narrative of supernatural facts
we should
I presume
perceive a
constant effort to dwell upon and magnify the miracles
to obviate any
objections to their reality; we should find their writer accusing his
countrymen of obstinate incredulity
asserting his own veracity
and appealing
in proof of the facts to that veracity. But it is most evident that nothing of
this appears in the book of Deuteronomy. The people are never once reproached
with having doubted or disbelieved the miracles
but constantly appealed to
having seen and acknowledged them; though
notwithstanding this
they did not
preserve that confidence and that obedience to God which such wonderful
interpositions ought to have secured. The speaker never produces arguments to
prove the miracles
but always considers them as notoriously true and
unquestioned
and adduces them as decisive motives to enforce obedience to His
laws. This is the only purpose for which they are introduced; and such
circumstances in the history as
though not miraculous
would show the
necessity of obedience
are dwelt on as particularly as the miracles
themselves. Thus the object of the three first chapters of Deuteronomy is to
assure the people of the Divine assistance in the conquest of Canaan
and to
convince them of the guilt of not confiding in that assistance. For this
purpose the speaker alludes to the former disobedience of the people
when
forty years before they had arrived at the borders of Canaan; and mentions the
miracles they had previously to that time witnessed
in general terms
merely
as aggravations of their guilt. Is not this whole exhortation natural? Is not
the brief incidental introduction of the miracles
and their being blended with
other facts not miraculous
but tending to impress the same conclusion
natural? Does not the whole appear totally unlike the timidity and artifice of
fiction or imposture? It might be proved by a minute induction of every
instance in which the miracles are referred to in Deuteronomy
that the
allusion is naturally suggested by the nature of the topic which the legislator
wishes to enforce; and that it is addressed to the people in that manner
which
would be clear and forcible if they had been spectators of the miracle alluded
to
and on no other supposition. Thus the whole miracle is never related
but
that leading circumstance selected which suited the present subject. I add some
few instances of incidental allusions to miracles
to show how naturally they
are introduced
and how exactly the manner in which they are spoken of
suits
the situation of Moses himself
addressing the eyewitnesses of the fact. The
Ten Commandments had been the only precepts of the Law
which God had
distinctly proclaimed from Mount Horeb to the assembled nation of the Jews; the
rest of it had been promulgated by Moses himself as the Divine command. Now
how does he argue with the people
in order to induce them to receive what he
announced as the Divine will
equally with that which God Himself had directly
proclaimed? He might have urged that the miracles which God had wrought by him
established his Divine authority; that the Ten Commandments being of preeminent
importance
God had Himself proclaimed them to impress them the more deeply
and chosen to employ him as the medium of conveying the rest of the Law. He
might have urged the severe punishments which God had inflicted on those who
had contested against His Divine mission (as he does in another passage)
and
rested the point on these arguments; but he chooses a quite different ground.
He states that the people had declined hearing the rest of the Law directly
from God Himself
and had entreated that it should be conveyed to them through
him. Now
if this argument had never been used by the legislator
if the fact
had never occurred
if the Pentateuch had been the invention of fancy
or even
the compilation of some historian long subsequent to the events
what could
lead him to clog his narrative with such a circumstance as this? In short
what
but truth and reality could suggest such an argument
or gain it the slightest
credit from the people to whom it was addressed?
V. I have
endeavoured to deduce presumptive proofs of the authenticity and truth of the
Jewish history from the structure of the narrative in which it is presented to
us--and to show that these proofs apply with equal clearness to the miraculous
as to the common facts; both being interwoven in one detail
and related with
the same characters of impartiality
artlessness
and truth. This conclusion
will receive great confirmation should it be found that the common events of
the history
if we attempt to separate them from the miraculous
become unnatural
improbable
and even incredible
unconnected
and unaccountable; while
if
combined with the miracles which attend them
the entire series is connected
natural
and consistent. For this purpose
let us consider the objects to which
this narrative naturally directs our attention: the character of the Jewish
legislator
the resistance he encountered from the Egyptian government
the
disposition and circumstances of the Hebrew people
and impediments which
presented themselves to their settlement in the land to which they emigrated.
Let us review the narrative of these events
separating the leading facts not
miraculous
which form the basis of the history
from the miraculous; and
consider whether it be rational to receive the former and reject the latter.
Let us first contemplate the character and conduct of the legislator. Born at
that period when his nation groaned under the most oppressive and malignant
despotism which ever crushed a people; rescued by a singular providence from
that death to which he was destined by the cruel edict of Pharaoh; adopted by
the daughter
and educated in the court of that monarch
there is reason to
believe
with the inspired martyr St. Stephen
that he was “learned in all the
wisdom of the Egyptians
” and that he may have been “mighty both in words and
deeds” (Acts 7:22):
that is
conversant in learning
skilled in writing
and judicious in conduct;
for his own positive declaration prevents us from believing him eloquent. If we
exclude the idea of a Divine interposition
we must believe that at the end of
forty years
without any outward change of circumstances
merely from a rash
and sudden impulse
this exile
so long appearing to have forgotten his people
and to have been by them forgot
resumes
at the age of fourscore
the project
which
in the full vigour of manhood
and the yet unabated ardour of youthful
confidence
he had been compelled to abandon as desperate. He forsakes his
family and his property
revisits his nation
determined again to offer himself
for their leader
and to attempt their deliverance. Yet he appears not to have
cultivated in the interval a single talent
and not to have formed a single
preparation to facilitate his enterprise. Of eloquence he confesses himself
destitute; of military skill or prowess
he never made any display; he appears
to have formed no party among the Jews
no alliance with any foreign power; he
had certainly prepared no force. But it will be said he employed an engine more
powerful than eloquence or arms with an unenlightened people
who looked upon
themselves as the favourites of heaven
and who long had hoped for their
deliverance by a Divine interposition. He claimed the character of an ambassador
commissioned by the God of their fathers
to free them from the bondage under
which they groaned; he supported his claim by some artful deceptions and
mysterious juggling
which his former acquaintance with Egyptian magic enabled
him to practise; and this was sufficient to gain the faith and command the
obedience of a superstitious race
always credulous
and now eager to be
convinced of what they wished to be true. Thus we may account for his success.
This might appear plausible
if the only thing wanting was to prevail on his
countrymen to quit the land of bondage; but let it be remembered that the great
difficulty lay in the necessity of prevailing on the Egyptians to permit their
departure. Supposing the Hebrew slaves were willing to encounter the difficulties
of emigration
and the dangers of invading a warlike nation (a point by no
means certain); yet who shall prevail on their proud and mercenary lords to
suffer them to be deprived of their service? Every circumstance which would
enable a chief to establish his party with the one
would rouse suspicion
resentment
and opposition
in the other. A very short period elapses
and what
is the event? No human force is exercised
not a single Israelite lifts the
sword or bends the bow; but the Egyptian monarch is humbled
his people
terrified
they urge the Israelites to hasten their departure. They are now
honoured as the masters of their late oppressors; they demand of the Egyptians
(in obedience to the express injunction of Jehovah) silver
and gold
and jewels
as the remuneration due to their past unrequited labours
conceded by Divine
justice
and obtained by Divine power; as the homage due to their present
acknowledged superiority
and the purchase of their immediate departure. The
Egyptians grant everything; the Israelites begin their emigration: “Six hundred
thousand men on foot
besides women and children; and a mixed multitude went
with them
as well as flocks and herds
and much cattle” (Exodus 12:37-38).
But
notwithstanding his unparalleled success in his main project
the leader
of this great body acknowledges himself to have acted in a mode utterly
destitute of the slightest human foresight or prudence; for this multitude are
so little prepared for their emigration
that they had not time so much as to
leaven the bread which they brought out of Egypt. And as if in the first step
to display his total neglect of every precaution which a wise leader would
adopt
he takes no care to guide them in such a course as would enable them to
escape from pursuit
or contend to advantage with their pursuers. He leads them
into a defile
with mountains on either side
and the sea in front. At this
moment the Egyptians recover from the panic
under the influence of which they
had consented to their departure; and they pursued after them
and soon
overtook them. Perhaps at this crisis
despair inspired them with courage. No
all is dismay and lamentation. Here now is a second crisis
in which no human
hope or help appears to sustain their leader: on one side a regular disciplined
army
assured of triumph--on the other
a rabble of women and children and men
as spiritless as they
expecting nothing but certain death
lamenting they had
left their servitude
and ready to implore their masters to permit them again
to be their slaves. But if their leader had betrayed unparalleled imprudence in
exposing his host to such a danger
the high strain of confidence he now speaks
in is equally unparalleled. What would this be in any mere human leader
but
the ravings of frenzy? Yet
wonderful to relate
the event accords with it. The
Israelites escape “by the way of the sea” (Exodus 14:11-12);
the Egyptians perish in the same sea
we know not how or why
except we admit
the miraculous interposition which divided the Red Sea
“the waters being a
wall on the right and left hand” (Exodus 14:13-14)
to let His people pass free; and when the infatuated Egyptians pursued
overwhelmed with its waves their proud and impious host. Let us now pass by the
intermediate events of a few months
and observe this people on the confines of
that land
to establish themselves in which they had emigrated from Egypt.
Their leader
with his usual confidence of success
thus addresses them: “Ye
are come unto the mountain of the Amorites
which the Lord our God doth give
unto us. Behold the Lord thy God hath set the land before thee; go up
and
possess it
as the Lord God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not
neither be discouraged” (Deuteronomy 1:20-21).
But the people propose to adopt some precautions which human prudence would
naturally dictate. “We will send men before us (say they) to mark out the land
and bring us word again
by what way we must go up
and into what cities we
shall come.” They are sent. They report: “The land is a good land
and
fruitful; but the people be strong
” etc. At this discouraging report this
timid and unwarlike race were filled with the deepest terrors. In vain did
Moses and Aaron fall on their faces before all the congregation; in vain did
two of the chief men
who had searched out the land
and who adhered to them
represent its fertility
and endeavour to inspire the host with a pious
confidence in the Divine protection. So incurable was their despair
and so
violent their rebellion
that they resented
as the grossest crime
the advice
of these honest and spirited men; for “all the congregation bade stone them
with stones till they die.” They even determine to abandon altogether the
enterprise; to depose their leader in contempt of the Divine authority which he
claimed; to elect another captain
and return to Egypt. At this crisis
what
conduct would human prudence have dictated? No other
surely
than to soothe
the multitude till this extreme panic might have time to subside; then
gradually to revive their confidence
by recalling to their view the miseries
of that servitude from which they had escaped
the extraordinary success which
had hitherto attended their efforts
and the consequent probability of their
overcoming the difficulties by which they were now dispirited; then gradually
to lead them from one assault
where circumstances were most likely to ensure
victory
to another
till their courage was reanimated
and the great object of
their enterprise might be again attempted with probability of success. But how
strange and unparalleled is the conduct of the Jewish leader! He denounces
against this whole rebellious multitude the extreme wrath of God; instead of
animating them to resume their enterprise
he commands them never to resume it;
instead of encouraging them to hope for success
he assures them they never
shall succeed; he suffers them not to return to Egypt
yet he will not permit
them to invade Canaan. He denounces to them that they shall continue under his
command; that he would march and countermarch them for forty years in the
wilderness
until every one of the rebellious multitude then able to bear arms
should perish there; and that then
and not till then
should their children
resume the invasion of Canaan
and infallibly succeed in it. Now let me ask in
seriousness and simplicity of mind
can we believe that such a denunciation as
this could have been uttered by any human being
not distracted with the
wildest frenzy
if it had not been dictated by the clearest Divine authority;
or if uttered
whether it could have been received by an entire nation with any
other sensation than that of scorn and contempt
if the manifestation of the
Divine power from which it proceeded
and by which alone it could be executed
had not been most certain and conspicuous? But can we be sure
it is said
that
it was ever uttered? I answer
yes; because it was assuredly fulfilled. And its
accomplishment forms the last particular I shall notice in the history of this
unparalleled expedition
as exhibiting a fact partly natural (for the existence
of a whole nation in a particular country for a certain length of time is an
event of a natural kind)
yet inseparably connected with a continued miraculous
interposition
which
if not real
no human imagination could have invented
and no human credulity believed. I mean the miraculous sustenance of the whole
Jewish nation of six hundred thousand men
besides women and children
for
forty years
within the compass of a barren wilderness
where a single caravan
of travellers could never subsist
even marching through it by the shortest
route
without having brought with them their own provisions. Yet so long the
host of Israel remained in it. In the interval they were fed with food from
heaven
even with manna
until in the plains of Jericho they did eat of the
corn of the land; and the manna ceased the morrow after they had eaten the old
corn of the laud. Here then I close this argument. And I contend that the
existence of the Jewish nation in the wilderness for forty years
their
submission during that period to the authority of their leader
without
attempting either to return to Egypt or to invade Canaan
is a fact which
cannot be accounted for
without admitting the uninterrupted and conspicuous
interference of the power of Jehovah
miraculously sustaining and governing
this His chosen people; and by consequence establishing the Divine original of
the Mosaic Law. (Dean Graves.)
The mosaic legislation
The legislative Books of the Pentateuch
from Exodus to
Deuteronomy
may be contemplated either in the light
in the
legislative Books. Many of the laws are without sense or purpose
except in
regard to circumstances which disappeared with the Mosaic period. Further
we
have this remarkable declaration. Though the entire Pentateuch in its present
form should not have been the work of Moses
and though many laws are the
product of a later age
still the legislation
in its spirit and character as a
whole
is genuinely Mosaic; and in dealing with the Pentateuch we stand
at
least as to the three middle Books
upon historical ground
evidently meaning
upon historical ground as opposed to that which is unauthenticated or
legendary. And what is thus generally asserted of the spirit and character of
the Pentateuchal laws
is asserted for an important share of them as to both
the contents and even the form. These statements--it would not be fair to call
them admissions--go to the root of the whole matter
and leave us in possession
of that forwhich alone I contend: namely
that the heart and substance of the
legislative and institutional system delivered to us in the Pentateuch is
historically trustworthy. If this be so
it still remains highly important to
distinguish by critical examination what
if any
particular portions of the
work in its actual form may be open to question as secondary errors or as
developments appended to the original formation; but the citadel
so long
victoriously held by faith and reason
both through Hebrew and through Christian
ages
remains unassailed
and the documents of Holy Writ emerge substantially
unhurt from the inquisitive and searching analysis of modern time. When it is
attempted to bring down the Books of the Pentateuch from the time of Moses
by
whom they profess to have been written
to the period of the Babylonian
Captivity
and this not only as to their literary form
but as to their
substance
the evident meaning and effect of the attempt is to divest them of a
historical and to invest them with a legendary character. At the same time
it
should be borne in mind that those who have not seen reason to adopt the
negation theory above described
leave entirely open numerous questions
belonging to the institutions of the Israelites. It is not extravagant to assume
that laws given to them as a nomad people
and then subjected to the varying
contingencies of history for many centuries
may or even must have required and
received adaptation by supplement
development
or change in detail
which the
appointed guides of the people were authorized and qualified to supply
not in
derogation
but rather in completion and in furtherance of the work of Moses
which remained his in essence from first to last. It is admitted
however
that
the whole question must be tried on historical and literary grounds. On such
grounds I seek to approach it
and to learn by testing what in the main is
fact
what in the main is speculation
and to a great extent fluctuating and
changeful speculation. It is never to be forgotten that our point of departure
is from the ground of established historic fact. The exodus from Egypt
the
settlement in Palestine
the foundation there of institutions
civil and
religious
which were endowed with a tenacity of life and a peculiarity of
character beyond all example: these things are established by Scripture
but
they are also established independent of Scripture. They contribute a threefold
combination of fact
which
in order to make them intelligible and coherent
in
order to supply a rational connection between cause and effect
require not
only a Moses
but such a Moses as the Scripture supplies. They build up a
niche
which the Scripture fills. At all times of history
and specially in
those primitive times
when the men made the countries
not the countries the
men
these great independent historic facts absolutely carry with them the
assumption of a leader
a governor
a legislator. All this simply means a
Moses
and a Moses such as we know him from the Pentateuch. And this leads us
I do not say to
but towards
the conclusion that whatever be the disparaging
allegations of the critics
they must after all in all likelihood turn upon
matters of form or of detail
but that the substance of the history is in
thorough accordance with the historic bases that are laid for us in profane as
well as in sacred testimony. If so
then we have also to bear in mind that the
phenomenon is most peculiar
and could only have been exhibited to the world as
the offspring of a peculiar generating cause. A people of limited numbers
of
no marked political genius
negative and stationary as to literature and art
maintain themselves for near a thousand years
down to the Captivity
placed in
the immediate neighbourhood
and subject to the attacks
of the great Eastern monarchies
as well as of some very warlike neighbours. They receive the impress of a
character
so marked
that not even the Captivity can efface it
but on the
contrary helps to give a harder and sharper projection to its features. It
retains its solidity and substance while everything else
including great
political aggregations
such as the Hittite monarchy
becomes gradually fused
in the surrounding masses; and this even when it has been subjected to
conditions such as at Babylon
apparently sufficient to beat down and destroy
the most obstinate nationalism. Can it be denied that this great historic fact
nowhere to be matched
is in thorough accordance with
and almost of itself
compels us to presuppose
the existence from the outset of an elaborately detailed
and firmly compacted system of laws and institutions
under which this peculiar
discipline might gradually shape
determine
and mature the character of the
people? Wherever we turn
we seem to find the broad and lucid principles of
historic likelihood asserting themselves in favour of the substance of the
legislative Books
apart from questions of detail and literary form. In its
great stages
we are entitled to treat the matter of the narrative Books as
history entitled to credit. An elaborate organization with a visible head and a
hereditary succession is
after a long lapse of time
substituted for a regimen
over Israel
of which the main springs had been personal eminence and moral
force. It is represented in the Scripture
and it seems obvious
that the
transition from this patriarchal republicanism to monarchy was in the nature of
a religious retrogression. It showed an increasing incapacity to walk by faith
and a craving for an object of sight as a substitute for the Divine Majesty
apprehended by spiritual insight
and habitually conceived of as the head of
the civil community. This view of the relative condition of republican and of
regal Israel is confirmed by the fact that with the monarchy came in another
regular organization
that of the schools of the prophets. Prophecy
which for
the present purpose we may consider as preaching
instead of appearing as
occasion required
became a system
with provision for perpetual succession.
That is to say
the people could not be kept up to the primitive
or even the
necessary
level in belief and life
without the provision of more elaborate
and direct means of instruction
exhortation
and reproof
than had at first
been requisite. Notwithstanding the existence of those means
and the singular
and noble energy of the prophets
the proofs of the decline are not less
abundant than painful
in the wickedness of most of the sovereigns
and in the
almost wholesale and too constant lapse of the Israelites into the filthy
idolatry which was rooted in the country. And again
it is not a little
remarkable that the enumeration by name of the great historic heroes of faith
in the Epistle to the Hebrews ends in the person of King David
with the first
youth of the monarchy. The only later instances referred to are the prophets
named as a class
who stood apart and alone
and were not as a rule leaders of
the people
but rather witnesses in sackcloth against their iniquities. Taking
the history from the Exodus to the Exile as a whole
the latter end was worse
than the beginning
the cup of iniquity was full
it had been filled by a
gradual process: and one of the marks of that process was a lowering of the
method in which the chosen people were governed
it became more human and less
Divine. Under these circumstances
does it not appear like a paradox
and even
a rather wanton paradox
to refer the production of those sacred Mosaic Books
which constituted the charter of the Hebrews as a separate and peculiar people
to the epochs of a lowered and decaying
spiritual
life? They formed the base on which the entire structure rested. It is hardly
possible to separate the fabric from its foundation. Had they not been recorded
and transmitted
it would have been reasonable
perhaps necessary
for us to
presume their existence. They could only spring from a plant full of vigorous
life
not from one comparatively sickly
corrupt
and exhausted. And so again
we have
in the historic Moses a great and powerful genius
an organizing and
constructing mind. Degenerate ages cannot equip and furnish forth illustrious
founders
only at the most the names and shadows of them. Moses stands in
historic harmony with his work. As we stand on historical ground in assuming
that Moses was a great man
and a powerful agent in the Hebrew history
so we
stand on a like basis in pointing to the fact that from the Captivity onwards
(to say nothing of the prior period
as it would beg the question) the Jewish
nation paid to the five Books of the Pentateuch a special and extraordinary
regard
even beyond the rest of their sacred Books. These were known as the
Torah; and the fact of this special reverence is one so generally acknowledged
that it may without discussion be safely assumed as a point of departure.
Before
then
any sort of acceptance or acquiescence is accorded to notions
which virtually consign to insignificance the most ancient of our sacred Books
let us well weigh the fact that the devout regard of the Hebrews for the Torah
took the form
at or very soon after the Exile
of an extreme vigilance on
behalf of these particular Books as distinct from all others. If (such was
their conception) we secure the absolute identity of the manuscripts
and
reckon up the actual numbers of the words they contain
and of the letters
which compose the words
then we shall render change in them impossible and
conservation certain. The Hebrews were the only people who built up by degrees
a regular scientific method of handling the material forms in which the
substance of their Sacred Books was clothed
and this system had begun to grow
from the time when a special reverence is known to have been concentrated upon
the Torah. It may have commenced before the Captivity. It may have preceded
and may probably have been enhanced by
the division of the kingdoms. It must
have been in great force when
soon after the Captivity
schools of scribes
were entrusted with the custody of the text of the law as a study apart from
that of its meaning. Now in our time we are asked or tempted by the negative
criticism to believe that all this reverence for the Books of the Pentateuch
having primarily the sense for its object
but abounding and overflowing so as
to embrace the corporeal vehicle
was felt towards a set of books not
substantially genuine
but compounded and made up by recent operators who may
be mildly called editors
bat who were rather clandestine authors. Is this
probable or reasonable? Is it even possible that these books of recent
concoction
standing by the side of some among the prophetical Books possessing
a greater antiquity
should nevertheless have attracted to themselves
and have
permanently retained
an exceptional and superlative veneration
such as surely
presumes a belief in the remoteness of their date
the genuineness of their
character
and their title to stand as the base
both doctrinal and historic
of the entire Hebrew system? And now let us look for a moment at the rather
crude and irregular form of the Mosaic books from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Taken
as a whole
they have not that kind of consistency which belongs to
consecutiveness of form
and which almost uniformly marks both historical and
legal documents. They mix narrative and legislation: they pass from one to the
other without any obvious reason. They repeat themselves in a manner which
seems to exclude the idea that they had undergone the careful and reflective
reviews
the comparison of part with part
which is generally bestowed upon
works of great importance
completed with comparative leisure
and intended for
the guidance not only of an individual but of a people. They are even accused
of contradictions. They appear to omit adjustments necessary in the light of
the subsequent history: such
for instance
as we might desire between the
sweeping proscription not only of image worship
but of images or shapen
corporeal forms
in the Second Commandment
and the use actually made of them
in the temple
and the singular case of the serpent destroyed by Hezekiah. It
seems not difficult to account for this roughness and crudeness of authorship
under the circumstances of changeful nomad life
and the constant pressure of
anxious executive or judicial functions
combined with the effort of
constructing a great legislative code
which required a totally different
attitude of mind. The life of Moses
as it stands in the sacred text
must have
been habitually a life of extraordinary
unintermitted strain
and one without
remission of that strain even near and at the close. As some anomalies in the
composition of the Koran may be referable to the circumstances of the life of
Mahomet
so we may apply a like idea to the shape of the legislative books. It
is not difficult to refer the anomalies of such authorship to the incidents of
such a life
and to conceive that any changes which have found their way into
the text may yet have been such as to leave unimpaired what may be called the
originality as well as the integrity of its character. But how do these
considerations hold if we are to assume as our point of departure the
hypothesis of the negative extremists? Under that supposition the legislative
books were principally not adjusted but composed
and this not only in a manner
which totally falsifies their own solemn and often repeated declarations
but
which supposes something like hallucination on the part of a people that
accepted such novelties as ancient. In addition to all this
they assumed their
existing form
so wanting as to series and method
in a settled state of
things
in an old historic land
with an unbounded freedom of manipulation
at
any rate with no restraint imposed by respect for original form
and with every
condition in favour of the final editors which could favour the production of a
thoroughly systematic and orderly work. Does it not seem that if the
preparation and presentation of the Hebrew code took place at the time and in
the way imposed on us by the doctrine of the thorough disintegrationist
then
we stand entirely at a loss to account for the form of the work before us? And
conversely do not the peculiarities of that form constitute an objection to the
negative hypothesis
which it is an absolute necessity for its promoters to get
rid of as best they can? I subjoin one further topic of the same class as fit
to be taken into view. The absence from the legislative books of all assertion
of a future state
and of all motive derived from it with a view to conduct
has been already noticed. The probable reason of that absence from a code of
laws framed by Moses under Divine command or guidance
is a subject alike of
interest and difficulty. It has sometimes occurred to me as possible that the
close connection of the doctrine with public religion in the Egyptian system
might have supplied a reason for its disconnection from the Mosaic laws
even
as I suppose we might
from other features of those laws
draw proof or strong
presumption that
among the purposes of the legislator
there was included a
determination to draw a broad and deep line
or even trench
of demarcation
between the foreign religions in their neighbourhood and the religious system
of the Hebrews. Be this as it may
it is enough for my present purpose that the
absence of the doctrine of a future state from the work cannot be held to
discredit the Mosaic authorship. But does not that absence clearly discredit the
idea of a post-exilic authorship? Is it conceivable that Hebrews
proceeding to
frame their legislative books
after the Captivity
and long after the
dispersion of the ten tribes
and after the light which these events had thrown
upon the familiar ideas of a future life and an underworld
as held both in the
East and in Egypt
could have excluded all notice of it from their system of
laws? If they could not so have excluded it
then the fact of the exclusion
becomes another difficulty in the way of our accepting any negative hypothesis
concerning the substance of the legislative books. It seems
then
that it is
difficult to reconcile the results of the negative criticism on the Pentateuch
with the known reverence of the Jews for their Torah
which appears absolutely
to presuppose a tradition of immemorial age on its behalf
as a precondition of
such universal and undoubting veneration. But if this be necessary in the case
of the Jew
how much more peremptorily is it required by the case of the
Samaritan
and what light does that case throw upon the general question? The
Samaritan Pentateuch is one of the most remarkable monuments of antiquity. Its
testimony
of course
cannot be adduced to show that the books following the
Pentateuch have been clothed from a very ancient date with the reverence due to
the Divine Word
and is even capable of being employed in a limited sense the
other way. But as respects the Samaritan Pentateuch itself
how is it possible
to conceive that it should have held
as a Divine work
the supreme place in
the regard of the Samaritans
if
about or near the year 500 B.C.
or
again
if at the time of Manasseh the seceder it had
as matter of fact
been a recent
compilation of their enemies the Jews? or if it had been regarded as anything
less than a record of a great revelation from God
historically known
or at
the least universally believed
to have come down to them in the shape it then
held from antiquity? The Samaritan Pentateuch
then
forms in itself a
remarkable indication
even a proof
that
at the date from which we know it to
have been received
the Pentateuch was no novelty among the Jews. But may we
not state the argument in broader terms? Surely the reverence of the Samaritans
for the Torah could not have begun at this period; hardly could have begun at
any period posterior to the Schism. If these books grew by gradual accretion
still that must have been a single accretion. A double process could not have
been carried on in harmony. Nor can we easily suppose that
when the ten tribes
separated from the two
they did not carry with them the law on which their
competing worship was to be founded. In effect
is there any rational
supposition except that the kingdom of Israel had possessed at the time of
Rehoboam some code corresponding in substance
in all except mere detail
with
that which was subsequently written out in the famous manuscripts we now
possess? Let us close with a plea of a different order
one which
admitting a
probable imperfection of the text
deprecates
as opposed to the principles of
sound criticism
any conclusion therefrom adverse to its general fidelity. It
has caused me some surprise to notice
Testimony of the
Pentateuch to itself
1. In the outset it is important to keep apart two questions that are
not seldom confused. It is one thing to be the recipient of a revelation; it is
another thing to write down such a revelation. The whole Pentateuch may be
Mosaic
and yet Moses need not
sua manu
have written a single word in
it
nor the Pentateuch
in its present shape
date from his age.
2. The direct evidence of the Pentateuch as to its literary author
is very meagre. The only passages in which Moses is said to have written any
portion of the words spoken to him by the Lord are Exodus 17:14
24:4 (cf. Exodus 5:7)
34:28; Numbers 33:2;
Numbers 17:2
sqq.; Deuteronomy 31:9;
Deuteronomy 31:24
(cf.
Deuteronomy 5:26
as also Deuteronomy 17:18;
Deuteronomy 28:58;
Deuteronomy 28:61;
Deuteronomy 29:19-20;
Deuteronomy 29:26;
Deuteronomy 30:10).
Of these Exodus 34:28
refers only to the writing of the ten commandments upon the two tables; Numbers 17:2
refers only to the writing on rods; Numbers 33:2
only to the list of desert stations
and these passages thus furnish their own
limitation. In Exodus 24:4
we are told that Moses wrote “all the words of the Lord
” and in verse 7 these
“words” are identified with “the book of the covenant
” which he read to the
people
and to which the audience promised obedience. In the nature of the case
this cannot refer to the whole Pentateuch
for the simple reason that it could
not have existed at that time. It refers to a particular set of laws given in
the chapters preceding the twenty-fourth. Hengstenberg considers this book of
the covenant to be composed of chap. 20:2-14
and chaps. 21 to 23. There are
then left only the two most difficult
but also most promising passages
viz.
Exodus 17:14
and Deuteronomy 31:9
In
the former passage we read that the Lord commanded Moses to“write this for a
memorial in a book.” A “book” in the Hebrew is a written document of any kind
or length. The Israelites then had other “books” besides their law books (cf.
Numbers 21:14).
What is meant here is doubtless that Moses wrote or caused to be written the
affair of Amalek
and that this document was incorporated into the Pentateuch.
In Deuteronomy 31:9;
Deuteronomy 24:1-22
matters seem to be more satisfactory. In the first passage it is said that
Moses “wrote this law”; in the second that he “made an end of writing the words
of this law in a book.” What is meant by “this law”? Is it the whole
Pentateuch? Of the law here meant
it is said in verse 10 sqq.
that every
seven years
at the feast of the tabernacles
it shall be read before all
Israel
in order to instruct the people in their duties toward Jehovah. It must
accordingly have been a document of such a kind that it could be read on such
an occasion; and
secondly
it must have been formulated in such a way as to
impress their duties upon the children of Israel. Both these features point not
to the whole Pentateuch as such
but to the law in the exhortatory form in
which it is presented in Deuteronomy. A fair explanation here seems to compel
us to restrict “this law” in this connection to the Book of Deuteronomy
and
doubtless to the strictly legal second half. We do not then think that we have
any direct testimony of the Pentateuch to prove that Moses himself wrote or
caused to be written the whole of the five books. He is declared to be the
writer of portions of Exodus and Numbers
and of the legal portion and possibly
the whole of Deuteronomy. Whether he also Wrote the rest of the Pentateuch
or
larger portions thereof
is not directly stated.
3. It is deeply significant
over against the somewhat scanty and
disappointing testimony in reference to the writer of the Pentateuch
when we
ask for the evidences as to the person who was chosen of God to promulgate the
revelations
that the testimony is simply overwhelming. Moses may or may not
have written these books
yet the contents of the last four
at least in their
great bulk
claim to have been given by God to Moses. Yet it would be unfair to
conclude that Moses must be regarded as the medium through whom Jehovah
revealed every word and syllable in our present Pentateuch. Moses is nowhere
declared to be the recipient of the whole Pentateuch as such
but of certain
parts or portions. And here the question in each case arises
whether the
testimony to the Mosaic source that heads each section covers all the ground
until the same declaration is made of a new section. In many instances this is
probably the intention; in other cases it is not so certain
and in some quite
doubtful. It may
however
be asserted that the great bulk and mass of the
Pentateuch
from that period on which Moses first was called to his mission Exodus 3:2
sqq.)
both the legal portion and also the historical narratives
claim to be the revelation of Jehovah given to His servant Moses. This still
leaves open the critical and literary question as to whether into this Mosaic
bulk or mass foreign elements were introduced then or later
and also the
historical question as to the time and manner in which these Mosaic revelations
were written
collected
or received their present shape
and the changes
if
any
which they may have undergone in this process.
4. The indirect evidence on this point is also abundant. The
Pentateuch contains a large number of laws
and narrates numerous events which
can be understood only from the historical background of the sojourn and
journey of the children of Israel through the desert under the leadership of
Moses. From the standpoint of the advanced critics
these laws and events are
glaring anachronisms
and could be explained only as bold fraudes piac. Then
there are other laws which
if not in their own character indicative of the
Mosaic age
yet in the occasion which caused their promulgation connect with
that age
and can be rationally and reasonably understood only from this point
of view. Thus the law on the great day of atonement (Leviticus 16:1-34)
is based upon the historical events recorded in Leviticus 10:1
sqq. Then the whole section Exodus 25:1-40;
Exodus 26:1-37;
Exodus 27:1-21;
Exodus 28:1-43;
Exodus 29:1-46;
Exodus 30:1-38;
Exodus 31:1-18
is intelligible only from a Mosaic era. In Numbers 10:1-8
in which the method of calling together the congregation is described
we have
again the Mosaic era presupposed. The same is true of Numbers 1:1
sqq.
with its statistics; chap. 4
containing the description of the
arrangement of the people’s camp in the wilderness; chap. 4
with its
regulations concerning the services of the Levites in the camp . . . The
evidence of the Pentateuch concerning itself may be thus summed up: Directly
it is claimed that the great bulk of the last four books are Mosaic in the
sense that they are revelations of God to Moses
and portions of them in the
sense that Moses himself wrote or caused them to be written. Indirectly
the
testimony points to the author of the last four books as also the author of the
first
as also that a large number of the laws and much of the history in these
four books presuppose the Mosaic age. Whether these conclusions are applicable
to the whole and entire Pentateuch or not
or whether these five books contain
also direct or indirect evidence of post-Mosaic elements can be discussed only
later
after it has been determined what the internal character of these books
is.
5. What is the testimony of the Pentateuch concerning itself
both
in regard to the substance and matter it brings
as also in regard to the books
as a literary composition? In regard to the first point the evidence is
overwhelming that these five books claim to be a revelation and the history of
a revelation. The Pentateuch proceeds from the premises that the fall of man
has seriously interfered with God’s plans for man’s welfare
and that God’s
providential guidance of man is specially directed toward his restoration and
re-establishment. God chooses from among the peoples of the earth one family
that of Abraham
and later one nation
that of the descendants of Abraham
and
enters into a special covenant with them in order to accomplish His great ends
in mankind.
6. Concerning the Pentateuch as a literary work there is but little
direct testimony. But that the author did not simply mechanically record
revelations directly given
but based at least part of his work on other
literary documents
is plainly enough stated . . . The inspiration of the
Pentateuch certainly does not consist in this
that the author received all his
information from the Holy Spirit as something entirely unknown to him before
but rather in directing him to make the correct use of the means of information
at his command . . . The great evil of modern Pentateuchal criticism does not
lie in the analysis into documents
but in the creation upon this analysis of a
superstructure of pseudo-history and religion that runs directly counter to the
revealed and historic character of the Pentateuch. But as little as this
analysis justifies such a building of hay and stubble
just so little does this
abuse of this theory by advanced critics justify conservative men in refusing
to accept what the evidences seem sufficient to warrant. The Pentateuch is
essentially Mosaic
in the sense that the laws were promulgated through him. It
becomes then an historical question as to the manner in which these laws were
first written down and afterwards united into one code.
7. There are a number of passages which apparently can be explained
only on the supposition that they were written in a period later than Moses.
The existence of these would seem to prove that the collecting of the Mosaic
revelations and the final editing was not accomplished until a later day.
8. What is the value of this evidence of the Pentateuch concerning
itself? The testimony of a witness is measured by the amount of credence given
to his words. Apodictically
no historical point can be proved. It is regarded
as certain and sure only in the degree as its evidence is considered reliable.
The same is the case with regard to the Pentateuch. What divides scholars in
this department into such antagonistic camps is not the exegesis of this or
that passage
but the “standpoint” of the investigators. The conservative
scholar accepts the authority of the Pentateuch over against canons and laws
drawn from philosophical speculations. The advanced critic
on the basis of his
ideas concerning the nature of religion in general and revelation drawn from
extra-biblical sources
regards his deductions as better testimony than the
simple statements of the Pentateuch
and accordingly interprets the words of
the Pentateuch in accordance with his philosophy. It is for this reason that he
finds mythology in Genesis where others find history. In the nature of the case
no historical fact can be proved with mathematical certainty. It is only a question
of a greater or less degree of probability. Internal and external evidence must
combine to determine this degree of probability. For the conservative scholar
the conviction that the Pentateuch is an inspired work is a ground for
believing its statements concerning itself. This conviction of inspiration he
gains not by logical reasoning or historical criticism
but as a testimonium
spiritus sancti. Another reason for accepting it is its acceptance as
Mosaic and Divine by Christ and the New Testament. A conservative scholar is
convinced that this authority is a better ground for belief than his own
theories and hypotheses
in case these should clash with the former. (Prof.
G. H. Schodde.)
Summary of the Evidence as
to the Date of the Pentateuch
I. In the Book of
Genesis we have no legislation
and only one prophetic passage; it is composed
essentially of histories. That portion of the narrative which lies before the
time of Abraham it is improbable (on literary grounds) was the work of
contemporaries
though we cannot say it is impossible. The remainder may have
been so; since writings fully equal in literary development to its pages are
extant of very ancient date. It is certain
from its use of archaisms
that the
book belongs to a much earlier period of Hebrew literature than the times of
Hosea
Amos
and Isaiah. Turning
then
to the evidence afforded by the
narrative itself
it appears that there are considerable portions which must be
assigned to pre-Mosaic periods. One of these must have been composed as early
as Abram’s migration into Canaan; another probably during his lifetime; while
the bulk were written during the early part of the sojourn in Egypt. These
latter passages comprise portions of the history of Abraham
of Ishmael
and
notably of Jacob; and among them may be also reckoned the blessing of Jacob
the historical basis of which distinctly points to this epoch as the time of
its composition. To ascertain precisely how much of Genesis was written at this
period would require a careful investigation into its structure
style
and
phraseology
such as cannot here be attempted. It must suffice to know that
some considerable part was then written. The latter part of Genesis was
composed by one familiarly acquainted both with the details of Egyptian life
and customs
and also with the Egyptian language; at latest
therefore
by a
contemporary of Joshua
but quite probably by one of a previous generation.
Several brief notes
chiefly of an explanatory character
scattered throughout
the book require the time of Joshua for their composition; or they may have
been added later. In either case
their occurrence testifies indirectly to the
early date of the narrative which stood in need of them. Only one passage of
any length
the list of Edomite kings
seems to call for a later date (the
reign of Saul)
but this is doubtful. On the whole
then
we arrive at this
result:--the Book of Genesis was completed
or all but completed
in its
present form probably before the death of Joshua
but its contents appear in
the main to be of an earlier date
and are in part certainly the work of
contemporaries.
II. The Book of
Exodus consists of history and legislation
the former somewhat preponderating.
In a literary point of view
all the evidence for early date applies here with
full force
and requires the assignment of the book to a period long anterior
to that of the prophets. The narrative is marked in its first sections by a
great familiarity with Egypt
and in the succeeding ones by an equally striking
familiarity with the desert; a combination scarcely explicable except on the
view of strictly contemporary origin. This view is confirmed by the presence of
an explanatory note in one place; and also by the historical basis of the song
of Moses. The legislation is shown to be contemporary both by its essentially
historical character
its subject matter
its phraseology
and its references
to Canaan as still future
as well as by its own claim; while history and
legislation are so intertwined that the evidence for each tends not a little to
strengthen and increase that for the other. With the exception of about three
verses
there can be little doubt that the whole of Exodus was written before
the death of Moses.
III. The Book of
Leviticus consists almost wholly of legislation; about three chapters only
being occupied with narrative
and one with prophecy.
The literary argument
owing to the absence of Egyptian words
is
here somewhat less striking than in Exodus. This
however
is amply compensated
for by the fulness of evidence in regard to the laws. Not only is there the
witness of their own claim
and the many links
of the most varied character
which bind them one after another into the history of the wanderings: but when
scrutinized internally
their references to the place where they were first
delivered
and the persons concerned in their first accomplishment
their
allusions to Egypt on the one hand and Canaan on the other
all point clearly
to their origin in the wilderness at some period before the death of Aaron. The
character of the narrative sections
and the historical basis and hortatory
peculiarities of the prophetical chapter
fully accord with
and further
sustain
this conclusion.
IV. The Book of
Numbers is occupied with narrative and legislation
much interspersed
in about
equal proportions
with some prophecy. In a literary point of view it holds
much the same position as Leviticus. The narrative
wherever opportunity
offers
displays a similar familiarity with Egypt and the desert to that observed
in Exodus
though from the nature of the case the range of evidence is
considerably less extensive. The phraseology in one or two sections points to a
time of composition which may be later than Moses
but need not be later than
Joshua. The most notable point in Numbers
however
is the way in which a large
portion of its laws are linked into the history
some by the narration of their
historical origin
some by the connection between their enactment and the
events which followed
some by their own intrinsic character and subject
matter. Both narrative and laws must clearly have been recorded by the same
hand
and that a contemporary one. Much of what was said above in regard to
Leviticus also applies here. The historical basis of the prophecies is unmistakably
that of the wilderness. Saving only the doubtful narrative sections above
referred to
therefore
Numbers must be assigned to a similar date with Exodus
and Leviticus.
V. The Book of
Deuteronomy is composed in the main of prophecy and legislation
in nearly
equal parts
with a little narrative as setting. In both these departments the
evidence of Mosaic date is very striking. The laws abound with references to
Egypt and the wilderness journey
while they frequently speak of Canaan as
unpossessed. On comparing these laws with those in the other books
they are
found to differ from them precisely as their respective dates would have led us
to expect. The new laws in Deuteronomy are largely occupied with topics
especially suitable to the close of Moses’ career; while the modified and
repeated laws point in the clearest manner to the beginning and end of the
desert wanderings
as the times when they must severally have been written
if
their divergences are to be rationally explained. This latter branch of
evidence of course affects portions of Exodus
Leviticus
and Numbers
as well
as Deuteronomy
and affords valuable additional testimony to their early date.
The hortatory prophecies of Deuteronomy
both in their personal allusions
their subject matter
their aim
their tone
and their style
point most
clearly to the time of Moses
as that in which they were composed; while the
enormous differences
in all these respects
between them and the later
prophetic writings render it wholly incredible that they could have originated
at the same time with these. Similarly
the historical basis of the predictive
passages is distinctly the close of Moses’ life. Thus the whole of the
substance of Deuteronomy is proved to be unmistakably Mosaic. The narrative
sections must of necessity be somewhat later than the addresses; they may be
referred with great probability to about the close of Joshua’s leadership. It
will have been observed in this survey of results
that in most of the books
there is something which must be referred to post-Mosaic times. Especially is
this the case in Genesis and Deuteronomy; though similar phenomena are seen
also in Exodus
and perhaps in Numbers. The specific time to which this late
matter points is
as a rule
the period between Moses’ death and Joshua’s
or
thereabouts. It is probable
therefore
that in this period the entire
Pentateuch received its final editing. (G. Warington
B. A.)
Originality and Design of
the Jewish Ritual
If the great Jehovah
the moral Governor of the word
did in
reality separate the Jewish nation to be the depositaries of true religion and
sound morality
in the midst of an idolatrous world
and for this purpose
brought them forth out of Egypt by a series of stupendous and uncontrolled
miracles; if He promulgated to them the moral law of the Decalogue
with the
most awful display of Divine power and majesty; if He established over them
as
their form of national government
a theocracy
which could not be supported
without the continued interposition of an extraordinary providence; if He
retained them in the wilderness for forty years
to discipline and instruct
them
until the entire generation
which had been familiarized to the idolatry
and corruptions of Egypt
had perished; and if He then planted them in the land
of Canaan by a supernatural power
driving out before them its inhabitants
or
compelling the Jews to exterminate them
as a punishment for their inveterate
idolatry and its attendant crimes
commanding them carefully to avoid all
similar profanation and guilt
under the terror of suffering similar
punishment--if these facts have been established
so as to prove that the
Jewish Lawgiver was clearly delegated by God to institute a particular form of
worship
with a variety of regulations and rites
to preserve the separation of
this chosen people from the surrounding nations--then the supposition that he
should borrow anything from these rites and customs
in order to accommodate
his system to the prejudices
habits
and propensities of his countrymen
becomes
unnecessary
in proportion as we more clearly discern that he possessed
authority to conciliate attention and enforce obedience without resorting to
any such artifice. And if such an expedient was unnecessary
surely its
adoption is extremely improbable. Thus to blend Divine appointments and human
inventions; to degrade the worship of the great Jehovah with the intermixture
of rites
originally designed to honour the basest idols; to reprobate the
whole system of idolatry
all its profanations and crimes
with the most
vehement and indiscriminate condemnation
and prohibit every attempt to
introduce any part of it
under the severest penalties; and yet secretly
as it
were
pilfer from it some of its most attractive charms
varnish them with a
new colouring
and exhibit them as the genuine features of true religion; this
seems altogether irreconcilable with the dignity of an inspired Legislator
and
the purity of a Divine law
and indeed forms a scheme so jarring and
inconsistent
that it appears utterly incredible it should be adopted by Divine
Wisdom. It is true
some parts of the Jewish religion derived their origin from
an authority more ancient than that of Moses: the observance of the Sabbath
appears to have been coeval with the creation
and the use of sacrifice to have
been instituted by God immediately after the fall. These
therefore
it is
perfectly natural to suppose
had been received by other nations from the
remotest antiquity
and when adopted into the Mosaic institutions
it was only requisite
to free them from the superstitions and corruptions with which they had been
blended
restore them to their original purity
and direct them to their true
object. In truth
the whole tenour of the Jewish law exhibits not a studied
imitation
but a studied opposition to the principles and rites of idolatry.
That law required the worship of the one true God exclusively; idolatry
worshipped a rabble of deities. The Law proscribed all use of images
or
resemblance of any creature
as emblems of the Divinity; idolatry multiplied
them. The Law abhorred and condemned all impure rites and all human sacrifices;
idolatry too frequently employed them. The Law forbade all necromancy and
divination; it made no use of the inspection of the entrails of victims
or the
observation of the flight of the birds
to discover future events; it relied
for this
when necessary
on the Divine oracle consulted by public authority
and answering from the sanctuary
when the Divine glory was displayed
by a
distinct and audible voice. The Law forbade a variety of practices
in
themselves apparently innocent
but which we know were employed in the
superstitions of idolatry; such as worshipping in high places or in consecrated
groves. Thus Maimonides notices that the prohibition against rounding the
corners of the hair on the head and the beard was given because the idolatrous
priests were accustomed to use that particular tonsure. He assigns a similar
reason for not making a garment of linen and woollen mixed together
this being
a particular dress in idolatrous rites. Hence also he accounts for the
prohibition against eating the fruits of the trees they should find in the land
of Canaan for three years
which by the planters had been consecrated to idols.
Thus also idolaters were brought to believe that it was acceptable to their
gods to sow the ground on particular occasions with certain mixtures of seeds
which was therefore prohibited. Idolaters were accustomed to use blood in
consulting the dead
to consecrate bats and mice
and other insects
as a
sacrifice to the sun; these
therefore
were pronounced unclean. And it is
abundantly evident
that all the peculiarities of the Ritual
as to its rites
sacrifices
and purifications
and its distinctions between things clean and unclean
contributed to guard against the infection of idolatry; not only by an
opposition of rites and sacrifices
which would make the worshippers of Jehovah
regard with habitual horror and contempt the rites and sacrifices of idolaters
but by establishing a similar opposition even in the customs of common life
and the use of even daily food
which would render all familiar intercourse
between the peculiar people of Jehovah and idolaters impracticable. This effect
really followed wherever these precepts of the law were observed. Thus
according to Josephus
when the Midianite women are represented as conferring
with the young men whom their beauty had captivated
stating their fears of
being forsaken by their lovers
and receiving their assurances of attachment
they go on: “If then
” said they
“this be your resolution not to forsake us
since you make use of such customs and conduct of life as are entirely
different from all other men
insomuch that your kinds of food are peculiar to
yourselves
and your kinds of drink not common to others
it will be absolutely
necessary
if you would have us for your wives
that you worship our gods; nor
can there be any other demonstration of the kindness which you say you already
have and promise to have hereafter for us
than this
that you worship the same
gods that we do. Nor has anyone reason to complain that
now you are come into
this country
you should worship the proper gods of the same country
especially while our gods are common to all men
and yours such as belong to
nobody else but yourselves? So they said they must either come into such
methods of worship as all other came into
or else they must look out fur
another world
wherein they may live by themselves
according to their own
laws.” The same feeling of aversion and contempt from this studied opposition
not only in religious rites
but in the customs of common life
was universal
amongst the heathens towards the Jews. Tacitus
in his eloquent but ignorant
and gross misrepresentation of their origin and manners
expresses it strongly:
“Moses” (says he)
“that he might attach the nation forever to himself
introduced rites new and in opposition to the rest of mankind: all things we
hold sacred
are there profane; and what we deem abominable
are with them
permitted.” And again
“they slaughter the ram in sacrifice
as if in contempt
of Ammon; and they also offer up an ox
which the Egyptians worship under the
name of Apis.” The decided feeling of opposition and hostility which the whole
Jewish system excited
not merely in the vulgar
but in the most enlightened
heathens
is evident in the passage already quoted from this philosophic
historian; and still more in those which follow
where he terms their “rites
perverse and polluted”; and while he remarks the good faith and benevolence for
which they were noted in their intercourse with each other
charges them “with
an hostile hatred towards the rest of mankind
” and declares that “those who
adopt their principles and customs
not only use circumcision
but are taught
to despise their own gods
to renounce their country and to hold in contempt
brothers
children
parents.” Thus decided was the contrast between not only
the general principles of Judaism and idolatry
but also the particular rites
of each--a contrast by which the Jewish Ritual so effectually contributed to
the end for which it was originally designed
even to serve as a partition wall
to separate the chosen people of God from the surrounding nations
and form a
barrier against the corruptions of heathenism--a purpose with which the
supposition
that it borrowed and consecrated many of these rites and
practices
appears to be entirely inconsistent. The evidence on which this
supposition is founded has been proved to be as inconclusive as the supposition
itself appears to be improbable. Witsius has shown
with a clearness which
renders it altogether unnecessary to discuss the subject afresh
that the
authors on whose testimony the superior antiquity of the Egyptian religion has
been maintained
and who have asserted or supposed that the Mosaic Law derived
from this source many of its principles and rites
lived so long after the
facts
were so grossly ignorant of the Jewish history and system
so rash or so
prejudiced
that their testimony can have no authority to obtain credit
not
merely
as he expresses it
with a strict investigator of antiquity
but “even
with any man of plain sense and moderate erudition.” In truth
the fancied
resemblance between the rites of Judaism and idolatry amounts to little more
than this: that in both were priests
temples
altars
sacrifices
festivals
calculated to catch the attention
captivate the senses
and engage the
imaginations of the worshippers by their splendour or their solemnity. Should
it be asked
Why should an inspired Lawgiver
instead of a simple and purely
spiritual worship
adopt a Ritual
thus
in the variety and the splendour
attending it
bearing even a remote resemblance to the more gross inventions of
idolatry? it may be answered: that the Jewish Ritual
with its temple
its
festivals
its priests
its sacrifices
its distinctions of food
its
purifications
etc.
not only served as a barrier against idolatry
but
contributed to give the true religion dignity and attraction in the estimation
both of strangers and of the Jews themselves. It marked out the Hebrew nation
as a holy people
a nation of priests to Jehovah their God and King; it
attached them to their religion by the habitual association of festive rites
of national exaltation and prosperity; it engaged their imagination and their
senses
made them feel the necessity of circumspection and purity when they
approached the presence of God
and by all these means formed some counterpoise
to the seduction of idolatry. It is further to be remarked
that the
appointment of the Tabernacles first
and of the Temple afterwards
as the
sanctuary where Jehovah the God and King of Israel would manifest His presence
by a visible display of His glory
and give answers to the public and solemn
applications
made through the high priest
to discover the will of this the
supreme Sovereign of the Hebrew nation
gave rise to many peculiarities of the
Jewish Ritual. Hence the solemn worship of the whole Church was to be directed
to that place where Jehovah dwelt; and it was therefore declared unlawful
by
this Ritual
to have any altar
or to offer any sacrifice
but before this
presence
in honour of which the Ritual appoints the magnificence of the
Temple
of the holy and most holy place
and the religious respect with which
they were to be approached. For the same reason the Ritual appoints so many
priests as servants to attend on the Presence
and to minister before the Lord
Jehovah
who were to be invested in their sacred office by many solemn rites of
consecration
and distinguished by a peculiar and splendid dress. This honour
continues Lowman
which ought to distinguish Jehovah as above all gods
in the
perfections of His nature and supreme authority
is further well expressed by
the whole ceremonial of the sacrificial rites: whether we consider the things
that were to be offered
or the persons who were to offer them--the several
kinds of sacrifices
whole burnt offerings
peace offerings
sin and trespass
offerings
which were to honour God as the supreme governor of the world
as
forgiving iniquities
transgressions
and sins
as the author of all blessings
spiritual and temporal. These are plainly designed to give unto Jehovah
as
their God
the glory due unto His name. Thus all the ritual holiness is manifestly
designed for the same end
that “they might be a holy people
as their God was
a holy God.” Hence the Ritual distinctions of unclean foods and of several
pollutions
as well as the ritual purifications after legal uncleanness
expressed a due honour to the presence of Jehovah; constantly representing how
fit
how becoming it was
for those who were honoured with the nearest approach
to this Presence
to keep themselves pure
purged from all filthiness of flesh
and spirit
that they might honourably serve so pure and so holy a God. I will
close my remarks on this subject
by removing a very ill-grounded prejudice
too frequently entertained
against the Jewish Ritual as a system intolerably
burthensome. I observe
with Lowman
that it is the Ritual of a national
and
not a personal worship. In this view
all objections against the Jewish Ritual
as personally burthensome
tedious
or expensive
evidently appears to be
wholly founded on ignorance and error; while as a system of national worship
it was most wisely adapted to the great designs of the Jewish economy
even to
preserve the Law
and the worship of the great Jehovah
in the Jewish race
and
to prepare the way for the promised MESSIAH
in whom all the nations of the
earth were to be blessed. (Dean Graves.)
The Character and Aims of
Mosaic Legislation
Many and diverse have been the theories advanced concerning the
origin and nature of law. Some ascribe the origin of law to the will of the
people
others to the wisdom of the rulers
some to the power of the strongest
others to the ordinance of a social compact. But the law given by Moses
originated in a source distinct from any of these.
1. The idea lying at the root of all the Mosaic legislation was the
theocratic idea. Every ordinance instituted by Moses
whether civic or
ceremonial
political or ecclesiastical
was based upon the recognition of the
supreme sovereignty of God. The lofty tribunal before which every action was to
be tried
judged
and sentenced
did not sit upon earth--its chair was in
heaven. The judgment seat of Jehovah was the final court of appeal for the Jew
because the code of Moses declared itself to be the code of God. One of the
aims
therefore
of the Mosaic legislation was to bring man face to face with
God in the manners
customs
and usages of common daily life.
2. But the Mosaic code was instinct with a still deeper and more
prophetic purpose. “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” It
was the “shadow of good things to come
” of which Christ “is the substance.”
The statutes of Moses served as a pedagogue to the world
leading
the steps of its childhood into the school of spiritual knowledge
there to be
trained
in the fulness of time
for the salvation of Christ
“who is the end
the completion
the fulfilment
of the law.” This purpose the Mosaic
legislation accomplished by two principal instruments.
Christ in the Pentateuch
What I wish to suggest
and as far as I may
to prove
is this:
that a substantial unity may be discovered between the earlier revelations of
God and that confessedly more perfect and final revelation which was made in
Jesus Christ. I wish to show that in the Pentateuch
as St. Augustine has said
of the Psalms
you may hear “the voices of Christ and His Church.”
1. Perhaps the most obvious consideration with regard to the
presence of Christ in the Pentateuch is that which arises from the prophetical
character of the sacred books (2 Peter 1:19).
It is not so much that there are definite undeniable predictions of the coming
of the Son of God in the flesh
though I do not say that these are wanting; but
it is rather the general aspect of the events recorded and the uniformity of
the direction in which they seem to point. The most obvious illustration of
this prophetical character is the reference to the “seed of the woman” (Genesis 3:1-24.).
It is no question how much or how little Adam and Eve understood of the
promise; there is but little to guide us to an opinion upon this point; neither
is it even a question how much their children understood before the coming of
Christ; but the question is
in what light the Church of Christ is compelled to
view the promise
now that it has been illustrated by the life and death of the
Lord Jesus and the establishment of His kingdom. And looking upon the words
spoken by the Almighty to Adam and Eve thus
we can hardly refuse to allow that
they are prophetic of Jesus Christ and the triumph of Him and His people over
the evil one. The next conspicuous outpouring of the prophetic Spirit is in the
case of Abraham (Genesis 22:18;
cf. Galatians 3:16).
The design of such promises seems to have been
so far as the ancient
recipients were concerned
not to give them an infallible insight into
futurity
but to give them light enough to comfort
encourage
and guide them;
and so far as we are concerned
upon whom the ends of the world are come
the
design seems to have been
that we should perceive the mutual adjustment of
prophecy and fulfilment as of lock and key
and so should recognize the one
Divine hand which has ordered events from the beginning till now. (See also Genesis 49:10;
Numbers 24:17;
Deuteronomy 18:15.)
Nor are the prophetical utterances of the Pentateuch estimated at their right
value
unless they be taken as the first terms of a series; later on in the
history of the ancient Church we have clearer language still
but those later
prophecies would lose much of their force
and would not have been so effectual
as they proved to be in educating the Jewish mind to the hope of a Messiah
in
leading men to wait for the Consolation of Israel
if they had not been
prefaced by the prophetical language of the Pentateuch
and so made links in a
continuous chain stretching from the first Adam to the second
and binding
together the earliest hint of redemption with the great Redeemer Himself.
2. The Church of Christ has ever seen and loved to see in the
historical events and the ordinances of the ancient dispensation
types and
shadows of those greater blessings and clearer revelations which were reserved
for the days of the gospel. And it is hardly necessary to say that the
sacrifices of the old dispensation found their explanation and fulfilment in
the sacrifice of the death of Christ.
3. There is one other declaration of Christ in the Pentateuch which
ought to be noticed. The phrase “preludings of the Incarnation” has been
happily used as descriptive of those manifestations of God to men of old time
to which I am about to refer. I will adduce two instances. The first shall be
that of the three men who visited Abraham before the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah. One of these men seems to be made by the story
identical with the Lord; and we can hardly resist the conclusion that the
person in question was the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity. For the second
instance I refer to the history of Jacob and the man with whom he wrestled (Genesis 32:24).
The point to be noticed is
that although the wrestler is spoken of as a man
still when he gives the name of Israel to Jacob the reason assigned is this
“as a prince hast thou power with God and with men
and hast prevailed.”
4. One of the most striking features of the Pentateuch
to a mind
considering its contents philosophically
is its anthropomorphic character. The
revelation is intensely human
and yet there is no sinking of the Majesty of
God. The principle of the Pentateuch is that of revealing God to man through
humanity; God may be said to be stooping to man in order to lift up man to
Himself. The full meaning of the Pentateuch can be found only in the
Incarnation. The Pentateuch is anthropomorphic
because it is the preface to
the record in which we read that God became man; there is a deep underlying
unity between the shadowy record of God’s early communion with His creatures
and the clearer record of His perfect communion with them in the person of His
Son. (Bp. Harvey Goodwin.)
Historical Siting of the
Books important
In a recent number of the “Contemporary Review” a voice from
Oxford pleads in a temperate and harmless looking article for the recognition
of the new critical movement. To those who can read between the lines
that
article will be noticeable for what it leaves unstated. And to those who are
unacquainted with the bearings of the questions discussed the effect will be
misleading. There are three propositions in it in particular on which I wish to
make a passing remark.
I admit
however
that the main difference which the evolution
conception would introduce into Old Testament doctrine would be a difference in
the setting. But what would that difference mean in regard to the doctrine? The
Oxford professor evidently thinks it would be immaterial. Let us take an
example or two.
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK
OF GENESIS
Name and Character of the Book
The Jews have no title for this book but its first word--Bereshith
(in the beginning). The Greeks called it Genesis (origination). All
thoughtful men have recognized the value and dignity of this book as “the
stately portal to the magnificent edifice of Scripture.” It is the oldest
trustworthy book in the world
and conveys all the reliable information we
possess of the history of man for more than two thousand years. The Vedas are
ancient hymns and legends; the Zendavesta is a speculation on the origin
of things; but Genesis is a narrative
written with a grave archaic
simplicity. It is characteristically a book of origins and beginnings--it
contains the deeply-fastened and widely-spread roots of all futurity. There is
nothing afterward unfolded in the relationships of God with man
that is not at
least in rudiment
or germ
to be traced in Genesis. (D. Fraser
D. D.)
The Importance of the Book
The Book of Genesis is a record of the highest interest
not only
as being probably the oldest writing in the world
but also because it is the
foundation upon which the whole Bible is built. As well the Jewish as the
Christian religions have their roots in this book
and there is even no
doctrine of Christianity
however advanced
which is not to be found
at least
in outline
therein . . . This consistency of Holy Scripture with itself is
made the more remarkable by the fact that in Genesis we have records of an age
far anterior to the exodus from Egypt. Though the hand be the hand of Moses
the
documents upon which the narrative is founded
and which are incorporated in
it
date from primeval times. Upon them Moses based the Law
and subsequently
the prophets built upon the Pentateuch the marvellous preparation for Christ.
But though given thus “by diverse portions and in diverse manners
” through a
vast period of time
and under every possible variety of culture and outward
circumstance
the Bible is a book which from first to last is at unison with
itself. It grows
proceeds onward
develops
but always in the same plane. It
is no national anthology
full of abrupt transitions and violent contrasts
with the writings of one age at variance with those of another
and with
subsequent generations ashamed of and destroying what went before. Rather like
some mighty oak it has grown slowly through long centuries
but with no
decaying limbs
no branches which have had to be lopped away . . . From Genesis
to Malachi there is in Holy Scripture a steady and homogeneous growth
advancing upwards to a stage so high as to be a fit preparation for the full
sunshine of the gospel; and in the Book of Genesis we find the earliest stages
of this work founded upon pre-Mosaic documents. (Dean Payne Smith.)
The Book of Genesis is probably the most important contained in
the Bible; it forms the basis of all revelation; is necessary to account for
the moral condition of man
and his consequent need of redemption by Christ.
The history
doctrine
and prophecy of all the inspired writings take their
rise in its narrative
and without it would be unintelligible to us. The Book
has an historical importance. It informs us of the creation of the world--of
the coming forth of man to inhabit it
and of his development into a family
a
tribe
a nation. It also contains the record of many great and influential
lives
and presents them with the pictorial vividness
with the simplicity and
pathos of primitive times. Thus the Book of Genesis contains the history of the
world’s early progress
as presented in the lives of the most influential men
of the times. It is therefore most important
certainly most interesting
and
supremely reliable
as the outcome of a Divine inspiration then for the first
time given to man. The Book has a doctrinal importance. It narrates the
creation of man
with his temporal and moral surroundings. It teaches the
Divine origin of the soul; that life is a probation; that communion with God is
a reality; that man is gifted with moral freedom; that he is subject to Satanic
influence
and that a violation of the law of God is the source of all human
woe. Here we have the only reliable account of the introduction of sin into the
world; the true philosophy of temptation
the true meaning of the redemptive
purpose of God
the universal depravity of the early race; and we have
exemplified the overruling providence of God in the history of the good. The
Book has an ethical importance. It teaches the holy observance of the Sabbath
as a day of rest and prayer; the intention and sanctity of marriage; and in its
varied characters the retribution of deceit and envy. The morals of the Book
are most elevating
and are especially emphatic in their appeal to the young.
Nor are these principles contained merely in cold precept
but are invested
with all the force and reality of actual life. Hence they are rendered
preeminently human
attractive
and admonitory. The Book has a political
importance. It traces the growth of social and national life; it indicates the
method of commerce during the ancient times; it also proves that the national
life of men may be rendered subservient to Divine ideas
and be made the medium
for the advent of spiritual good to humanity. (J. S.Exell
M. A.)
The Form and Matter of the
Narrative
A part of the internal evidence lies in the form of the narrative.
Its great simplicity
purity
and dignity; the sharp contrast which marks it
when laid side by side with the noblest forms of collateral tradition; the
manner in which it is content to leave the mysterious and seemingly incredible
without toning it down
and without trying to explain it--these are some of the
marks of a record of facts; of facts apprehended simply and clearly in their
real relations; and of facts so profoundly impressing themselves upon a line of
serious men
as to be held in tradition clear and unmixed
like bars of gold
and inestimable jewels transmitted from generation to generation. Another part
of the internal evidence lies in the matter of the narrative. Everything in it
is weighty. There is not one trivial line. The profoundest themes are
successively under treatment
and a purely original light irradiates them all.
(D. N. Beach.)
With the utmost directness and in smaller compass than that of the
briefest of the articles that today stigmatize it as an “old Hebrew legend
”
this venerable book notes and answers the whole round of questions which modern
thought agrees to reckon as involving the fundamental data of history
and to
the solution of which in detail successive volumes are still being given. In
the form given to the facts
from the description of the earth as emerging out
of chaos to that of Israel about to emerge out of Egypt
and from the rejection
of Cain’s progeny to the dismissal of the Oriental civilizations with
incidental allusion
there is always deliberate and intelligent rejection of
that which has become obstructive or indifferent--that is to say
a recognition
of the eminently modern notion of progress as dependent on the elimination of
the unfit. But all the facts mentioned do not become even a background. There
is a narrowing selective process. “The heaven and the earth” at first appear
but the earth alone is taken as the subject of the story. Chaos then passes
darkness falls apart
the blue vault lifts
the waters shrink
and light
air
and solid land emerge. So also the myriads of swarming life in its lower forms
recede that man may stand single and conspicuous in the foreground. Forthwith
his history cleaves apart from that of “the ground from which he was taken
”
through the inspiration of the breath of God; and the lower creatures are
equally shut out as furnishing no “helpmeet for him.” The process of
elimination goes steadily on in the strictly human history. Cain “went out
”
and reappeared no more. His stock
like that of Ishmael and Esau afterward
is
soon dismissed from the record. The animalized antediluvians who were “flesh”
were blotted out
and the idolatrous Chaldeans were left out of history
while
Noah and Abraham alone were “selected” as “fitted” to “survive.” The same rigid
discrimination is exercised in fixing the range of history.
The narrator goes on his chosen way avoiding much. He does not
ignore
but neither does he dwell upon the growth of music
handicraft
or the
beginnings of social and civic institutions. He is not insensible to the
overhanging shadow of the massive Assyrian or Egyptian civilizations. But they
do not awe or divert his thought. He leaves Nimrod’s tower unfinished and
Pharaoh’s palace without an heir
while he pushes on to a shepherd’s tent to
detect in Judah and the Messianic promise the true thread of coming history. It
was a marvellous prescience. For the tribe of Judah alone survives in an
unbroken lineage from that earlier world
and all history today counts backward
and forward from the date when that Messianic promise was fulfilled. (J. B.
Thomas.)
Of the Pentateuch itself
the first book
Genesis is preparatory
to the other four. These record the growth of the family of Jacob
or Israel
into the peculiar people; the constitution of the theocracy; the giving of a
code of laws
moral
ritual
and civil; the conquest of part of the land
promised to the forefathers of the nation; and the completion of the
institutions and enactments needed for a settled condition. For this order of
things the first book furnishes the occasion. (Prof. J. G. Murphy.)
Unity of Plan and Purpose
Throughout
The book begins with a general introduction
from Genesis 1:1
to Genesis 2:3
wherein the creation of the universe is related in language of simple grandeur
very possibly in words handed down from the remotest antiquity
than which none
could be more fitted here for the use of the sacred historian. After this the
book consists of a series of Toledoth
or genealogical histories
the
first of which is called “the Toledoth of the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 2:4);
the others being the respective histories of the different families of man
especially of the ancestors of the people of Israel
from Adam to the death of
Joseph . . . As a rule
in each of these successive Toledoth
the
narrative is carried down to the close of the period embraced
and at the
beginning of each succeeding portion a brief repetition of so much as is needed
of the previous account is given
and with it
very often
a note of time. (Speaker’s
Commentary.)
Whether these primary documents were originally composed by Moses
or came into his hands from earlier sacred writers
and were by him revised and
combined into his great work
we are not informed. By revising a sacred
writing
we mean replacing obsolete or otherwise unknown words or modes of
writing by such as were in common use in the time of the reviser
and putting
in an explanatory clause or passage when necessary for the men of a later day.
The latter of the above suppositions is not inconsistent with Moses being
reckoned the responsible author of the whole collection. We hold it to be more
natural
satisfactory
and accordant with the phenomena of Scripture. It is
satisfactory to have the recorder
if not an eyewitness
yet as near as
possible to the events recorded. And it seems to have been a part of the method
of the Divine Author of the Scripture to have a constant collector
conservator
authenticator
reviser and continuator of that book which He
designed for the spiritual instruction of successive ages. We may disapprove of
one writer tampering with the work of another; but we must allow the Divine
Author to adapt His own work
from time to time
to the necessities of coming
generations. (Prof. J. G. Murphy.)
Holiness
sublimity
truthfulness--these are the impressions left
upon the mind of the thoughtful reader of Genesis. There is meant by this its
subjective truthfulness. It is no invention. The one who first wrote it down
and first spoke it to human ears
had a perfect conscious conviction of the
presence to his mind of the scenes so vividly described
and a firm belief in a
great objective reality represented by them. It is equally evident
too
that
it is the offspring of one conceiving mind. It never grew
like a myth or
legend. It is one total conception
perfect and consistent in all its parts.
There is nothing ideal about it. Myths and legends are the products of time;
they have a growth. Thus other ancient cosmogonies
though bearing evidence of
derivation from the one in Genesis
have had their successive accretions and
deposits of physical
legendary
and mythological strata. This stands alone in
the world. It has nothing national about it. It is no more Jewish than it is
Assyrian
Chaldaean
Indian
Persian
or Egyptian. It is no imitation. Copies
may have been made from it
more or less deformed
but this is an original
painting. The evidence is found in its simplicity
unity
and perfect
consistency. Its great antiquity is beyond dispute. It was before the dawning
of anything called science. We are shut up to the conclusion of its subjective
truthfulness and its subjective authenticity. At a very early day
to which no
profane history or chronology reaches
some man
who was not a philosopher
not
a poet
not a fable maker
but one who “walked with God
” and was possessed of
a most devout and reverent spirit
--some such man
having a power of conception
surpassing the ordinary human
or else inspired from above
had present to his
soul in some way
and first wrote down or uttered in words
this most wonderful
and sublime account of the origin of the world and man. He believed
too
what
he wrote or uttered. He was conscious of some source
whether by words or
vision
whence he had received it
and he had no doubt of its relation to an
outward objective truth which it purported to set forth. (Tayler Lewis
LL.
D.)
The Beauty and Utility of
this Book
We cannot wonder at the expression of the great German Reformer
Luther: “Nihil pulchrius Genesi
nihil utilius.” “There is nothing more
beautiful than the Book of Genesis
nothing more useful.” There is
indeed
a
beauty in it
which cannot be discovered in any other ancient work: there is a
utility in it which we cannot fail
on inquiry and investigation
to
appreciate. It is the record of the creation of the material world and of the
founding of the spiritual world; and as such it stands at the head of all
Scripture
as the authentic basis of the whole Bible
while
in the most
special sense
it is the basis of the Pentateuch. It is
says Lunge
the root
whose trunk extends through all Scripture
and whose crown appears in the
Apocalypse; or
as Delitzsch has expressed the same idea: “Genesis and
Apocalypse
the Alpha and Omega of the canonical writings
correspond to each
other. To the creation of the present heaven and the present earth corresponds
the creation of the new heaven and the new earth on the last pages of the
Apocalypse. To the first creation
which has as its object the first man Adam
corresponds the new creation
which has its outgoing from the Second Adam. Thus
the Holy Scriptures form a rounded
completed whole--a proof that not merely
this or that book
but also the canon
is a work of the Holy Spirit.” (R. W.
Bush
M. A.)
The Book of Genesis as a
Whole
a Suggestive Picture of the World in which we Live
When we read over this Book of Genesis we find great expectations
and great promises in the beginning and throughout its progress
and in the end
disappointment and great darkness. “In the beginning
God!” what expectation
does not this grand exordium awaken
when we remember who God is and what He
is; what His glory
what His power
what His love
what His grace! “In the
beginning
God”--How does it end? “A coffin in Egypt!” That is the end. So
too
with the great promises made to Abraham and to Isaac and to Jacob. “I will
be a God to thee.” “I will be thy shield and thy exceeding great reward.” What
glorious expectations are excited there
and what is the end? A coffin in
Egypt. Now
this seems to me to be just a picture of this world
so far as we
can see
and so far as we can know. It is this world
as it is to sight and as
it is to science. There are glorious expectations here. We look back to the
origin of things
and we find wonderful preparations. We can trace back the
history of our earth through the geological epochs
and find extraordinary
development
wonderful evolution--rising
rising
rising up through inanimate
creation
and then through the animate creation
until at last it reaches its
crown and consummation in man; and now what glorious prophecies are there in man’s
nature
and what magnificent expectations in connection with his work and
destiny! But
after all these hopes are so excited and stimulated
and we soar
as high as heaven in our skyward aspirations
the end is a coffin. In Egypt
perhaps. Yes
in Egypt. Egypt is a great country. It is the land of the
pyramids. It is the land of the Sphinx
of science and art
of culture and
civilization. In this nineteenth century civilization
of which we are so
proud
we have better than Egyptian culture. We have better than Egyptian art.
We have lordly magnificence all around us. There is wonderful progress in
inventions and discovery--there seems no limit to the possibilities of
inventive art and genius--the Egypt of the future bids fair to throw the Egypt
of the present as far into the shade as it has already cast the Egypt of the
past; but what is your portion and mine in the Egypt of the future? A coffin in
it. Yes
that is the end for you and me and every one of us
so far as this
world is concerned: a coffin in Egypt. In this world as in Genesis
there is
much blessed light. There are many beautiful things in it; many things to
admire
many things to impress us and inspire us; but it all ends in darkness.
Hope springs exultant at the outset. Then it is “the evening and the morning.”
But when you reach the end you find the order has been sadly inverted. It is
now the morning and the evening and the night. Can it be of God then
of Him
who calls Himself “the Father of Lights”? Can it be that the development which commenced
“In the beginning
God
” shall end with a coffin? No
it cannot be. If it had
been
“In the beginning
Fate
” or
“In the beginning
Chance
” or
“In the
beginning
Law
” it might have been. But seeing that it is
“In the beginning
God
” it cannot be. But is it not the end? Yes; but of what? Of Genesis. It is
only the end of the beginning. That is the explanation of it all. Here is the
key by which we can get out of the dark dungeon. “Now we see through a glass
darkly.” Now we know in part. Now we see only the beginnings of things. That is
the reason they sometimes look so dark and so dreadful. And though to sight
and even to science
death seems to be the end of all our hope
remember that
to faith it is the end of the beginning only. What a cheering thought it is to
think that this life
that seems bounded by a grave
that seems to have so dark
an end
is only the Genesis of our history. All the rest is yet to come
beyond
the coffin in Egypt. It is because this life is only our Genesis that there is
so much of prophecy in it
and so much of promise in it
and so little of
fulfilment here. But beyond the coffin in Egypt there is an Exodus
without any
wanderings. There is Joshua
the captain of the Lord’s host in the heavenly
places; and Judges Matthew 19:28;
1 Corinthians 6:2-3)
but no desolating wars. There are Kings
but no Prophets (“whether there be
prophecies; they shall cease”). There are Psalms
but no Lamentations. There
are Gospels without a Cross. There are Acts of loving service without a
dungeon. And whether in that world beyond the grave there be any need of
Epistles
I cannot tell; but this we know
that there shall be a glorious
Apocalypse
when the veil is drawn and the glory is seen. “It doth not yet
appear what we shall be
but we know that when He shall appear”--He on whom all
hopes are centred; to whom all the types did point; of whom all the prophets
spake; in whom all the promises have been fulfilled--when He shall appear
the
second time
in His glory
“we shall be like Him.” And what our surroundings
shall be then we cannot tell; but we know that there will be the fulfilment of
every true desire and longing of the sanctified soul. All these promises
all
these expectations
all these aspirations of our Genesis life
will be
fulfilled in the coming Apocalypse of glory. (J. M.Gibson
D. D.)
The early chapters of
Genesis
GENESIS THE THIRD: HISTORY
NOT FABLE
I. The Place
which the Mosaic Account of the Creation and Fall of Man occupies in Holy
Scripture. In some scientific circles
in which Christian faith has no place
this narrative is now regarded as one of many similar fables of the early
world
the truth being that there was no first man
and no fall of man
but a
gradual rise from the animal level up to humanity
through the ages of an
immeasurably distant past. In other scientific and theological circles
where
Christian faith still maintains its hold on revelation in general
the
narrative is regarded as an allegory wholly destitute of historical reality
but setting forth in pictorial form the early struggles of man with the lower
forces of nature
and the ascension of the spirit
through discipline and
temptation
to the heights of faith in God. Among Christian believers of this
class it is now boldly affirmed that it is impossible to attach any historical
value to the idea of the ruin of a world by the common ancestor of the race. I
have thought that it might be a moderately useful contribution to the cause of
Scriptural Christianity to show
in opposition to such methods of dealing with
Holy Scripture
what may be fairly alleged in support of the historical reality
of this narrative
and what may be fairly said in reply to the more common
objections to its literal credibility. Our business will be to clear the ground
by showing the place which the narrative of the creation and fall of man
occupies in the Bible. There can be no hesitation in affirming that the books
of the Old Testament
and emphatically the books of the New Testament
with one
consent
treat the narrative of the recent creation and fall of man as
historical
and make it the basis of the whole system of Divine dispensations
towards our race which they profess to record. In modern writings the assertion
is frequently made that the earlier chapters of Genesis are manifestly
symbolical
and demand no faith in their literality. But in the Book of Genesis
there are no signs of symbolism in the earlier portion. If there is a simple
realistic style in ancient prose history anywhere
that style is found in the
Book of Genesis
from the beginning to the end. It is surely a great violence
in criticism to represent the author or compiler of Genesis as distinguishing
in his own mind between the allegorical quality of his earlier and later
chapters. Whether true or not
most certainly he delivers them as if he
believed them to be true
and true in their literal sense; the first chapter
relating to a very recent action of God in refitting the earth
and in creating
man and certain animals upon it; the second and third recounting the moral
trial of the newly-made human beings in order to decide the question of eternal
obedience to their Maker
with the result of loss of life through sin
and of
the prospect of immortality. The narrative professes to account for the
entrance of death into the human world
and this problem could not be solved by
an allegory. If the presence of direct Divine action
asserted in this
narration
is sufficient ground for rejecting its literality
consistency will
require the rejection of the whole subsequent narrative of Scripture on the
same ground. The story in Genesis is not more open to objection for this reason
than any other parts of the Bible. The whole Bible
certainly
may be a false
record; but it is impossible to save or defend a long supernatural history
simply by attempting to allegorize its earliest chapters. It is
I think
easy
to show that
throughout the New Testament
in the teaching both of Christ and
the apostles
the narrative of Eden is not only taken for historic truth
but
is made the basis of Christianity itself as a religion of redemption. In St. Matthew 19:3-6
we find our Lord Jesus Christ establishing the sanctity of the marriage union
for all mankind from the beginning of the world
and forbidding divorce
except
for unfaithfulness
on the basis of the truth of the Mosaic account of the
creation of Adam and Eve
and on the authority of the words said to be spoken
on the occasion of that first marriage. This is repeated in Mark 10:2-9.
Christ’s teaching surely is Christianity
or an important part of it
and He
here most distinctly founds His own legislation in respect to the
indissolubleness of marriage
except for the cause of adultery
on the
historical reality of the narrative in Genesis. If He took this part of the
narrative as historical truth
it is certain that He did not look upon the
remainder as allegory. If the story of Adam and Eve is a fable
and these
persons had no real existence
then the alternative is that Christ founds His
law of marriage
one of the most important laws in any religion
on a fable
which He mistook for a truth. And with that primary mistake His authority as a
Divine legislator falls altogether. In St. John 8:44
ourLord again refers to the Edenic narrative
and supplies the explanation of
the temptation by the serpent. But if Jesus Christ did not rightly understand
the origin of the race which He came to save
did not understand
in fact
why
they required to be saved
mistook an allegory for a history
and falsely
imagined the action of an Adam
and of an adversary who had no real existence
what remains in His teaching to which it is possible to attach any real
importance? It will be requisite to carry the allegorizing process much
further
and to convert the gospel history itself and all our Lord’s teaching
into a fabulous representation of truths which He Himself did not understand
and which have nothing whatever to do with authentic history. If next we pass
from Christ to His biographers and apostles
we find St. Luke
in the genealogy
of Jesus
placing “Adam
the son of God
” at the summit of the table
evidently
with as firm a persuasion of his real personality as that of any of his
successors. If we open the Epistle to the Romans
we find St. Paul
the chief
apostle of the gospel
in his chief doctrinal Epistle
addressed to the chief
Church in Christendom
laying the very foundation of the doctrine of salvation
through the Incarnation
in the historic truth of the Fall of man in the Book
of Genesis. Nine times in eight verses does St. Paul affirm the literal truth
of the Edenio history
and represent the Redemption in Christ as having a
distinct relation to the entrance of sin and death therein described. If St.
Paul was in error here at the foundation
he erred at least along with his
Master
as we have seen; and if he erred in his belief on the Fall
and we can
certainly know it
it is quite certain that there is nothing whatever left in
his doctrinal teaching respecting the Redemption to which any Divine authority
can be attached. He is mistaken in the two loci of his theological system. It
is
nevertheless
an error which he repeats in many forms in his writings.
Thus
in chap.
16:20 of the same Epistle
he promises the Romans
in manifest
allusion toGe 3:15
that “the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s
head.” “The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” Again
in
writing several years before to the Corinthians
when treating of the
resurrection of the saints to eternal life
in the glory of God
he had thus
spoken of the origin of death and of the cause of resurrection in these words:
“Now is Christ risen from the dead
and become the first fruits of them that
slept. For since by man came death--by man came also the resurrection of the
dead. For as in Adam all die
so also in the Christ shall all be made alive.”
And lower down
when speaking of the different constitutions of the animal and
spiritual humanities
he adds: “There is a natural
or soulual
or psychical
body
and there is a spiritual or pneumatical body. And so it is written
The
first man Adam became a living soul
or psyche
the last Adam became a
life-giving spirit
or pneuma. Howbeit
that is not first which is
spiritual or pneumatical
but that which is natural
or soulual
psychical
then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth
choikos
a
man of dust. The second Man is of heaven. As is the man of dust
such also are
the men of dust
and as is the heavenly One
such also are the heavenly ones.
And as we have borne the likeness of the man of dust
we shall also bear the
likeness of the heavenly One” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22;
1 Corinthians 15:44-49).
How is it possible to avoid seeing that in every expression of these verses St.
Paul refers to the detailed account of the creation of Adam in the second and
third chapters of Genesis
and treats the whole narrative
not only as
historical
but as the record of an essential part of the general system of the
Divine dealings with humanity in its psychical and pneumatical stages of development
under its two federal heads
Adam and Christ Again
in the same Epistle (1 Corinthians 11:8)
St. Paul gives as a reason why women were to be attired in a manner to represent
subjection to man
thus: “For a man ought not to cover his head
forasmuch as
he is the image and glory of God
but the woman is the glory of the man. For
the man is not out of the woman
but the woman out of the man. Neither was the
man created for the woman
but the woman for the man.” Can there be any doubt
that the apostle here refers to the words of Genesis 2:23
and reasons from them as a true history? In his Second Epistle St. Paul does
not hesitate to hold up the example of Eve’s weakness as a warning to the
philosophical Corinthians. In his Epistle to the Ephesians the apostle quotes
the words of Genesis 2:24
“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother
” etc.
just as our
Lord had done before him
to describe to his converts the law of marriage union
fixed at the creation of Adam and Eve--a quotation without the force or
authority even of antediluvian legend
unless he held the history as authentic
real
and indisputable. In his First Epistle to Timothy he assigns as a reason
for the subjection of women and their silence in church
so far as teaching in
the Church is concerned
the original constitution of things and the truth of
the narrative of the Fall in Eden. It is easy to see that St. Paul regarded the
Edenic history as a fable no more than he looked on the rest of the Old
Testament as mythical or allegorical. Indeed
there is no narrative in the Old
Testament which St. Paul so frequently refers to in his writings as true and
instructive as that of the earlier chapters of Genesis. In the same manner
Apollos
or whoever wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews
speaks of the history of
the antediluvians in his eleventh chapter
from Abel downwards
as if equally
authentic with that of all subsequent ages. St. John
in his Epistle
refers
as we have seen
similarly to the history of Cain and Abel as a practical
instruction in the ways of piety and faith. And
lastly
in the Apocalypse
not
only is the scenery of the earthly paradise taken as a type and symbol of
loftier realities beyond
but “the devil and Satan” is twice pointed out as the
“man killer from the beginning
” and described as “the ancient serpent
which
deceiveth the whole world
” so as to fix beyond dispute the diabolical nature
of the power which brought upon our first parents ruin and destruction (Revelation 12:9;
Revelation 20:2).
Everyone who has followed attentively this complete induction of Biblical
reference to the Mosaic history of man’s creation and fall must allow that the
modern attempt to resolve the early chapters in Genesis into an allegory or a
fable is inconsistent with any rational recognition of the inspiration or
authority of Jesus Christ and His apostles. It seems to me quite useless to
disguise this conflict between the Bible and--not science
but that which
in
the opinion of not a few in our time
is thought worthy of the name of science.
There can be no doubt that it is held for certain by many
including no small
number of able and accomplished persons
that modern discovery has decisively
proved the immense antiquity of man
his animal origin
and
consequently
the
falsity of the Mosaic cosmogony and Edenic story
so that the fable of “Eve and
the Apple” and the “talking serpent”--to use the favourite profane description--is
widely regarded as a test measurement of any man’s ignorance and credulity. A
man who will believe that is proved to be both ignorant of facts and
undeserving of argument. Who that reflects on this state of things can fail to
conclude that there is some great mistake somewhere? If the so-called
scientific view of man’s origin is really scientific--that is
is a matter of
certain knowledge
and not of mere guess work (and nothing less than certain
knowledge is science)--why
undoubtedly it follows that not merely Moses was
mistaken
but that Christ and all His apostles were mistaken also. Christianity
is one complicated mistake
for it founds a doctrine of redemption on the
history of the recent creation and fall of Adam
on the moral and not animal
origin of sin; and if the Adam of Genesis never sinned
because he never
existed
Christ was certainly not “sent from God
” and “died in vain.” Is it
then
possible that this so-called scientific conclusion of the antiquity of
man
and of his bestial origin
is only a hideous delusion
notwithstanding the
loud tones in which some are proclaiming it? Is it possible that
when closely
examined
this theory of man’s immense antiquity
however boldly affirmed by
some
is resting at this moment chiefly on the substructure of so-called
inferences from the growth of stalagmite and the age of gravels
which rouse
nothing less than the indignation of men of the very first rank in knowledge
who grieve to see a mere succession of changing guesses represented to the multitudes
as ascertained European science? Is it possible that statements which were put
forth a few years ago in support of this theory have
one after another
been
compulsorily withdrawn? Is it true that
in general
ordinary men’s assurance
of its truth is in inverse proportion to their detailed acquaintance with the
state of the evidence? And
lastly
is it a fact that if it were attempted at
this moment to make it a test of membership in any of the great scientific
societies of Europe to confess the truth of the evolution theory in general
as
universally and irrevocably established--much more the evolution of man from
the animal races as proved with any show whatever of positive evidence--or even
the remotest antiquity of the present race of man as supported by any decisive
evidence at all
there is not one of these societies--English
French
German
or American--which would not be rent asunder by a violent convulsion of
opposing conviction
from the Royal Society downwards
so deep
so strong
so
indignant is the revolt of many of the leading lights of biology and
archaeology against the notion that anything has been demonstrably settled to
shake the public faith in the recent and direct Divine creation of the human
race? Professor Stokes
one of the secretaries of the Royal Society
a man
closely conversant with the principal scientific men in Europe
in a paper
recently read before the Church Congress
and repeated in a revised form
elsewhere
said that in the absence of biological knowledge of our own what
must be done in order to test the value of opinions involving such momentous
issues for all mankind is to examine the mode of argument of these writers in
departments with which we are more familiar
and to compare the utterances of
biological leaders in Europe and America with one another
so as not to be
carried away by the authority of one or two considerable names. Science
signifies absolute knowledge
not the opinion of some distinguished scientific
men. What is absolutely known for certain is accepted by properly qualified
investigators in all lands. Tried by this test
the widely diffused notions of
the animal origin and remote antiquity of the human race break down instantly.
There is scarcely a single fact in the interpretation of which the leading
biologists and archaeologists of the world are agreed--certainly not one which
can serve as a basis for a theory solid enough to overthrow the teaching of
Divine revelation.
II. The General
Objections Urged against the Truth of the History of the Fall. It is wonderful
sometimes to listen to the objections to the supernatural Bible history which
are made by men who are well acquainted with the work of God in nature. The
objection
if it means anything at all
means that you must not associate the
idea of Deity with details in the universe
but only with universal laws; that
to impute to God minute or definite acts of creation or providence
or to think
of Him as the “man in the next street”--to use Dr. M. Arnold’s phrase--is to
dishonour the idea of an Eternal Cause. The notion seems to be that the
Infinite Mind can be occupied only with general and abstract ideas
and not
with the detailed application of laws or forces
as if these abstract and
general ideas were anything more than the algebraic symbols required by the
weakness of finite minds
or as if we could even conceive of an all-pervading
intelligent Deity who did not see all general ideas in every one of their
special applications
and
if He worked at all
worked in detail. Now
let any
man who believes in an intelligent Power behind nature
and working in nature
think of what we know of the interior economy of a spider’s nest
an anthill
a
beehive
as described by Lubbock and Romanes
and then tell us whether Creative
Power is too great for details. Why
all natural history proves that God
“taketh care” for animals down to the very animalculae--in Christ’s sublime
language
that “not one of them is forgotten before Him.” There is no remedy
for disbelief in Bible history
because of its details of Divine action and
interference
so effectual as study of natural history both in animal and
vegetable life. The objection to the supernatural element in the history of
paradise is but one specific example of a wider objection to the supernatural
altogether
and lies equally against the whole recorded history of the Bible.
Those who are resolved to account for all things by the single action of
natural causes will allow of no Divine direct agency whatsoever
and against
these objectors it is idle to attempt to establish the truth of this particular
supernatural history; but those who admit the reality of Divine direct agency
in the subsequent history of man are to the last degree unreasonable in
objecting to the record of such agency at its commencement. The Bible is one
prolonged denial of the doctrine that a uniform course of nature is an adequate
description of the history of this world. It is professedly a record
from
first to last
of a series of direct interferences of God
both in creation and
providence
supernatural because the end to be attained was above law--the
salvation of man; and this series of interferences becomes credible to the mind
precisely in proportion as it is studied in connection with nature
studied as
a whole
and studied in the light of its alleged object
the bestowment of
eternal life on sinful and dying men. Assuredly the earlier chapters of Genesis
are full
in every line
as was likely if man had a beginning in God
of
statements of such direct Divine operations. In the first chapter we see
Almighty God directly creating certain animals at the time of the creation of
man. We see Him directly creating woman “out of man
” the reverse of the
subsequent order of nature. In the third chapter we see God placing man in the
paradise
under a special trial of his moral nature
arraigning him for
disobedience
and then passing sentence on the man
the woman
and the serpent
tempter. This style of writing is not peculiar to the opening pages of Moses.
It continues to the end of the Bible--the assertion of the direct
constant
minute
supernatural action of God in mercy and in judgment. Now
when such
statements do not meet with the assent of faith
faith which discerns the truth
even in the miracle
the counter feeling which they raise is that of strong
disbelief
and generally of ridicule
ridicule being the expression of the
sense of incongruity and total incredibility. Accordingly the Bible is in our
time either believed as a supernatural whole
or
quite logically
rejected and
ridiculed as a whole. Nothing is easier than to ridicule the Bible by comparing
it with common life. The more closely men study the uniformity of nature and
the ordinary course of events
the more will they be struck with the
extraordinary quality of the miraculous record of Scripture; and
unless they
have spiritual reasons for believing it
the more incongruous and ridiculous
will it all appear. But such a sense of the ridiculous offers no solid basis of
argument. It requires little candour to admit that any true account of the
origin of mankind must be
in its circumstances
exceedingly unlike our modern
development
and that to require similarity to our own experiences as the
condition of belief in such an account is a sign of a somewhat narrow
apprehension. Whatever theory of man’s origin be adopted
the beginning must
have been so unlike the ending that
if unlikeness to our own experience is to
bring down ridicule
no theory can escape it. Even if the favourite notion be
true
that man originated in some collateral ancestor of the anthropoid apes or
gorillas
it must have been a day of wonder in “the infinite azure of the past”
when that black-faced
long-tailed
hairy monster
described for us by Mr.
Grant Allen
first thought and spake as a man; and another day
much unlike our
own
when this developed brute first stood upright
and found a half-rational
helpmeet in a similarly developed female anthropoid. If ridicule here is to be
the test of truth
ridicule excited by unlikeness to modern experience
the story
of Adam and Eve
glowing fresh in strength and beauty from the direct hand of
God
will bear comparison with that of the infinitely slow development of this
prognathous brute of pseudo-science
whose fierce dull eye gradually gleamed
with reason
and whose bellowings and roarings
during the course of thousands
of years spent amidst the post-glacial morasses and jungles (Dr. Max Muller
says it is quite inconceivable)
gradually subsided into human speech. A second
difficulty which has been felt in the reception of the Edenic story as
historical is what is spoken of as its childish tone
in which the Almighty
Creator is represented as working with His hands as a potter or sculptor;
walking
talking
professing ignorance of the hiding place of Adam; and then
condemning His new made creatures to death when tempted to make progress in
intelligence by a speaking serpent. That is one way of putting the case. Now
let us try the effect of another. This narrative presents a succession of the
sublimest ideas of which the human mind is capable. The expression of them is
indeed childlike
in the simplest language
language suitable to the childhood
of the world; but there is nothing childish
nothing unworthy of the faith of
the manliest intelligence
and nothing unworthy of the Infinite Lord of Nature
dealing with mankind in its beginnings. The Bible as a whole is credible and
defensible
partly because it offers a history of humanity from its infancy to
its mature age
the race having
as a matter of fact
passed through the stages
of individual life from childhood to maturity; so that the early portion of the
Bible
professing to record revelations of God in the earliest stages of man’s
life
wins credibility from reflective readers just because its opening pages are
answerable in style to the opening ages of the world. Had they been less
childlike in tone
they would have lacked one necessary note of genuineness in
the adaptation of the Divine Father’s voice to the early understanding of His
sons. The books of the nursery are indeed childlike in tone
but often embody
the maturest wisdom; and no wise man dreams of deriding his own childhood
or
of burning the library of his children’s nursery. Judged by these canons
the
histories of Genesis assume a place of high importance in the annals of the
world. As a record of early religious literature
compared with the deciphered
rubbish of Egypt and Chaldea
it is a preeminent example of the survival of the
fittest. Let us now point out some of the noble thoughts which underlie the
Edenic story.
1. Here
then
first of all
we find the sublimest possible
conception of man’s original. Man is Deiform
the image of the Infinite Being
on earth
the direct creation of the Eternal Mind and Will. He is formed of the
dust of the ground
Adamah
from which he takes his name of Adam
or Earth--dust
and ashes
in the language of Abraham. He is formed as the last link in a
series of animal lives
and on one side of his nature strongly resembles those
beasts which perish. He belongs to the Vertebrata. His form has been
typified and foretold in a long succession of old-world prophecies
in the
structure of previous animals. But he does not spring from the earth
or from
previous forms
as they did. He is specially fashioned by the Almighty Hand;
God is represented as moulding him
working out in living art the eternal idea;
and then as breathing into him
by direct afflatus of Divinity
the breath of
life. The seal of the living God
of the Infinite Life
is on his forehead
and
though capable of dying
he is not made to die. There is no idea in the modern
books on the Descent of Man so grand as this.
2. An equal splendour and originality characterizes the relation of
the creation of woman. As if foreseeing the debasing gorilla philosophy of the
last days
here
in the very dawn of history
the strongest possible
contradiction is given
while humanity was still in its beginning
to the
notion of human derivation from the animals. For a modified gorilla a modified
simian would have served well enough. But Adam was of a Divine original
“made
in God’s image
” and therefore Eve
in her glory and beauty
is the direct work
of the Supreme Sculptor
Painter
Poet
and Lifegiver; fashioning out of Adam
himself the woman who should be one with him in life and love forever and ever.
Here is the strongest possible denial of the bestial original of humanity. He
could not pair with the lower races
for his origin was directly from the
sacred fount of Deity. The building up of the frame of Eve out of materials of
bone and flesh taken from the entranced form of Adam is only a specific
difference under the general principle that living beings descend from each
other
under the plastic agency of God; and in this case the form of the action
was specially fitted to lay the foundation of spiritual marriage
the only true
human marriage
in the consciousness of their deep unity in Him. It is God who
“joins together” man and woman in a unity which is no mere partnership or
trading company with limited liability
but a unity consecrated by the bond of
God’s Spirit
and which
therefore
“no man may put asunder.”
3. Next observe that the man and woman thus formed are designed for
immortal life. So long as Adam abstained from the forbidden tree he is free to
take of the tree of life
the effect of which is to cause him to “live
forever.” To take of one tree was death
but to take of the other was life
eternal. What can convey more clearly the sublime idea that man was originally
designed for a dependent but endless life in God?
4. But if man is not a “beast of the field
” and if a “beast’s heart
is not given him
” neither is he here represented as an automaton. He is free
and is placed at once under the necessity of choosing between good and evil
truth and falsehood
right and wrong
God and self-will--in an immediate trial.
He must
by a deliberate choice under temptation
against all lower seduction
declare his allegiance to the Eternal
as the condition of the endless life. It
was a trial of faith; that is
of intelligent voluntary choice of the Infinite
Life and. Perfection as Ruler and Lord
precisely in the same sense in which we
are tried in the contest between faith and unbelief. How could this faith be
tested? The law of the Ten Commandments was
as Mr. Henry Rogers has pointed
out in one of his memorable letters
inapplicable. The law of the fifth
sixth
seventh
eighth
ninth
and tenth commandments was unsuited to a creature who
had but one single earthly relationship. There must
therefore
be appointed some
positive external trial
by which the question of allegiance might be
determined at once and forever. The test selected was the taking of the fruit
of a tree which was called the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil
” which
was good for food
desirable to the eyes
and in some mysterious sense
described as a “tree desirable to make one wise.” This tree appealed
by its
complex qualities
to the whole nature of man on its un-moral side
to the
lower senses of taste and smell
to the sense of beauty
above all to his
intellectual curiosity and ambition
as carrying with it some awful mystery of
“knowledge of good and evil” which should liberate him from dependence on the
Creator’s word--in fact
from a life of faith in God. It was a test which
brought out the whole strength of the two counter attractions by which their
being was drawn in two opposite directions
towards God the Infinite or away
from Him. Between these two the choice must be made for eternity of loyal
obedience or of empirical rebellion. And the lower attraction was supplemented
by the permitted assistance of a living tempter
enforcing the seduction of the
inanimate object
since the rejection of animated evil was as much due to God
as the rejection of the inanimate. In Adam’s case
the still further fidelity
was required of deafness to the voice of his wife when she became an auxiliary
to the seduction. What is there of ridiculous in such a trial? It precisely
resembles in its essence the trial to which every man in the world is still exposed--the
trial of faith and fidelity to God
to right
to duty as against created forces
of seduction. How shamefully is this lofty trial now misrepresented! Here is
not one word of “an actual apple”--the fruit is not named; the material
attractiveness is scarcely noticed
in the emphasis given to the intellectual
attractions of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”--the temptation to
know good and evil experimentally
apart from the will and word of the Creator.
It was a test of the root principle of obedience to the Eternal Mind and Will
the prime condition of co-existence in eternity with God; since such obedience
of faith is
and must be in all worlds
but the fulfilment of the primary law
of created free agency. For pride is the sin through which “fell the angels.”
III. The Sentences
Pronounced on the Man
the Woman
and the Serpent tempter. We now proceed to
examine the narrative of the trial of Adam in paradise on the side of its
results
with a view to an opinion on its credibility when taken as a real
history. And
first of all
I observe that the narrative
as it stands in the
Book of Genesis
ought not to be made answerable at the bar of modern thought
for the traditionary accumulations which have gathered round it after
thirty-four centuries of rabbinical and theological comment upon it. It is
defensible as it stands in the primitive record; but
I admit
wholly
indefensible and incredible as interlined by the additions of a later
philosophy and tradition. On the face of the narrative as it stands we find
only that
after other things set in order
and other living beings created
“God made man of the dust of the ground in His own image
and breathed into him
the breath of life
and man became a living soul.” This last expression
applied in the Hebrew original hundreds of times to the animals
signifies only
that man
animated by the Divine Spirit
became a “living creature.” It most
certainly was not intended to signify that Adam was created in possession of an
indestructible life. On the contrary
being made “in God’s image
” he was a
creature that might live forever if God so pleased; but he might also die and
pass away if he disobeyed his Maker. On the face of the narrative it appears
plainly that
being created in the likeness of God
and allowed access to the
“Tree of Life
” he was originally designed for immortality--for life eternal;
but it was conditional on the obedience of faith. If he transgressed
he would
“die.” The object set before him
therefore
was to secure
by faith in God
an
absolute possession of the eternal life for which God made him. If he departed
from the living God
and set up himself to be a self-determining power
to be
“as God
knowing good and evil
” he would “return to the dust whence he was
taken.” This is all that is in the narrative. The penalty of withdrawing from
God was death--the termination of his life (just as death would have borne that
meaning to him for all other living beings in the world)
and with that
of
course
the life of the unborn race which he represented. If now we examine
closely the history of the consequences resulting from the disobedience of our
first parents
through whom it is falsely said that we have become “guilty and
accursed of God
” it is seen at once
as was pointed out seventeen centuries
ago by Irenaeus
the scholar of Polycarp
the disciple of St. John the Divine
in his second book on Heresies
that God pronounced no curse whatever on Adam
or on Eve after their transgression
much less on their posterity. It is said
that God “cursed the ground for Adam’s sake
” cursed it with comparative
sterility
so as to demand extraordinary toil in its cultivation. The lightning
passed from the head of Adam to the soil
whence he should draw his sustenance.
Similarly
there is no single word of a “curse” pronounced on Eve. The life
penalty of her offence was sorrow in child bearing; but child bearing itself
was a blessing
not a curse. The curse turned aside from her also
and
descended on the serpent deceiver. The ground and the serpent were accursed
but not Adam and Eve. They were both to undergo the death penalty
and to
“return to the dust whence they were taken
” and thus were “constituted
sinners”; but
first
the penalty was deferred
and
secondly
in the very act
of sentencing them to death
God spake a word of hope and restoration through
the “seed of the woman.” And then it was that Adam called his wife by a new
name
“Evah
” or Life
because she was to be the mother of a world of living
beings which would never have existed but for the promised “seed of the woman”
and the suspension of the sentence. Their continued life was itself a sign of
the pardoning mercy of God
abstaining from the infliction of the threatening
that “in the day” of their transgressions they should “surely die.” The
postponement of death rendered possible the existence of mankind
and the birth
of their Deliverer who should “crush the serpent’s head.” If
next
we turn to
consider the results of the transgression recorded in the Genesis fragment
probably of antediluvian antiquity
we find first of all a statement that the
sense of shame in nakedness entered into the human world with sin
and as the
effect of it. Few features in the narrative have been more steadily derided
than this
that both man and woman were created in a state of nakedness
and
that the sense of outward shame began only with the sense of transgression
leading to the first attempt at imperfect clothing. No ridicule has been more
inconsiderate and superficial. The account given in Genesis is at least a
striking solution of a problem under atheistic views hopelessly insoluble.
Think of it. The whole world of living creatures is either unclothed
or
if
dressed in plumage or fur
is so dressed by nature for protection from the
weather
or for flight
or for beauty
and not as a remedy for any shame at
exposure of the body or any part of it. There is no trace of this feeling in
the animal world throughout all its ranks. Even our nearest analogues
the most
unsightly anthropoids
are destitute of any similar instinct of
self-concealment. Whence the irresistible instinct through which the most noble
and beautiful forms in the whole world clothe themselves from view
just in
proportion as culture and civilization render them more majestic and more beautiful?
and in a world where all the rest of animated nature is “naked
and is not
ashamed”? The fact is indisputable. Not the most infidel or the most beautiful
nation in Europe
in its finest
warmest climate
could possibly venture to
live one day absolutely unclothed. Absolute public nudity is itself a synonym
for disgrace and shameless vice in all nations and ages. Even the
half-nakedness of modern fashion and of theatrical display is condemned by the
public conscience. Let those who ridicule the narrative in Genesis be pleased
to give us some account of this phenomenon. Will anyone assign a more rational
account of this extraordinary exception to the rule of nature among living
creatures than this--that the sense of shame in nakedness
the outward crimson
blush at exposure of the person
the impulse to hide and cover
entered with
sin
with sin of a crimson dye
entered when the ancestors of the race had
cause to be inwardly ashamed of themselves; and that this sense of shame is the
perpetual mark of the truth of this narrative; just as the tremendous and
abnormal toils of mankind regarded as a historic whole
and the still more
tremendous and thoroughly exceptional infliction denounced on woman--however
varying with climate--equally confirm our faith in the Mosaic account of the
circumstances attending the first origin of our race and nature. We now arrive
at the last point in the history--the temptation by the serpent. So heavily has
the difficulty been felt ofwhat is called this “miraculously talking reptile
”
that I suppose the prevailing mode of explaining this incident in the history
of the Fall
even by those who do not reject the historical reality of Adam and
Eve
is by resorting to the notion that there was no serpent at all concerned
in the transaction
any more than in Christ’s temptation by the devil; but that
this reptile name was assigned allegorically to an invisible spirit
who did
not in any way appear
but who enforced the temptation presented by the tree of
knowledge of good and evil by his murderous suggestions. There is no doubt that
under this view the essential elements of the narrative may be preserved
intact
and the foundation of Christian faith remain unshaken
against the
assaults of honest unbelievers. But
after paying the utmost attention to these
allegorical hypotheses of interpretation
I confess that I follow the majestic
intelligence of Milton
rather than modern critics
in thinking that a deeper
study of the ease will enable and compel us to hold fast to the literal and
natural interpretation here also. But I frankly admit that we do not expect to
persuade anyone to adopt this old-fashioned conclusion who does not accept the
following premises as a basis of argument:--
1. That the narrative
as a whole
in Genesis 3:1-24
of the recent creation and trial of Adam in paradise
is a true story
contradicted by nothing that is really ascertained by modern science
and that
there is no more reason a priori for converting into an allegory one
part of the narrative than the other.
2. That it is necessary
in order to do justice to any part of the
Scripture of the Old and New Testaments
to bring the light thrown by the Bible
as a whole
as a record of the work of God
on to each special portion of it.
3. The acceptance of the mysterious Scripture doctrine of fallen
angels
with one mighty adversary of truth and right at the head of them
the
mortal enemy of mankind and the permitted tempter for a short season of the
servants of God. Suppose it be true
as is laid down uniformly in Scripture
that although man is tempted by the envious evil power who receives permission
to try his faith
this whole process of trial is
in all its details
under the
strictest Divine limitation and control
so that Satan can
neither by himself
nor by angels
nor by his human agents
go one step further than God “suffers
them.” Suppose it he true that God will permit no well-disposed person to be
“tempted above what he is able to bear”; suppose
as in the dramatic history of
Job
revealing ancient beliefs
Satanic power is never allowed to advance
beyond the line dictated by a merciful regard to man’s infirmity
and that each
trial is regulated and limited by the Divine knowledge of an honest soul’s
resources of resistance; suppose that this law was applied to the temptation of
our newly created first parents
and that
in their youthful and inexperienced
state
knowing nothing of the history of the universe
or of the fall of angels
or the purpose of God
it was forbidden to Satan to assail their life or tempt
them in the form of an equal or a superior
so that the permission to tempt was
limited by the most humiliating condition--that the temptation must come
if at
all
through the apparent action of one of those undeveloped and inferior
animals which sported around them. Under such conditions the action of the
murderous adversary becomes
at least
more intelligible. But you will ask
last of all
What reasonable explanation can possibly be given of the alleged
curse on the serpent--“On thy belly shalt thou go
and dust shalt thou eat all
the days of thy life”? Professor Huxley has sometimes said
in former years
to
his pupils at Jermyn Street: “Serpents have in all ages of the world
so far as
I know
gone upon their bellies; yet in the Book of Genesis it seems as if at
least an early specimen once went erect
a thing unknown before; and he was
punished by being reduced to creep and crawl forever
on the general plan of the
ophidia.” Professor Huxley has an excellent defence for his sardonic gloss in
the example of some Christian commentators
who have alleged this to be the
meaning of the Divine curse on the serpent. But there is not a word in the
narrative supporting such a notion. Suppose we take the history thus
and offer
an explanation in the terms following to the evolutionists and paleontologists
which
from their point of view will
I think
be acknowledged to be more
credible
because more consonant to the facts: “Gentlemen
you have taught us
as the result of your studies of animal nature
of which we all alike are
proud
that the probable doctrine--at least over large areas of life--is that
of the evolution of species
theone from the other
through all past history.
You have taught us that the class of reptiles filling up the space between
fishes and birds has in past ages
and in the existing world
contained nine
orders
of which four are now existing and five are extinct
having left their
fossil remains in the sedimentary rocks below. Among these nine orders of
reptiles
one order alone--that of serpents--is
and always has been
through
all past ages
wingless
finless
footless. The germs of hinder legs are
concealed in some few kinds of serpents
as in the boa constrictor
enough to
show their relationship with the eight other orders of limbed reptiles
which
fill up the space between fishes and birds. Now
of you
gentlemen
as
evolutionists
I
as an expositor of Scripture respectfully ask
Supposing this
curse on the serpent was really uttered by the Author of nature
by a living
God
who knew all past history
and all anatomy
and therefore knew the strange
abnormal history of the serpent order
through all its generations up till
then--that is
knew the history of the one reptile order which alone among nine
never developed its limbs
or any of the organs of locomotion which belong to
all the other eight
since the Permian epoch; and supposing--as I must ask you
to suppose for the sake of argument--this narrativeof man’s trial in paradise
as explained in the later portions of the Bible
were true
so that the serpent
was the organ of a brighter but viler intelligence--I put it to you
evolutionists
would it be utterly irrational to take the words of the Supreme
Judge thus
speaking first to the serpent
but more profoundly to the evil
power which had sunk so low as to employ this reptile form
‘Because thou hast
done this
thou art cursed above all cattle
and above every beast of the
field. Upon thy belly hast thou gone from the days of old
the one undeveloped
crawling
limbless reptile among all the kindred orders above thee and beneath
thee! And on thy belly shalt thou go all the days of thy life
so long as the
world shall last; no higher development awaits thee
no evolution into a nobler
type; but still carrying the marks
in thy unborn hinder limbs
of a better
kinship
thou shalt go on hissing
crawling
poisoning the world
hateful and
hated
striking man’s heel
yet punished by his enmity
until the time comes
when thou shalt be added to the already extinct orders of reptiles
and the
“woman’s seed
” destined to endless duration
shall bruise thee out of the
creation’”? Such a meaning
I think
might have been conveyed in full
biological truth by such a Divine Speaker to such a serpent. Here would be no
implication of his being reduced from a previous higher form to a limbless
creeper
but a sentence of continued crawling on the ground
without any hope
of evolution into a noble development. And
on the supposition that the typical
serpent form concealed some mighty spirit of evil
the antagonist of human
life
how awful the deeper enigmatical meaning of the words of the Judge
not
understood by the fallen pair
but understood well enough by the object of the
curse--“Origin of evil! thou hast sunk so low from thy once heavenly
brightness--so low in envy
spite
and murder
as willingly to take even a
reptile form
and that form the hatefullest
to reach thy end. Crawl
then
Spirit of Darkness
to the end of thy days
and ‘lick the dust
’ with all the
enemies of sun light and righteousness. For evil is not noble
and is not
eternal
and has no future evolution into greatness and victory. Thou
thoughtest to devour this man of ‘dust’ in thy abhorred embrace
but thy malice
shall be defeated; thy victim shall be rescued from thy fangs; man shall attain
to the life immortal; the Seed of the woman shall crush thy head
and the dust
of death ‘shall be the serpent’s meat.’ God shall bruise thee and thy seed under
man’s feet shortly.”
IV. The Philosophy
of the Hebrews on Good and Evil compared with Asiatic Dualism. It appears that
in ages preceding the times of Moses by at least a thousand years the evil
power which has ruined the work of the supreme goodness was represented all
over the world by the name of the Serpent. In the very earliest epoch of the
Egyptian monarchy there is evidence that the legend of Osiris was firmly
established
of which the essence was that this son of the supreme god was put
to death by the poisonous serpent
from the effects of whose murderous attack
he is delivered by resurrection and final enthronement in the celestial realms.
The same idea is found in ancient India
in the redemptive story of Krishna
who is depicted as setting his foot on the serpent’s head. Moses
therefore
has recorded
in the narrative of the Fall of man
a history which had much
earlier diffused itself over the post-diluvian world in more or less corrupted
traditions. In a word
the universal traditions of mankind confirm
even amidst
their fanciful variations
the record which stands at the beginning of Genesis
as all subsequent revelation confirms the original reality whence those
traditions sprang. But there is this difference between the beliefs of the whole
civilized world in ancient times and the doctrine of the Hebrew religion
that
without exception
the heathen worshippers deified evil as well as good
and regarded it as engaged in an eternal and often successful conflict with a
god of goodness; while
from one end to the other of the Mosaic and Christian
revelations evil is represented as an incident
vanishing and temporary
in the
everlasting dominion of supreme righteousness and love
a conviction which
imparted a wholly new aspect both to religious worship and to religious
character. The place and value of the Hebrew revelation in the systems of
Asiatic thought will appear the more clearly if we picture to ourselves the
earlier movements of the human mind in contemplating the mystery of life
where
natural speculation was unaided by light from heaven. Let us endeavour to throw
ourselves backward in fancy to that early time when the knowledge of the true
God had been lost amidst growing heathenism. How would thoughtful men attempt
under such conditions to solve the problem of the world? Clearly there would
emerge in succession two leading explanations of this scene of mingled good and
evil
moral and physical
in which chaotic darkness seems struggling with the
light and order which could create a kosmos. Of these
the first and the more
ancient was the dualistic
based on faith in spiritual powers; the second and
more recent was the sceptical
or Buddhistic
based on scientific observation
of things visible
and the positive rejection of Divine causes in accounting
for the state of the world. The earliest step downwards from the patriarchal
religion (which acknowledged one God
and traced up the origin of evil to the
rebellion of created free agency) was into dualism
or the exaltation of evil
to the rank of a Divine power coeval with the good. If in our time a mind so
great as Mr. John Stuart Mill could
in his latest works
indicate some
tendency to this solution of the mystery
is it to be wondered at if men whose
philosophy was primitive and tentative found an easy if terrible resource in
such a doctrine? If
further
they started from a primitive tradition of
personal evil agency in the supernatural sphere
it was inevitable that the
idea of an evil demon should be aggrandized into the idea of an evil deity. Of
this early dualism several things must be noted. Its essential identity of
principle must not be lost sight of under varying forms of expression. Its
reign extended over all Central Asia and India and China in the ages preceding
the Buddhistic “reform.” The relative prominence given in different ages and
countries respectively to the good or the evil powers was determined by the
physical
intellectual
and moral conditions of the nations who embraced the
general doctrine. The inevitable tendency of dualism among ignorant nations in
a state of suffering is towards religious pessimism--the special service of the
malignant deity
in order to propitiate him by atrocious rites
or to ward off
his injuries. The beneficent power will no doubt endure neglect
but hatred is
inexorable. Hence the Moloch worship of Syria
the devil worship of Asia
of
which some awful relics survive even to this day among the far-descended
aborigines of Ceylon. Hence
too
the remarkable fact that although the
Medo-Persian dualism
as organized by Zerduscht in a remote antiquity
gave the
supremacy to Ormuzd
the Eternal Light
in the course of ages of conflict the
popular mind
acted upon by terror and misery
by superstition and magian
priestcraft
had
by the time of Cyrus
arrived at so complete a prostration
under the shadow of the power of darkness
whose secrets the magians professed
to know
that much of the territory had been abandoned to sterility from a
conviction that it was useless to fight with destiny
an enemy who was
omnipotent and eternal. With the reviving fortunes of the people under the
bright and energetic rule of the Medo-Persian kings
and very probably through
the diffusion of Hebrew ideas in the East
a more luminous faith returned to
the nation. A profound theological revolution signalized the reign of Darius
Hystaspes
the final result of the happy victories of Cyrus. Darius records it
in the famous triumphal inscription on the rocks of Behistun. He asserts that
he has overthrown the magians
for ages leagued with Ahriman
and declares that
Ahuramasda or Ormuzd is king. It was as great a revolution as if Satan had been
worshipped in terror for ages in England
and then suddenly a political
revolution had revived the worship of God. In the more ancient sculptures of
Nineveh and Persepolis abundant memorials occur of the varying types of
dualism. In every better period of these monarchies the king is
represented as
under the protection of the beneficent deity
depicted as a winged human form
surrounded by the wheel of nature
while the evil power
symbolized by a
dragon
is portrayed only in a form of subjection or comparative defeat. With
these brief historical indications in view
it is easier to estimate aright the
value of the original Hebrew monotheism
and of its successive dispersions
as
factors in ancient Asiatic thought. At a time when India was dimly striving to
uphold faith in a beneficent deity against a malignant energy which was itself
divine; at a time when Zerduscht
in Central Asia
was more vigorously
maintaining the same faith against a popular superstition which was ever
darkening into the direful worship of Ahriman
Moses and the sons of Israel
were maintaining at once against Egyptian polytheism
and against all the might
of Eastern dualism
the existence and supreme sovereignty of one living and
true God
the Almighty
the just
the merciful
in whose government evil was a
possible
perhaps inevitable
incident
arising from the defect of the
creature’s freewill or the slothfulness of the creature’s intelligence
but
which had no root in the nature of things. It is this idea of the Infinite as
one living eternal personality which has bound the Jewish race together by the
sublimest of spiritual ties from first to last. They were monotheists when
Egypt
in the times of Amenophis and Aahmes
were bowing down before a Pantheon
of gods and goddesses--symbolized by oxen
by beetles
and by hooded cobras--in
a superstition redeemed from contempt by the single sublime legend of Osiris.
They were then monotheists
believing and declaring the unity of God
as Lord
of universal nature
the God of the heavenly forces and of a man’s
conscience--the Eternal God
in whose sight evil is but a transitory incident
the outcome of the creature’s freewill; one God
the everlasting antagonist of
moral evil
destined speedily to be vanquished as the serpent beneath the heel
of humanity. Yes
when all Asia held evil to be incurable and eternal and
divine
the race of Abraham held that evil was “but for a moment
” and that
God’s goodness and justice alone were eternal; and they stuck unto this
testimony age after age without varying
the witnesses alone and unconquerable
in antiquity to the sole sovereignty and eternity of God. And it is they who
have taught this lesson to the nations of the modern world. If we
the gloomy
dwellers in these half-lighted lands of the North
are still agonizing in the
terrific folds of an evil power who is a match for all goodness
and the
destined tormentor of the universe forever
we owe it to Abraham and his sons
and to those precious books which have held their own race together through all
their wanderings. Under these references in thought
it becomes doubly
interesting to note the phrases in which Christ and His apostles describe the
relations of the good and evil powers. The New Testament affirms
as we have
seen
in every form
the historical truth of the Genesis narrative. In the
Gospels
Christ’s Messianic life begins with a temptation by a personal devil.
In Christ’s teaching Satan is a real personality; he is a mighty king
and
in
a lower sense
lord of this world. He claims all political sovereignty as his
gift. He is “the prince” or ruler “of this world.” But his origin is in
measurable time
and his history is that of a murderous apostate who once dwelt
in the light
but “standeth not in the truth.” His destiny
too
is eternal
damnation and destruction. So in St. Paul’s writings there is a “kingdom of
darkness” and a “course of this world” from which Christians are delivered.
There is even a “god of this world” and a “prince of the aerial powers”; there
are evil “princedoms in the heavenlies
” but here
again
evil is a recent
evolution--the work of unreason
of will that prefers government by passion to
government by Divine law. And its end is destruction. St. John adds: “The
Kosmos passeth away and its passion
but he that doeth the will of God abideth
forever.” It is but faintly we can imagine how the world of mankind breathed
more freely when these glorious truths were first heard in Asia
crushed down
under the dark ancestral belief in an eternal reign of evil
and beneath the
stupefying fatalism to which it inevitably leads. When
then
Christ was made
known as the messenger of the one eternal power of good
warring against an
evil power which was not Divine and was not eternal
He was gladly listened to
by Europeans and Asiatics
who had been confounded between the rival theories
of dualism and atheism. We are now in a position to appreciate more correctly
the contention of those who would regard as a fable
having no foundation in
fact
the history of the entrance of evil through the serpent tempter
placed
at the beginning of the Hebrew Bible. Surely it could have been no mere fable
no mere allegory
which thus carried a whole theology
and philosophy
and
civilization along with it. It showed God the Beneficent as supreme
omnipresent
and eternal; and evil as a reptile perishing power. It engaged the
will of mar
to a personal conflict
both in nature and in human life
with a
mighty but a conquerable foe. “Resist the devil
and he will flee from you
”
was the battle cry through all ages. It showed all honest men that nothing was
noble except goodness
nothing immortal but righteousness; that even the
strongest and subtlest wickedness was ever ready to descend to the meanest
concealments and falsehoods to attain its ends; but that all those ends should
fail
because the history of the earth and of mankind was destined to be that
of a prolonged conflict of right against wrong
resulting in the enthronement
of Justice in the person of the true Osiris
the Son of Mary
who is also the
Son of God. Lastly
turning to our own times
we are still in the thick of this
awful and worldwide conflict; but oh
how glorious the retrospect of the war
against evil
how marvellous the succession of victories already won
and how
thrilling the hope that now shortly the atmosphere shall be cleansed from the
pestilent influence of that dark “power of the air” which rains down falsehood
and death upon the nations! The belief in the living God is nowhere stronger
than among many of the very foremost students of nature. The belief in Christ
the Son of God
is nowhere more fervent than among many of those who have
fathomed all the depths of ancient and modern philosophy. The belief in the
Bible
as a whole
is nowhere more profound than among many of those who
command a view of the literature of the world in all ages. And the belief in
life eternal
through the Word made flesh
is nowhere more potent than in many
of those who know all the reaches and “oppositions of science falsely so
called.” (Edward White.)
Some Objections to the
Literal History of the Fall Examined
I. First
as to
the severity of the penalty inflicted upon the violation of the command not to
eat of the tree of knowledge
it must be remembered that morality being founded
in the will of God
whatever He commands or forbids
though in itself perhaps
indifferent
is of indispensable obligation. The injunction
therefore
not to
eat of the fruit of a particular tree was as binding upon the protoplasts as
any moral precept whatsoever
and the infringement of it was an act of
rebellion against the sovereign authority of heaven. Some circumstances also
convict it of more than ordinary criminality. They were then in the keen relish
of new-created existence; the impression of the Almighty’s goodness was still
fresh upon their minds; they
in all likelihood
held familiar converse with
Him; and they well knew that their being
their faculties
their happiness
all
they possessed and enjoyed
as well as all the glories of creation
were
derived from His bounty and goodness. Their disobedience
then
evinced the
blackest ingratitude. The breach of so easy a command as to abstain from one
single tree
when full liberty was given to taste all the other delicious
fruits of paradise
greatly aggravated the offence; and the eating of that
particular tree
which the Almighty had reserved
as it were
holy unto
Himself
was a kind of sacrilege. As all necessary knowledge was communicated
and all needful aid imparted to them
their transgression was wilful and
presumptuous; it was
in the strong language of Horsley
“nothing less than a
confederacy with the apostate spirit against the sovereign authority of God.”
The motives
likewise
for the commission of the offence
a secret distrust of
the Divine promises
and the diabolical pride of aspiring to be like God
rendered it a deed of unparalleled atrocity.
II. The curse
pronounced upon the ground
and the consequent sterility of the earth
was a
merciful dispensation even towards Adam
who
having this standing memorial of
his transgression
would be the more earnest in his repentance
and from
experiencing the toils and hardships of life
would be the more resigned to
leave this world when summoned away by death. To his posterity it was an act of
mercy to take away some of the fascinations of a world which was to be only a
temporary sojourn; and by diminishing its allurements
to stimulate their hopes
of a better. The labour required for the attainment of food
and clothing
and
needful comforts
is attended with many beneficial effects; and the earth
with
all its barrenness
weeds
poisons
tempests
and convulsions
is better
adapted to a probationary state for creatures such as we are than if it
revolved in perpetual serenity and brought forth its fruits with spontaneous
fertility.
III. Such being the
case
it were unreasonable to complain of the fallen pair’s dismission from
paradise to a state of labour and toil. It was an act of justice
inasmuch as
they had forfeited all right to the happy bowers of Eden by violating the
Divine command; and of mercy
inasmuch as they were thus brought to a sense of
their destitution and of their dependence upon God
and were taught
experimentally to quit this world without regret. The bloom
and verdure
and
pleasures of paradise might well suit a state of contented innocence; but pain
and toil
and anxiety are no less befitting fallen creatures
whose appetites
are to be conquered by labour and abstinence
and whose holy aspirations would
die away unless quickened by a train of calamities and sickness. Nor could it
be any longer desirable for the lamenting pair to continue in a place every
object of which would remind them of their seduction and disobedience. In vain
might the feathered songsters carol in the groves; for them the opening flowers
would have no beauty
no fragrance; the fruits would pall upon their appetite;
and
as the charm that springs from conscious innocence was fled
they would
have wandered amidst the sweets of paradise without enjoyment or content.
IV. Why God
suffered Adam to be seduced when such fearful punishment was to be the
consequence is among those secret things which belong to the Lord our God. What
can we know of the Divine counsels
we who are but of yesterday
whose
existence is but a span
and whose utmost intellectual ken can scarcely peep
into the confines of immensity? From all
however
that we can comprehend
from
everything we can observe in the moral and the natural world
we are led to the
belief that the present transitory scene is a part of a stupendous scheme
tending through all its gradations to consummate the counsels of Divine
benignity and love. God could
no doubt
by an exertion of omnipotent power
have prevented the introduction of evil into the world
but we find He has made
men free agents; He has subjected them to the temptations of sin
to pain
and
to death; and His design in permitting such a state of things
we humbly
believe
is the production of higher degrees of ultimate happiness.
V. This supplies
us with an adequate answer to the question
why the Almighty suffered the devil
to tempt the first pair when He must have foreseen that they would become the
victims of his treachery. It was not in any mutability of His designs
not in
abandonment of the works of His hands
that He granted this permission to the
apostate spirit
but because He had predestinated in His eternal foreknowledge
and decree to bring good out of evil
and to make even the malignity of the
arch-fiend instrumental to His own glory. Man was created free; an easy duty
was enjoined
and the penalty of disobedience laid before him; he had
sufficient power and abilities to stand; it was not
therefore
by an
irresistible necessity that he fell
but by an abuse of his own free agency;
and Satan was permitted to make trial of him
because God
who foresaw the
consequences
foresaw that it would
in the end
be productive of a greater degree
of glory to Himself and of happiness to His creatures. In the same way we may
often account for the often condemned ordination of Providence
by which all
mankind were subjected to condemnation and death for the sin of one man. It is
easy to harangue upon the apparent injustice exercised towards the whole human
race
who thus share in the punishment
though not in the crime. But such is
the course and constitution of nature
where children suffer for the vices of
their parents
and where even a whole nation is oppressed and afflicted by the
errors and wickedness of one individual. That the innocent often suffer through
the crimes of the guilty
and that the dire effects of sin are extended to the
unoffending
are matters of daily experience; and if such circumstances are
reconcilable with the Divine administration
as the Deist must allow
why
should he condemn the appointment by which the penalty of Adam’s transgression
is transmitted to his posterity? Both cases are similar
and both must be
referred to the sovereign will and pleasure of the Deity
who
as we reverently
believe
has for infinitely wise and good reasons established this order of
things
since all His counsels and designs are laid in the immensity of His
benevolence. Some beneficial purposes answered by it our faculties are able to
discover
among which must be numbered its excellent adaptation to a
probationary state and the evidence it supplies of a future existence
where
the irregularities of this will be adjusted
and where all the instances of
terrestrial partiality and injustice will be rectified according to the rules
of inviolable equity. The grand solution
then
is to be sought in the cheering
and consolatory doctrine that all things are working together to produce
ultimate felicity
and that
through the benevolent appointment of God
all
partial evil will finally end in universal good. This may be inferred from the
attribute of transcendent benevolence in the Godhead
as well as from a
contemplation of the Divine love and mercy displayed in the works of creation;
and
aided by the light of Christianity
we are able to point out some of the
benefits arising from the Fall
which
on a superficial view
may appear to be
attended only with fatal and unhappy consequences. And
first
we are placed in
a state of greater security than Adam under the paradisiacal covenant
notwithstanding the comparative perfection of his nature and the unsullied
purity of his heart. Though the protoplasts had retained their integrity
yet
some of their descendants might
by virtue of their freewill
have fallen from
their righteousness
and introduced sin and death into the world
the
consequence of which would have been irretrievable misery
there being no
covenant to admit transgressors into favour. The atonement
perhaps
might have
been made
though the first offence had not been committed till many centuries
after the creation; but who shall say whether this would have been consonant
with the wisdom of the Divine mind? Or if it had
who shall say whether some
good might not have arisen from the early more than from the late entrance of
sin into the world? On such a subject
however
it is right for the frail
children of the dust to speak with reverential humility. Unbecoming in man is
the presumption of deciding what might have taken place under a different order
of things. Let us rather accept the ransom with grateful hearts
and
while
revering the unbounded benignity of God
let us strive to participate in the
offered pardon by a religious life conducted on the principles of Christian
faith. Secondly
we are capable of attaining greater happiness than if our
first parents bad continued in their integrity. The terrestrial paradise
presents only a faint image of the celestial paradise of God; and it is most
agreeable to infinite mercy to suppose that the loss of the happiness of the
one will be followed by the acquisition of still greater felicity in the other.
And if this transitory life has its pains and its miseries
it has also its
consolations and its hopes; if it be a state of probationary difficulty
it is
alleviated by spiritual aid and cheered by the most glorious promises; if sin
abounds
we know its remedy; and when we err
we know that there is also room
for reconciliation
of which the transgressor could have but a transient hope
under the Adamitical covenant of works. Exulting in the prospect of the
exceeding and eternal weight of glory to be revealed hereafter
when the
ransomed shall come to the celestial Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon
their heads
we are led to believe that the first sin in the garden of Eden was
permitted in mercy to mankind
and to exclaim with an ancient writer
“A happy
Fall; and happy unhappiness which was the occasion of so great happiness!”
Thirdly
the glory of the Divine attributes is more advantageously displayed by
the grand scheme of human redemption through the blood of Christ and
sanctification of the blessed Spirit than it could have been by the
uninterrupted innocence of the first man. The state of paradise gave evidence
to the might
the majesty
and the goodness of the Deity
but if it had
continued unchanged
where would have been the stupendous plan whereby infinite
mercy is exhibited to intelligent beings seated upon the same throne with
infinite justice? There could have been no room for the ways of Providence in
calling
justifying
sanctifying
and glorifying the faithful which now form
the subject of unceasing admiration and gratitude. Such are the consolatory
views of the present
and the enlivening hopes of the future
which we are
taught in the sacred writings to draw from the primeval transgression. Little
as they may avail with the Deist
who objects to revelation in general
they
will be embraced by every Christian with the transports of gratitude and
veneration which a Christian alone can feel. But if we consult the light of
nature only
there is no more difficulty in accounting for God’s permitting the
temptation and fall of Adam than upon any other hypothesis for His permitting
the origin of sin and its miserable attendants which are allowed to exist. All
our reasonings upon the moral government of the world presuppose the existence
of a great Creator; and if we believe Him to be infinitely wise and good
as
may be inferred from a contemplation of His works
we must believe that the
widespread evil is
in some way or other
consistent with infinite wisdom and
goodness. (G. Holden
M. A.)
Another View of the Early
Records of Genesis
It would be the veriest truism to say that the earliest records of
Genesis excel in interest and in religious importance almost all other portions
of the Bible. It is obvious at once that the facts they narrate and the
problems they raise lie at the root
not only of all Old Testament theology
but still more of all New Testament theology. Take them away
or rather take
away the great truths they teach
and our faith loses its natural foundations;
it becomes a lovely flower without a root
a shining river without a source
a
vast building without a base. So it has been said
and rightly said
that the
whole of the Bible is only the unfolding of Genesis 3:15.
If
however
it is a truism to assert the extreme importance of these records
it is also a truism to assert their extreme difficulty. God
in His wisdom
has
joined these two things together
so that what the devout Christian most
strongly clings to as inspired is most fiercely assailed as false and
legendary. Nor must we say simply “most fiercely assailed.” It would be an
affectation most unworthy of the “children of light” to deny or to ignore the
fact that the assaults made upon these records in the name of science are to a
large extent unanswered and unanswerable. One of the first things which the new
science of geology established with certainty was the now acknowledged fact
that the world is of great and incalculable age
and was formed and fashioned
through enormous periods of time. This discovery cut up by the root the old and
very natural idea that the world was made in six literal days. The “days
”
accordingly
were lengthened out into “periods” of indefinite duration
and
many schemes were propounded whereby the successive creations of Genesis might
be reconciled with the results of geological research. It is not too much to
say that all these attempts at reconciliation
and the many thoughtful and once
popular books in which they were set forth
have become discredited and out of
date; having in many cases a certain plausibility
they were fatally vitiated
by one or other (or both) of these things: they either strained the text in
order to force it into conformity with the facts
or they manipulated the facts
in order to extort some apparent confirmation of the text. No assignable “six
periods” are known to geology
nor can the order of creation as revealed to
Moses be read into the testimony of the rocks except by an ingenuity which is
as painful to the man of faith as it is unconvincing to the man of science. The
only real result of striving to maintain the geological truth of the first
chapter of Genesis is to empty it of all truth by making it mean anything which
it seems convenient at the moment it should mean. The same conflict
with the
same result
has gone on concerning the Deluge of Noah. Nothing
as Bishop
Wordsworth justly argues
can be more plainly stated than the universality of
that Deluge and the utter destruction of all human and animal life outside the
ark. Yet that universality and that total destruction is as plainly
contradicted by the whole strength of scientific evidence. If anyone fails to
realize the strength of that evidence
let him study briefly the present
distribution of the animal tribes on the earth’s surface. Let him take one
single fact from amongst the multitude
and let him consider that all the
animals in Australia are marsupials
and that these are the only marsupials in
existence
saving a single family in North America. Will he maintain that the
marsupials of Australia really came out of the ark? that the many hundred
ancestors of all their families--widely differing in size
in form
and in
habits--journeyed together across land and sea from Ararat
nowhere settling
nowhere breeding
until they
and they alone
reached their future home? Will
he maintain the same thing of the Lemuroids of Madagascar? Not to multiply
instances
it is no exaggeration to say that if all the land animals
even of
the three continents
came out of the ark
then there is no science of natural
history
and the distribution of animal life in different lands is not simply
an arbitrary thing without explanation
but is a delusive thing irresistibly
suggesting a false explanation. Probably
therefore
there is not to be found a
single person who has made himself acquainted with natural history who believes
that the present distribution of animal life in the globe was even seriously
affected by the Noachian Deluge. If believed at all
it is regarded as a very
local and partial catastrophe overwhelming possibly the whole tract inhabited
by man
probably only that tract which was inhabited by a particular race of
men. These two cases are examples of those in which the fixed conclusions of
science have compelled us to abandon the apparently plain historical
declarations of those Scriptures which we love and reverence with all our
hearts as the inspired Word of God. There are other cases
in which the
conclusions of science
not at present fixed
nevertheless promise to become so
in a very short time. The evidence of geology in favour of the great antiquity
of man
far beyond any antiquity which can be assigned to Adam and Eve as
historical personages
is already tolerably convincing
and bids fair to become
overwhelming. Similarly the evidence of history and philology is strong in favour
of a far more ancient era of separate languages than any which can be assigned
to the Tower of Babel; and this evidence
too
bids fair to become conclusive.
In either case
a really devout man
who believes that the sober and confirmed
conclusions of science are the indirect teaching of God Himself
must keep the
question open in his own mind
and must be ready to revise
if need be
what
has hitherto been his understanding of the Scriptures. The problem
as it
presents itself to a devout Churchman
is this: Here is a record
apparently
historical
to the inspiration and spiritual truth of which Christ and the
Church and his own soul bear testimony--such testimony as he could not for a
moment set aside. And yet reason
and the course of nature
and the testimony
of the rocks
proclaim aloud that this record is not historically true. What
then
shall he think? Is there no form of literature which might at once bear
the weight (so to speak) of inspiration
and satisfy at the same time the
required conditions? There is one
and only one; and that one the most ancient
of all the forms into which the thoughts of men ran spontaneously when first
they sought to put their thoughts on record. At the beginning of all histories
stand myths
and those myths are historic in form but (more or less) unhistoric
in substance
Is it lawful to hold that sacred history
like all other history
which runs its natural course from the first
begins with myths? No doubt it is
at first sight a startling
and even a shocking position. The very word “myth”
has gathered associations around it which jar painfully upon a devout mind in
connection with the Word of God. But this feeling may disappear if we look at
the matter more calmly.
A genuine “myth” is not false
if we imply by “false” any
intention to deceive. The myth is true in its own way
often profoundly true.
Sometimes it embodied a great fact
sometimes a deep yearning
sometimes a
noble aspiration. No one now would throw a national myth away because it is not
historically true; he would treasure it up reverently
he would try to find oat
what it meant to convey; he would not weave it into a prosaic record of actual
events
but he would not value it less highly in its own sphere. This being so
the question presents itself thus: Is it incredible that the Holy Spirit of God
should adopt the most primitive of the known forms of literature as the vehicle
of His earliest revelations to men? Is it not at least possible
however
strange at first sight
that the Holy Spirit should have employed myths in the
first instance
even as He employed poems
parables
visions
in other places?
If it be in itself not incredible
if it be a possible position for a loyal
Churchman to take up
it is unquestionably a position of enormous strength. In
the first place
it preserves and completes the thorough “naturalness” of the
Bible as to its outward and human element. As the true Divinity of our Lord did
not in the least mar or hinder the development of His perfect humanity
even
from its smallest and humblest beginnings
so the most devout belief in the
inspiration of Holy Scripture need not hinder anyone from recognizing its
entire conformity to the general type of all other literatures. If it should
appear that the earliest inspired documents are myths
then the written Word
would but dimly reflect in its development the humility of the incarnate Word
who
being God
was yet at one definite time an unborn Babe. In the second
place
such a position is one absolutely unassailable from the side of science.
As things are at present
the believer in inspiration is ever being attacked
and ever being driven backwards
from one position to another. No sooner has he
taken up
with much difficulty
some new line of defence than this too is
turned and made untenable by some fresh advance of science on one side or other
of the field. But if he can say boldly
“These writings are myths
not
histories
” then all conflict ceases; science and history are left in full and
free possession of the territory which belongs to them
which God has marked
out for them and allotted to them from the beginning; faith and religion are
left in undisturbed sovereignty within their own domain
the domain of moral
and of spiritual truth. In the third place
the theory which regards these
early records as myths
while it does not sacrifice anything that is valuable
in them
does very greatly enlarge their highest value by giving due prominence
to their moral and spiritual truth. It does not sacrifice even their historical
value (as it might easily be accused of doing); for
in saying that such and
such a story is a myth
the critic does not mean for a moment to say that it is
a falsehood or a fiction
or to empty it of historical significance; he only
means to say that it is not to be read as a literal statement of facts. It
would be the extreme of folly to say that there was no element of historic
truth in the first ten chapters of Genesis: unquestionably there is
only that
element is not distinctly assignable; perhaps it will never be exactly fixed
although it will be approximately fixed by the progress of historical science.
Meanwhile that value of these records
which the Church has ever recognized as
their true value
remains wholly independent of the progress
and even of the existence
of historical science. Being myths as to their literary form and human origin
they are parables for all practical intents
and share to the full those
wonderful advantages which have so greatly commended the parable to the use of
the Holy Spirit
and which all men feel instinctively if they cannot express.
The records of Genesis were written
it is certain
not for one age
but for
all--for the uninquiring ages of the past
with their utter ignorance of
everything beyond their own immediate relations to one another and to God; for
the ages of inquiry
present and to come
with their rapidly growing knowledge
of the world
For the past and for the present it was alike needful that those
records should not clash with their ignorance or with our knowledge; neither
anticipating then what God would teach men to find out thereafter
nor limiting
and confusing now what He had led them to discover. Now
in point of fact
no
one can help seeing that this purpose has been answered
to a great extent
by
the peculiar form into which these earliest revelations are thrown
and would
be answered still more completely if they were clearly recognized as myths.
Does it make any difference to the welfare of immortal souls whether the world
was brought into its present form in six days or in countless ages? whether the
race of men appeared upon the globe six thousand years ago or six hundred
thousand? whether the woman was actually made out of one of the man’s ribs or
whether that only typify her derivative and subordinate position? What really
does concern immortal souls is that the moral and spiritual lessons of these
records should be drawn out in the spirit of St. Paul and of the early teachers
of the Church. The story of Adam and Eve was applied by our Lord and by St.
Paul
and ought to be applied by the Church of Christ today
to define the
mutual relation of the sexes and the Divine ideal of marriage. The same story
was used by St. Paul
and ought to be used by the Church today
in order to set
forth what is for us perhaps the most important
and certainly the least
appreciated
of Christian doctrines
the spiritual relation betwixt Christ and
His Church. Yet where do we find this teaching worked out upon the outlines
laid down for us by an inspired apostle? Who ever hears a sermon preached upon
it? Bishop Wordsworth
in his invaluable commentary
has indeed done much
but
much more remains behind. The allegory is carried on
not only in the sleep of
Adam and the opening of his side; not only in the name he gave his bride and
the words he used of her; but also in the sentences which God pronounced upon
them after the Fall. “In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children
and thy desire
shall be to thy husband
and he shall rule over thee
” is
of course
a
sentence fulfilled in the case of women in general
although not now as a
curse. But it is in a much deeper and truer sense fulfilled in the Church of
Christ. “In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children” is the very law of her
spiritual fruitfulness
a law which must always
and under all advantages
hold
good
however much she may think to escape it. Without pain and conflict and
distress
and even agony
she will never get to herself spiritual children. The
calm serenity in which mere schools of thought may thrive can never be for her
unless it be to die in. Who does not hear
as he thinks upon this deep saying
the sad voice of the great apostle complaining
“My little children of whom I
travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you”? It was in
the nature of
things that he should suffer the birth-pangs once in the travail of their first
conversion; but it was hard
very hard
that he should have to go through the
same distress again for them. “And thy desire shall be to thy husband”; of
course it is
and this desire is that he should rule over her absolutely and
without any hindrance or cessation. But there may be noted in this word
“desire” an element of pain
which comes out most strongly and affectingly in
the hymns and prayers which are the voice of the Bride; it is a yearning
desire
a longing desire
in which there is much of unsatisfied and a little of
afraid; it is the destiny of the Bride now to long for the Bridegroom with a
sense of weariness at His long delay
of faintness because He cometh not
almost
of dread lest
coming
He be not wholly pleased with her. All this
and much
more
which is so profoundly evangelical
is in the sentence on the woman; for
it springs from the great conflict between the sin of earth and the love of
heaven. Again
the sentence on the man only finds its real significance when
understood of the Second Adam. Because He hearkened to the voice of His wife
of the Church which He foreknew; because He listened to the cry of His own in
many lands
in many tongues
“O come
O come
Emmanuel”; therefore He came
and
was made man
and did eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
and
got to know all physical evil as well as good by way of experience; and all
moral evil
too
as well as good
by way of temptation and of constant
struggle. And therefore
because He had laid Himself open to all this
was the
ground cursed for His sake
and in sorrow did He eat of it all the days of His
life. Thorns also and thistles did it bring forth to Him
all that could annoy
and vex His gentle soul; and thorns
too
in literal truth
wherewith to crown
His head. Much more there is in the same passage
but this may suffice as one
instance
out of so many
of the marvellous wealth of these sacred myths in
moral and spiritual teaching. This great treasure would be available
far more
than it is now
if these records were boldly treated as allegories
if the
reader and the preacher were not hampered and perplexed by having to ask and
answer (if he can) a thousand useless questions
as to whether Adam and Eve
were really the ancestors of the whole human race; as to whether the Euphrates
and the Nile ever really flowed from one source; as to whether all existing
tongues were really separated from the Hebrew less than three thousand years
before Christ. Again the question presses us--May a loyal Churchman hold and
teach that these records are myths
inspired indeed
but not strictly historic?
In all fairness it must be conceded that the objections to such a solution are
serious and weighty. Many who do not feel the difficulties of the present
position very keenly will deem these objections fatal. In the first place
it
will be said by many that the myth is not such a form of literature as could
become the vehicle of Divine teachings. As no one was responsible for the myth
as it could not be traced to any definite source
so no one could have been
inspired to indite it
and therefore it could not itself be inspired in any
intelligible way. It is
however
sufficiently certain and allowed that many of
the proverbs and sayings which go by the name of Solomon’s were drawn from
common life; they must have been current among the “wise
” and done duty in
expressing the common sense and feeling of men long before they were caught up
(so to speak) by the Holy Ghost
and set in the firmament of Scripture. There
is also many a fragment of national song and of popular lore in the historical
books. That must surely be an unduly narrow view of inspiration which would
exclude the spontaneous products of the national mind
the anonymous poetry
the deep sayings
which form so large and so true a part of the literature of
an archaic age. It may not be possible to say how such can be inspired
but
neither is it necessary: the inspiration of the written Word
like the incarnation
of the personal Word
passes all human definition. In the second place
it will
be put forth as an unanswerable objection by many that to acknowledge anything
mythical in the beginning of Scripture is to introduce such an element of
vagueness and mistiness as will destroy the value of all the rest; “For where
”
they will say
“are you to stop? If the story of the Tower of Babel appear a
myth to one
why not the story of Jacob and Esau to another
and the story of
the Exodus to a third?” Unquestionably it is of the nature of myths to slide
insensibly into history
so that it is mostly impossible to draw the precise
line between them. But the practical difficulty which ensues may easily be
exaggerated. The narrative
which is obviously mythical to begin with
becomes
obviously historical as it goes on
and is accepted without reserve as history.
Most of the reigning families of Europe are descended from divine beings
through lists of ancestors half-historical
half-mythical. Does any real or
considerable confusion result from that? In the third place
it will be urged
(and this is no doubt the gravest objection) that the mythical theory is
already a deadly weapon in the hands of unbelief. If myths are possible in the
Old Testament
can we say that they are impossible in the New? May not the
Resurrection itself be a myth
as many have taught
and teach now? It may
of
course
be called a myth
but it would not and could not be a myth in the same
sense in which the story of paradise is a myth; it could only be a myth in that
corrupt sense of the word in which it is a euphemism for a lie
If we read
in
some fragment of primitive tradition
that such and such a hero was the
grandson of Wodin
we rightly call it a myth; if a special correspondent
telegraphs that such and such a general has gained a splendid victory
because
he wished him to gain the victory: we rightly call it a disgraceful falsehood.
There is no real similarity between them
although both may be called (in
different senses) mythical. No one would use any harder word than “unhistoric”
of the legend of St. George and the Dragon
because it was simply an
atmospheric myth turned into a Christian allegory. A reported fight between a
dwarf and a dog
which never happened
was rightly spoken of in very different
language. It is unhappily true that the mythical theory has been carried into
the New Testament
where it has no sort of place
and therefore it is an object
of very natural suspicion in the beginning of Genesis
where it is in exact
accordance with the conditions of the age. But it should be remembered why it
has been carried into the New Testament
and with what result
in order to see
whether there be any similarity whatever in the two cases. The Resurrection has
been resolved into a myth on the simple a priori ground that miracles
are incredible
and on no other. The whole character of the narrative
of the
men
of the age
is dead against it; a mythical resurrection
tacked on to an
actual crucifixion
is a monstrosity which does violence to human intelligence
in general
and to all the conditions of the special case in particular. The
earliest records of Genesis are recognized as myths
in accordance with their
apparent character and the genius of their age
on the plain a posteriori ground
that science has demonstrated what internal evidence suggested
that they are
not historical. Again
if the Resurrection be a myth
then our hope is vain
and we are
of all men
most miserable; if the story of the Fall be a myth
it
does not lose one particle of its moral and spiritual value
and none is any
the worse. What is there in common between a criticism which destroys the
gospel and Christianity itself
and a criticism which removes certain early
records from one literary category to another? Lastly
it will be urged that
our Lord and His apostles continually quote these stories as if they were
histories. Most assuredly
and the parables of our Lord Himself are quoted
every day in a thousand pulpits exactly as if they were veritable histories.
Those who now believe that the early records of Genesis are myths
scientifically and historically considered
have no more hesitation in talking
about Adam and Eve
Enoch and Noah
than they had before
or than they have now
in talking about the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan. In order to justify
the use made of parables from the New Testament
or of myths from the Old
it
is not in either case necessary to assume that they are historically true; it
is only necessary to assume that they are inspired
and are therefore warranted
by the Holy Ghost to be true for all moral and spiritual purposes. They are in
the Bible
and that is enough for the loyal Churchman. The Bible is the Word of
God
and as long as he uses any part of it for doctrine
for reproof
for
correction
for instruction in righteousness
he knows he is perfectly safe. If
he go further
and imagine that the holy writings were given either to
anticipate or to contradict the discoveries of natural and historical science in
their own proper field
he is assuredly deceived. (R. Winterbotham
M. A.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》