BACK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORWARD
CHAPTER X
THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
BY WILLIAM CAVEN, D. D., LL. D.,
LATE PRINCIPAL OF KNOX COLLEGE, TORONTO, CANADA
Both Jews and Christians receive the Old
Testament as containing a revelation from God, While the latter regard it as
standing in close and vital relationship to the New Testament. Everything
connected with the Old Testament has, of recent years, been subjected to the
closest scrutiny – the authorship of its several books, the time when they were
written, their style, their historical value, their religious and ethical
teachings. Apart from the veneration with which we regard the Old Testament
writings on their own account, the intimate connection which they have with the
Christian Scriptures necessarily gives us the deepest interest in the
conclusions which may be reached by Old Testament criticism. For us the New
Testament Dispensation presupposes and grows out of the Mosaic, so the books of
the New Testament touch those of the Old at every point: In vetere testamento
novum latet, et in novo vetus patet. (In the Old Testament the New is
concealed, and in the New the Old is revealed).
We propose to take a summary view of the testimony of our Lord to the Old
Testament, as it is recorded by the Evangelists. The New Testament writers
themselves largely quote and refer to the Old Testament, and the views which
they express regarding the old economy and its writings are in harmony with the
statements of their Master; but, for various reasons, we here confine ourselves
to what is related of the Lord Himself.
Let us refer, first, to what is contained
or necessarily implied in the Lord’s testimony to the Old Testament Scriptures,
and, secondly, to the critical value of His testimony.
I. THE LORD’S TESTIMONY TO THE OLD
TESTAMENT
Our Lord’s authority – though this is
rather the argumentum silentio – may be cited in favor of the Old
Testament canon as accepted by the Jews in His day. He never charges them with
adding to or taking from the Scriptures, or in any way tampering with the text.
Had they been guilty of so great a sin it is hardly possible that among the
charges brought against them, this matter should nor even be alluded to. The
Lord reproaches His countrymen with ignorance of the Scriptures, and with making
the law void through their traditions, but He never hints that they have foisted
any book into the canon, or rejected any which deserved a place in it.
Now, the Old Testament canon of the first century is the same as our own. The
evidence for this is complete, and the fact is hardly questioned. The New
Testament contains, indeed, no catalogue of the Old Testament books, but the
testimony of Josephus, of Melito of Sardis, of Origen, of Jerome, of the Talmud,
decisively shows that the Old Testament canon, once fixed, has remained
unaltered. Whether the steady Jewish tradition that the canon was finally
determined by Ezra and the Great Synagogue is altogether correct or not, it is
certain that the Septuagint agrees with the Hebrew as to the canon, thus showing
that the subject was not in dispute two centuries before Christ. Nor is the
testimony of the Septuagint weakened by the fact that the common Old Testament
Apocrypha are appended to the canonical books; for “of no one among the
Apocryphal books is it so much as hinted, either by the author, or by any other
Jewish writer, that it was worthy of a place among the sacred books” (Kitto’s
Cyclo., art. “Canon”). The Lord, it is observed, never quotes any of the
aprocryphal books, nor refers to them.
NO PART ASSAILED
If our Lord does not name the writers of
the books of the Old Testament in detail, it may at least be said that no word
of His calls in question the genuineness of any book, and that he distinctly
assigns several parts of Scripture to the writers whose names they pass under.
The Law is ascribed to Moses; David’s name is connected with the Psalms; the
prophecies of Isaiah are attributed to Isaiah, and the prophecies of Daniel to
Daniel. We shall afterward inquire whether these references are merely by way of
accommodation, or whether more importance should be attached to them; in the
meantime, we note that the Lord does not, in any instance, express dissent from
the common opinion, and that, as to several parts of Scripture, He distinctly
endorses it.
The references to Moses as legislator and writer are such as these: To the
cleansed leper He says, “Go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the
gift that Moses commanded” (Matthew 8:4). “He saith unto them, Moses because of
the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives” (Matthew 19:8).
“If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though
one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31). “For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy
mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death” (Mark 7:10).
“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the
Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). “All things must he
fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in
the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44). “There is one that accuseth you, even
Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me:
For he wrote of Me. But if ye believed not his writings, how shall ye believe My
words?” (John 5:45-47). “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you
keepeth the law?” (John 7:19). “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision. * *
* If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should
not be broken,” etc. (John 7:22,23). The omitted parenthetical words — “not
because it is of Moses, but of the fathers” — seem clearly to show, it may be
remarked in passing, that the Lord is not unobservant of historical exactness.
The Psalms are quoted by our Lord more
than once, but only once is a writer named. The 110th Psalm is ascribed to
David; and the validity of the Lord’s argument depends on its being Davidic. The
reference, therefore, so far as it goes, confirms the inscriptions of the Psalms
in relation to authorship.
Isaiah 6:9 is quoted thus: “In them is
fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and
shall not understand” (Matthew 13:14,15). Again, chapter 29:13 of Isaiah’s
prophecy is cited: “Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites. * * * This
people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Mark 7:6).
When, in the beginning of His ministry, the Lord came to Nazareth, there was
delivered unto Him in the synagogue “the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he
had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the
Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor,”
etc. (Luke 4:17,18). The passage read by our Lord is from the 61st chapter of
Isaiah, which belongs to the section of the book very often, at present,
ascribed to the second, or pseudo, Isaiah; but we do not press this point, as it
may be said that the Evangelist, rather than Christ, ascribes the words to
Isaiah.
In His great prophecy respecting the downfall of the Jewish state the Lord
refers to “the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet:” As
in Daniel 9:27, we read that “For the overspreading of abominations he shall
make it desolate,” and in chapter 12:11, that “the abomination that maketh
desolate (shall) be set up.”
NARRATIVES AND RECORDS AUTHENTIC
When Christ makes reference to Old
Testament narratives and records, He accepts them as authentic, as historically
true. He does not give or suggest in any case a mythical or allegorical
interpretation. The accounts of the creation, of the flood, of the overthrow of
Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as many incidents and events of later occurrence,
are taken as authentic. It may, of course, be alleged that the Lord’s references
to the creation of man and woman, the flood, the cities of the plain, etc.,
equally serve His purpose of illustration whether He regards them as historical
or not. But on weighing His words it will be seen that they lose much of their
force and appropriateness unless the events alluded to had a historical
character.
Let us refer more particularly to this matter. When the Pharisees ask Christ
whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause, He answers
them: “Have ye not read, that He which made them in the beginning made them male
and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matthew 19:4,5).
Again: “As the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
and knew not, until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the
coming of the Son of Man be” (Matthew 24:37,39). Again: “And thou, Capernaum,
which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty
works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have
remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for
the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee” (Matthew 11:23,24).
These utterances, every one feels, lose their weight and solemnity, if there was
no flood such as is described in Genesis, and if the destruction of wicked Sodom
may be only a myth. Illustrations and parallels may, for certain purposes, be
adduced from fictitious literature, but when the Lord would awaken the
conscience of men and alarm their fears by reference to the certainty of divine
judgment, He will not confirm His teaching by instances of punishment which are
only fabulous. His argument that the Holy and Just God will do as He has done —
will make bare His arm as in the days of old — is robbed, in this case, of all
validity.
A view frequently urged in the present day
is that, as with other nations, so with the Jews, the mythical period precedes
the historical, and thus the earlier narratives of the Old Testament must be
taken according to their true character. In later periods of the Old Testament
we have records which, on the whole, are historical; but in the very earliest
times we must not look for authentic history at all. An adequate examination of
this theory (which has, of course, momentous exegetical consequences) cannot
here be attempted. We merely remark that our Lord’s brief references to early
Old Testament narrative would not suggest the distinction so often made between
earlier and later Old Testament records on the score of trustworthiness.
THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM GOD
We advance to say that Christ accepts the
Old Dispensation and its Scriptures as, in a special sense, from God; as having
special, divine authority. Many who recognize no peculiar sacredness or
authority in the religion of the Jews above other religions of the world, would
readily admit that it is from God. But their contention is that all religions
(especially what they are pleased to call the great religions) have
elements of truth in them, that they all furnish media through which devout
souls have fellowship with the Power which rules the universe, but that none of
them should exalt its pretensions much above the others, far less claim
exclusive divine sanction; all of them being the product of man’s spiritual
nature, as molded by his history and environment, in different nations and ages.
This is the view under which the study of comparative religion is prosecuted by
many eminent scholars. A large and generous study of religions — their
characteristics and history — tends, it is held, to bring them into closer
fellowship with each other; and only ignorance or prejudice (say these unbiased
thinkers) can isolate the religion of the Old Testament or of the New, and
refuse to acknowledge in other religions the divine elements which entitle them
to take rank with Judaism or Christianity.
The utterances of Jesus Christ on this
question of the divinity of the Old Testament religion and cults are
unmistakable; and not less clear and decided is His language respecting the
writings in which this religion is delivered. God is the source in the directest
sense, of both the religion and the records of it. No man can claim Christ’s
authority for classing Judaism with Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and
Parseeism. There is nothing, indeed, in the Lord’s teaching which forbids us to
recognize anything that is good in ethnic religions — any of those elements of
spiritual truth which become the common property of the race and which were not
completely lost in the night of heathenism; but, on the other hand, it is
abundantly evident that the Jewish faith is, to our Lord, the one true faith,
and that the Jewish Scriptures have a place of their own — a place which cannot
be shared with the sacred books of other peoples. Samaritanism, even though it
had appropriated so largely from the religion of Israel, He will not recognize.
“For salvation is of the Jews.”
Almost any reference of our Lord to the
Old Testament will support the statement that He regards the Dispensation and
its Scriptures as from God. He shows, e.g., that Old Testament prophecy is
fulfilled in Himself, or He vindicates His teaching and His claims by Scripture,
or He enjoins obedience to the law (as in the case of the cleansed lepers), or
He asserts the inviolability of the law till its complete fulfillment, or He
accuses a blinded and self-righteous generation of superseding and vacating a
law which they were bound to observe. A few instances of explicit recognition of
the Old Testament Scriptures as proceeding from God and having divine authority,
may be here adduced. In His Sermon on the Mount the Lord makes this strong and
comprehensive statement: “Verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”
(Matthew 5:18).
In the context the law is distinguished from the prophets and designates,
therefore, the Pentateuch; and surely the divine origin of this part of
Scripture is unquestionably implied. No such inviolability could be claimed for
any merely human institution or production. When the hypocritical and heartless
son pretended to devote to God what should have gone to support his indigent
parents, he “made the commandment of God of none effect,” “for God commanded,
saying, Honor thy father and mother” (Matthew 15:4). In purging the temple the
Lord justifies His action in these words: “It is written, My house shall be
called the house of prayer” (Matthew 21:13). Again: “As touching the
resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by
God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob?” (Matthew 22:32). Again: “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold
the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like
things ye do” (Mark 7:8). So many passages of the Old Testament are quoted or
alluded to by the Lord as having received, or as awaiting fulfillment, that it
is scarcely necessary to make citations of this class. These all most certainly
imply the divinity of Scripture; for no man, no creature, can tell what is
hidden in the remote future.
We are not forgetting that the Lord fully recognizes the imperfect and
provisional character of the Mosaic law and of the Old Dispensation. Were the
Old faultless, no place would have been found for the New. Had grace and truth
come by Moses, the advent of Jesus Christ would have been unnecessary. So when
the Pharisees put the question to Christ why Moses commanded to give to a wife
who has found no favor with her husband a writing of divorcement and to put her
away, He replied: “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to
put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). The
Mosaic legislation was not in every part absolutely the best that could be
given, but it was such as the divine wisdom saw best for the time being and
under the special circumstances of the Hebrew people. Not only did the Old
Testament set forth a typical economy, which must give place to another, but it
embodied ethical elements of a provisional kind which must pass away when the
incarnate Son had fully revealed the Father. The Old Testament is conscious of
its own imperfections, for Jeremiah thus writes: “Behold the days come, saith
the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the
house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in
the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”
But in all this there is nothing to modify the proposition which we are
illustrating, viz., that our Lord accepts the Old Testament economy and its
Scriptures as from God, as stamped with divine authority, and as truly making
known the divine mind and will.
Marcion and the Gnostics did not receive any part of the Old Testament
Scriptures, and the Old Dispensation itself they held to be of evil origin. So
decided were they against the Old Testament that they would not admit into their
New Testament canon the books which especially bear witness to the Old. But the
Christian Church has followed its Master in regarding the Old Testament as the
Word of God, as the Bible of the ages before the Advent, and as still part of
the Bible for the Christian Church. Not until the days of developed rationalism
was this position called in question, except among unbelievers. But it is
obvious that the style of criticism which, in our own time, is frequently
applied to the Old Testament (not to say anything about the New), touching its
histories, its laws, its morality, is quite inconsistent with the recognition of
any special divine characteristics or authority as belonging to it. The very
maxim so often repeated, that criticism must deal with these writings precisely
as it deals with other writings is a refusal to Scripture, in limine, of
the peculiar character which it claims, and which the Church has ever recognized
in it. If a special divine authority can be vindicated for these books, or for
any of them, this fact, it is clear, ought to be taken into account by the
linguistic and historical critic. Logically, we should begin our study of them
by investigating their title to such authority, and, should their claim prove
well founded, it should never be forgotten in the subsequent critical processes.
The establishment of this high claim will imply in these writings moral
characteristics (not to mention others) which should exempt them from a
certain suspicion which the critic may not unwarrantably allow to be present
when he begins to examine documents of an ordinary kind. It is not, therefore,
correct to say that criticism, in commencing its inquiries, should know nothing
of the alleged divine origin or sacred character of a book. If the book has no
good vouchers for its claims to possess a sacred character, criticism must
proceed unhindered; but correct conceptions of critical methods demand that
every important fact already ascertained as to any writings should be kept
faithfully before the mind in the examination of them. Science must here unite
with reverential feeling in requiring right treatment of a book which claims
special divine sanction, and is willing to have its claims duly investigated.
The examination of a witness of established veracity and rectitude would not be
conducted in precisely the same manner as that of a witness whose character is
unknown or under suspicion. Wellhausen’s style of treating the history of Israel
can have no justification unless he should first show that the claim so often
advanced in “Thus saith the Lord” is entirely baseless. So far from admitting
the validity of the axiom referred to, we distinctly hold that it is
unscientific. A just and true criticism must have respect to everything already
known and settled regarding the productions to which it is applied, and
assuredly so momentous a claim as that of divine authority demands careful
preliminary examination.
But criticism, it may be urged, is the very instrument by which we must test the
pretensions of these writings to a special divine origin and character, and,
hence, it cannot stand aside till this question has been considered. In
requiring criticism to be silent till the verdict has been rendered, we are
putting it under restrictions inconsistent with its functions and prerogatives.
The reply, however, is that the principal external and internal evidences for
the divine origin of the Scriptures can be weighed with sufficient accuracy to
determine the general character and authority of these writings before
criticism, either higher or lower, requires to apply its hand. “The heavenliness
of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the
consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give glory to
God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many
other incomparable excellences, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments
whereby it doth abundantly evince itself to be the word of God” (Conf. of Faith
1:5). But all of these considerations can, in all that is material, be weighed
and estimated before technical criticism begins its labors, as they have been
estimated to the entire conviction of the divinity of Scripture on the part of
thousands who had no acquaintance with criticism. Should the fair application of
criticism, when its proper time comes, tend to beget doubt as to the general
conclusion already reached regarding the Bible, it will doubtless be right to
review carefully the evidence on which our conclusion depends; but the
substantive and direct proofs of the Scriptures being from God should first be
handled, and the decision arrived at should be kept in mind, while criticism is
occupied with its proper task. This seems to us the true order of the procedure.
GOD SPEAKS
Our Lord certainly attributes to the Old
Testament a far higher character than many have supposed. God speaks in it
throughout; and while He will more perfectly reveal Himself in His Son, not
anything contained in the older revelation shall fail of its end or be convicted
of error. Christ does not use the term “inspiration” in speaking of the Old
Testament, but when we have adduced His words regarding the origin and authority
of these writings, it will be evident that to Him they are God-given in every
part. It will be seen that His testimony falls not behind that of His Apostles
who say: “Every Scripture inspired of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), and “The prophecy
came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).
WORDS AND COMMANDS OF GOD
In speaking of Christ as teaching that the
Old Testament is from God we have referred to passages in which He says that its
words and commands are the words and commands of God; e.g., “God commanded,
saying, Honor thy father and thy mother: and He that curseth father or mother,
let him die the death” (Matthew 15:4). Again: “Have ye not read that which was
spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob?”
In a comprehensive way the laws of the Pentateuch, or of the Old Testament, are
called “the commandments of God.” “In vain do they worship me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye
hold the tradition of men. * * * Full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:8,9); and in the context of this
last quotation the commandment of God is identified with what “Moses spake,”
showing that the words of Moses are also the words of God.
Passages like these do more than prove
that the Old Testament Scriptures express on the whole the mind of God,
and, therefore, possess very high authority. If it can certainly be said that
God spake certain words, or that certain words and commandments are the words
and commandments of God, we have more than a general endorsement; as when, e.g.,
the editor of a periodical states that he is responsible for the general
character and tendency of articles which he admits, but not for every sentiment
or expression of opinion contained in them.
It needs, of course, no proof that the words quoted in the New Testament as
spoken by God are not the only parts of the Old which have direct divine
authority. The same thing might evidently be said of other parts of the book.
The impression left, we think, on every unprejudiced mind is that such
quotations as the Lord made are only specimens of a book in which God speaks
throughout. There is not encouragement certainly to attempt any analysis of
Scripture into its divine and its human parts or elements — to apportion the
authorship between God and the human penman, for, as we have seen, the same
words are ascribed to God and to His servant Moses. The whole is spoken by God
and by Moses also. All is divine and at the same time all is human. The divine
and the human are so related that separation is impossible.
ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE
Attention may be specially called to three
passages in which the Lord refers to the origin and the absolute infallibility
of Scripture. Jesus asked the Pharisees, “What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is
He? They say unto Him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David
in spirit call Him Lord?” The reference is to Psalm 110, which the Lord
says David spake or wrote “in spirit;” i.e., David was completely under the
Spirit’s influence in the production of the Psalm, so that when he calls the
Messiah his “Lord” the word has absolute authority. Such is clearly the Lord’s
meaning, and the Pharisees have no reply to His argument. The Lord does not say
that the entire Old Testament was written “in the Spirit,” nor even that all the
Psalms were so produced; He makes no direct statement of this nature; yet the
plain reader would certainly regard this as implied. His hearers understood
their Scriptures to have been all written by immediate inspiration of God, and
to be the word of God; and He merely refers to Psalm 110 as having the character
which belonged to Scripture at large.
In John 10:34-36 Christ vindicates Himself from the charge of blasphemy in
claiming to be the Son of God: “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your
law, I said, Ye are gods. If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came,
and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of Him whom the Father hath
sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the
Son of God?” The Scripture cannot be broken — ou dunatai luthenai. The
verb signifies to loose, unbind, dissolve, and as applied to Scripture means to
subvert or deprive of authority. The authority of Scripture is then so complete
— so pervasive — as to extend to its individual terms. “Gods” is the
proper word because it is used to designate the Jewish rulers. If this is not
verbal inspiration, it comes very near it. One may, of course, allege that the
Lord’s statement of inerrancy implies only that the principal words of Scripture
must be taken precisely as they are, but that He does not claim the like
authority for all its words. Without arguing this point, we merely say that it
is not certain or obvious that the way is left open for this distinction. In
face of Christ’s utterances it devolves on those who hold that inspiration
extends to the thought of Scripture only, but not to the words, or to the
leading words but not to the words in general, to adduce very cogent arguments
in support of their position. The onus probandi, it seems to us, is here
made to rest on them. The theory that inspiration may be affirmed only of the
main views or positions of Scripture, but neither of the words nor of the
development of the thoughts, cannot, it seems clear, be harmonized with the
Lord’s teaching. Before adverting to a third text we may be allowed to set down
these words of Augustine in writing to Jerome: “For I acknowledge with high
esteem for thee, I have learned to ascribe such reverence and honor to those
books of the Scriptures alone, which are now called canonical, that I believe
most firmly that not one of their authors has made a mistake in writing them,
And should I light upon anything in those writings, which may seem opposed to
truth, I shall contend for nothing else, than either that the manuscript was
full of errors, or that the translator had not comprehended what was said, or
that I had not understood it in the least degree.”
In His sermon on the Mount our Lord thus refers to His own relation to the Old
Testament economy and its Scriptures: “Think not that I am come to destroy the
law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say
unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:17,18). No stronger words
could be employed to affirm the divine authority of every part of the Old
Testament; for the law and the prophets mean the entire Old Testament
Scriptures. If this declaration contemplates the moral element of these
Scriptures, it means that no part of them shall be set aside by the New
Dispensation, but “fulfilled” — i. e., filled up and completed by Jesus Christ
as a sketch is filled up and completed by the painter. If, as others naturally
interpret, the typical features of the Old Testament are included in the
statement, the term “fulfilled,” as regards this element, will be taken in the
more usual meaning. In either case the inviolability and, by implication, the
divine origin of the Old Testament could not be more impressively declared. Mark
how comprehensive and absolute the words are: “One jot or one tittle.” “Jot”
(iota) is yod, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet; “tittle,”
literally little horn or apex, designates the little lines or projections by
which Hebrew letters, similar in other respects, differ from each other. We have
here, one might say, the inspiration of letters of the Old Testament.
Everything contained in it has divine authority, and must, therefore, be divine
in origin; for it is unnecessary to show that no such authority could be
ascribed to writings merely human, or to writings in which the divine and the
human interests could be separated analytically.
Should it be said that the “law,” every jot and tittle of which must be
fulfilled, means here the economy itself, the ordinances of Judaism, but not the
record of them in writing, the reply is that we know nothing of these ordinances
except through the record, so that what is affirmed must apply to the Scriptures
as well as to the Dispensation.
The only questions which can be well raised are, first, whether the “law and the
prophets” designate the entire Scriptures or two great divisions of them only;
and, secondly, whether the words of Jesus can be taken at their full meaning,
or, for some reason or other,, must be discounted. The first question it is
hardly worth while to discuss, for, if neither jot nor tittle of the “law and
the prophets” shall fail, it will hardly be contended that the Psalms, or
whatever parts of the Old Testament are not included, have a less stable
character. The latter question, of momentous import, we shall consider
presently.
FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY
The inspiration of the Old Testament
Scriptures is clearly implied in the many declarations of our Lord respecting
the fulfillment of prophecies contained in them. It is God’s prerogative to
know, and to make known, the future. Human presage cannot go beyond what is
foreshadowed in events which have transpired, or is wrapped up in causes which
we plainly see in operation. If, therefore, the Old Testament reveals, hundreds
of years in advance, what is coming to pass, omniscience must have directed the
pen of the writer; i.e., these Scriptures, or at least their predictive parts,
must be inspired.
The passage already quoted from the Sermon on the Mount may be noticed as
regards its bearing on prophecy: “I am not come to destroy the law or the
prophets, but to fulfil.” While plerosai, as referring to the law, has
the special meaning above pointed out; as referring to the prophets, it
has its more common import. We have here, then, a general statement as to the
Old Testament containing prophecies which were fulfilled by Christ and in Him.
Here are examples. The rejection of Messiah by the Jewish authorities, as well
as the ultimate triumph of His cause, is announced in the 118th Psalm; in words
which Christ applies to Himself: “The stone which the builders rejected is
become the head of the corner.” The desertion of Jesus by His disciples when He
was apprehended fulfils the prediction of Zechariah: “I will smite the shepherd,
and the sheep shall all be scattered” (Matthew 26:31). Should angelic
intervention rescue Jesus from death, “how then should the Scriptures be
fulfilled, that thus it must be?” All that related to His betrayal,
apprehension, and death took place, “that the Scriptures of the prophets might
be fulfilled” (Matthew 26:56). “Had ye believed Moses,” said our Lord, “ye would
have believed Me, for he wrote of Me” (<John 5:46). The 41st Psalm pre-announces
the treachery of Judas in these words: “He that eateth bread with Me hath lifted
up his heel against Me;” and the defection of the son of perdition takes place,
“that the Scriptures may be fulfilled” (John 17:12). The persistent and
malignant opposition of His enemies fulfils that which is written: “They hated
Me without a cause” (John 15:25). Finally, in discoursing to the two disciples
on the way to Emmaus, the Lord, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things Concerning Himself. “And He
said unto them: These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with
you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses,
and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened lie their
understanding that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them:
“Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the
dead the third day” (Luke 24:44-46).
It is not denied that in some instances the word “fulfil” is used in the New
Testament merely as signifying that some event or condition of things
corresponds with or realizes something that is written in the Old Testament; as
when the words in Isaiah, “By hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand,”
are said to be fulfilled in the blind obduracy of the Pharisees. Nor, again, is
it denied that “fulfil” has the meaning of filling, or expanding, or completing.
But clearly our Lord, in the passages here cited, employs the term in another
acceptation. He means nothing less than this: that the Scriptures which He says
were “fulfilled” were intended by the Spirit of God to have the very application
which He makes of them; they were predictions in the sense ordinarily meant by
that term. If the Messiah of the Old Testament were merely an ideal personage,
there would be little force in saying that the Lord “opened the understanding”
of the disciples that they might see His death and resurrection to be set forth
in the prophecies. But to teach that the Old Testament contains authentic
predictions is, as we have said, to teach that’ it is inspired. The challenge to
heathen deities is, “Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may
know that ye are gods” (Isaiah 41:23).
We thus find that our Lord recognizes the same Old Testament canon as we have,
that so far as He makes reference to particular books of the canon He ascribes
them to the writers whose names they bear, that He regards the Jewish religion
and its sacred books as in a special sense — a sense not to be affirmed of any
other religion — from God, that the writers of Scripture, in His view, spake in
the Spirit, that their words are so properly chosen that an argument may rest on
the exactness of a term, that no part of Scripture shall fail of its end or be
convicted of error, and that the predictions of Scripture are genuine
predictions, which must all in their time receive fulfillment.
We cannot here discuss the doctrine of inspiration; but on the ground of the
Lord’s testimony to the Old Testament, as above summarized, we may surely affirm
that He claims for it throughout all that is meant by inspiration when we use
that term in the most definite sense. No higher authority could well be ascribed
to apostolic teaching, or to any part of the New Testament Scriptures, than the
Lord attributes to the more ancient Scriptures when He declares that “jot or
tittle shall not pass from them till all be fulfilled,” and that if men “hear
not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from
the dead” (Luke 16:31).
II. THE VALUE OF CHRIST’S TESTIMONY
It remains that we should briefly advert
to the value, for the scientific student of the Bible, of Christ’s testimony to
the Old Testament. The very announcement of such a topic may not be heard
without pain, but in view of theories with which Biblical students are familiar,
it becomes necessary to look into the question. Can we, then, accept the
utterances of Christ on the matters referred to as having value — as of
authority — in relation to the Biblical scholarship? Can we take them at their
face value, or must they be discounted? Or again, are these words of Jesus valid
for criticism on some questions, but not on others?
There are two ways in which it is sought
to invalidate Christ’s testimony to the Old Testament.
1. IGNORANCE OF JESUS ALLEGED
It is alleged that Jesus had no knowledge
beyond that of His contemporaries as to the origin and literary characteristics
of the Scriptures. The Jews believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that the
narratives of the Old Testament are all authentic history, and that the words of
Scripture are all inspired. Christ shared the opinions of His countrymen on
these topics, even when they were in error. To hold this view, it is maintained,
does not detract from the Lord’s qualifications for His proper work, which was
religious and spiritual, not literary; for in relation to the religious value of
the Old Testament and its spiritual uses and applications He may confidently be
accepted as our guide. His knowledge was adequate to the delivery of the
doctrines of His kingdom, but did not necessarily extend to questions of
scholarship and criticism. Of these He speaks as any other man; and to seek to
arrest, or direct, criticism by appeal to His authority, is procedure which can
only recoil upon those who adopt it. This view is advanced, not only by critics
who reject the divinity of Christ, but by many who profess to believe that
doctrine. In the preface to his first volume on the Pentateuch and Joshua,
Colenso thus writes: “It is perfectly consistent with the most entire and
sincere belief in our Lord’s divinity to hold, as many do, that when He
vouchsafed to become a ‘Son of man’ He took our nature fully, and voluntarily
entered into all the conditions of humanity, and, among others, into that which
makes our growth in all ordinary knowledge gradual and limited. * * * It is not
supposed that, in His human nature, He was acquainted more than any Jew of His
age with the mysteries of all modern sciences, nor * * * can it be seriously
maintained that, as an infant or young child, He possessed a knowledge
surpassing that of the most pious and learned adults of His nation, upon the
subject of the authorship and age of the different portions of the Pentateuch.
At what period, then, of His life on earth, is it to be supposed that He had
granted to Him as the Son of man, supernaturally, full and accurate information
on these points?” etc. (vol. i., p. 32). “It should also be observed,” says Dr.
S. Davidson, “that historical and critical questions could only belong to His
human culture, a culture stamped with the characteristics of His age and
country.”
The doctrine of the Kenosis is invoked to
explain the imperfection of our Lord’s knowledge on critical questions, as
evidenced by the way in which He speaks of the Pentateuch and of various Old
Testament problems. The general subject of the limitation of Christ’s knowledge
during His life on earth is, of course, a very difficult one, but we do not need
here to consider it. The Gospel of Mark does speak of the day and hour when the
heaven and earth shall pass away as being known to the Father only, and not to
the Son; but without venturing any opinion on a subject so mysterious, we may,
at least, affirm that the Lord’s knowledge was entirely adequate to the perfect
discharge of His prophetical office. To impute imperfection to Him as the
Teacher of the Church were indeed impious. Now the case stands thus: By a
certain class of critics we are assured that, in the interests of truth, in
order to an apologetic such as the present time absolutely requires, the
traditional opinions regarding the authorship of the Old Testament books and the
degree of authority which attaches to several, if not all of them, must be
revised. In order to save the ship, we must throw overboard this cumbrous and
antiquated tackling. Much more, we are assured, than points of scholarship are
involved; for intelligent and truth loving men cannot retain their confidence in
the Bible and its religion, Unless we discard the opinions which have prevailed
as to the Old Testament, even though these opinions can apparently plead in
their favor the authority of Jesus Christ.
Now mark the position in which the Lord, as our Teacher, is thus placed. We have
followed Him in holding opinions which turn out to be unscientific, untrue; and
so necessary is it to relinquish these opinions that neither the Jewish nor the
Christian faith can be satisfactorily defended if we cling to them. Is it not,
therefore, quite clear that the Lord’s teaching is, in something material, found
in error — that His prophetical office is assailed? For the allegation is that,
in holding fast to what He is freely allowed to have taught, we are imperiling
the interests of religion. The critics whom we have in view must admit either
that the points in question are of no importance, or that the Lord was
imperfectly qualified for His prophetical work. Those who have reverence for the
Bible will not admit either position. For why should scholarship so magnify the
necessity to apologetics of correcting the traditional opinion as to the age and
authorship of the Pentateuch, and other questions of Old Testament criticism,
unless it means to show that the Old Testament requires more exact, more
enlightened, handling than the Lord gave it? Should it be replied that the Lord,
had He been on earth now, would have spoken otherwise on the topics concerned,
the obvious answer is, that the Lord’s teaching is for all ages, and that His
word “cannot be broken,”
2. THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION
The theory of accommodation is brought
forward in explanation of those references of Christ to the Old Testament which
endorse what are regarded as inaccuracies or popular errors. He spake, it is
said, regarding the Old Testament, after the current opinion or belief. This
belief would be sometimes right and sometimes wrong; but where no interest of
religion or morality was affected — where spiritual truth was not involved — He
allowed Himself, even where the common belief was erroneous, to speak in
accordance with it. Some extend the principle of accommodation to the
interpretation of the Old Testament as well as to questions of canon and
authorship; and in following it the Lord is declared to have acted prudently,
for no good end could have been served, it is alleged, by crossing the vulgar
opinion upon matters of little importance, and thus awakening or strengthening
suspicion as to His teaching in general.
As to the accommodation thus supposed to have been practiced by our Lord, we
observe that if it implies, as the propriety of the term requires, a more
accurate knowledge on His part than His language reveals, it becomes difficult,
in many instances, to vindicate His perfect integrity. In some cases where
accommodation is alleged, it might, indeed, be innocent enough, but in others it
would be inconsistent with due regard to truth; and most of the statements of
the Lord touching the Old Testament to which attention has been directed in this
discussion seem to be of this latter kind. Davidson himself says: “Agreeing as
we do in the sentiment that our Savior and His Apostles accommodated their mode
of reasoning to the habitual notions of the Jews, no authority can be attributed
to that reasoning except when it takes the form of an independent declaration
or statement, and so rests on the speaker’s credit.” Now the statements of
Christ respecting the Old Testament Scriptures to which we desire specially to
direct attention are precisely of this nature. Are not these “independent
declarations”? “One jot or one tittle shall not pass,” etc.; “The Scripture
cannot be broken;” “David in spirit calls him Lord;” “All things must be
fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the
psalms concerning Me.”
Further, we may say as before, that if our Lord’s statements — His obiter
dicta, if you will — about the authorship of parts of Scripture give a
measure of countenance to opinions which are standing in the way of both genuine
scholarship and of faith, it is hard to see how they can be regarded as
instances of a justifiable accommodation. It seems to us (may we reverently use
the words) that in this case you cannot vindicate the Lord’s absolute
truthfulness except by imputing to Him a degree of ignorance which would unfit
Him’ for His office as permanent Teacher of the Church. Here is the dilemma for
the radical critic — either he is agitating the Church about trifles, or, if his
views have the apologetical importance which he usually attributes to them, he
is censuring the Lord’s discharge of His prophetic office; for the allegation is
that Christ’s words prove perplexing and misleading in regard to weighty issues
which the progress of knowledge has obliged us to face. Surely we should be
apprehensive of danger if we discover that views which claim our adhesion, on
any grounds whatever, tend to depreciate the wisdom of Him whom we call “Lord
and Master,” upon whom the Spirit was bestowed “without measure,” and who “spake
as never man spake.” It is a great thing in this controversy to have the Lord on
our side.
Are, then, the Lord’s references to Moses
and the law to be regarded as evidence that He believed the Pentateuch to be
written by Moses, or should they be classed as instances of accommodation? When
we take in cumulo all the passages in which the legislation of the
Pentateuch and the writing of it are connected with Moses, a very strong case is
made out against mere accommodation. The obvious accuracy of speech observed in
some of these references cannot be overlooked; e.g., “Moses, therefore, gave you
circumcision (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers).” Again,
“There is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust; for had ye
believed Moses ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me; but if ye believe
not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?” This is not the style of one
who does not wish his words to be taken strictly!
TWO POSITIONS CLEAR
Two positions may, I think, be affirmed:
The legislation of the Pentateuch is actually ascribed to Moses by the Lord. If
this legislation is, in the main, long subsequent to Moses, and a good deal of
it later than the exile, the Lord’s language is positively misleading, and
endorses an error which vitiates the entire construction of Old Testament
history and the development of religion in Israel. Moses is to such extent the
writer of the law that it may, with propriety, be spoken of as “his writings.”
All admit that there are passages in the Books of Moses which were written by
another hand or other hands, and should even additions other than certain brief
explanatory interpolations and the last chapter of Deuteronomy have to be
recognized (which has not yet been demonstrated) the Pentateuch would remain
Mosaic. Should Moses have dictated much of his writings, as Paul did, they
would, it is unnecessary to say, be not the less his: The words of Jesus we
consider as evidence that He regarded Moses as, substantially, the writer of the
books which bear his name. Less than this robs several of our Lord’s statements
of their point and propriety.
It is hardly necessary to say that we have no desire to see a true and reverent
criticism of the Old Testament, and of the New as well, arrested in its
progress, or in the least hindered. Criticism must accomplish its task, and
every lover of truth is more than willing that it should do so. Reluctance to
see truth fully investigated, fully ascertained and established, in any
department of thought and inquiry, and most of all in those departments which
are highest, is lamentable evidence of moral weakness, of imperfect confidence
in Him who is the God of truth. But criticism must proceed by legitimate methods
and in a true spirit. It must steadfastly keep before it all the facts essential
to be taken into account. In the case of its application to the Bible and
religion, it is most reasonable to demand that full weight should be allowed to
all the teachings, all the words of Him who only knows the Father, and who came
to reveal Him to the world, and who is Himself the Truth. If all Scripture bears
testimony to Christ, we cannot refuse to hear Him when He speaks of its
characteristics. It is folly, it is unutterable impiety, to decide differently
from the Lord any question regarding the Bible on which we have His verdict; nor
does it improve the case to say that we shall listen to Him when He speaks of
spiritual truth, but shall count ourselves free when the question is one of
scholarship. Alas for our scholarship when it brings us into controversy with
Him who is the Prophet, as He is the Priest and King of the Church, and by whose
Spirit both Prophets and Apostles spake!
Nothing has been said in this paper respecting the proper method of
interpreting the different books and parts of the Old Testament, nor the way
of dealing with specific difficulties.
Our object has been to show that the Lord
regards the entire book, or collection of books, as divine, authoritative,
infallible. But in the wide variety of these writings there are many forms of
composition, and every part, it is obvious to say, must be understood and
explained in accordance with the rules of interpretation which apply to
literature of its kind. We have not been trying in advance to bind up the
interpreter to an unintelligent literalism in exegesis, which should take no
account of what is peculiar to different species of writing, treating poetry and
prose, history and allegory, the symbolical and the literal, as if all were the
same. The consideration of this most important subject of interpretation with
which apologetical interests are, indeed, closely connected, has not been before
us. But nothing which we could be called upon to advance regarding the
interpretation of the Old Testament could modify the results here reached in
relation to the subject of which we have spoken. Our Lord’s testimony to the
character of the Old Testament must remain unimpaired.
BACK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORWARD
|