God, the Holy Spirit, on all the subjects of which they have written.
What, therefore, is their testimony concerning the author of the book of
Isaiah? Did that prophet write the book, or is it a patched book from
various authors?
Matthew, the inspired author of the book that bears his name, quotes
from Isaiah xl. 3: "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway
for our God." (See Matt. iii. 3.)
The critics inform us that this prophecy was not given by Isaiah, but by
some unknown prophet, and was bound up with Isaiah's prophecies, and
labeled as his. Matthew informs us that it was a prophecy concerning
John the Baptist, and was given by Isaiah himself, and not by another.
He says (iii. 3), referring to John the Baptist: "For this is he that
was spoken of through _Isaiah the prophet_, saying:
"The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the
Lord, Make his paths straight." (R.V.)
Again, in Matt. viii. 17, the author of this gospel quotes a passage
from the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. The critics have handed this
fifty-third chapter over to the Unknown prophet or prophets. They affirm
again that the theme and literary style of this chapter are such that
Isaiah could not have written it. They base their affirmation on their
own literary discoveries, their ability to detect the footprints of some
other prophet, though they do not inform us who that prophet is. They
are sure that it was not Isaiah, for they have already placed him under
such limitations that, according to their critical decision, he could
not write the chapter. Of course, their conclusion is reached by
practically denying the Holy Spirit's agency--logically denying that
"holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter
i. 21.)
The inspired author of the gospel of Matthew had a different conception
of the Holy Spirit's agency in giving prophecy to the world. He had not
discovered the limitations of the prophet, which the critics profess to
have found. Hence, in giving the history of God's gracious and
miraculous work of casting out demons and healing the sick, he declares
(Matt. viii. 17), without a shadow of a mistake, that Christ wrought
these miracles, "that it might be fulfilled _which was spoken through
Isaiah the prophet_, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our
diseases." (See also Isaiah liii. 4.)
As Matthew is on the witness stand, the reader will be interested to
hear his testimony further. In his gospel (xii. 17-21) he testifies that
Isaiah wrote the forty-second chapter of the prophecy that bears his
name. Matthew quotes the first four verses of the chapter, in
explanation of the fact that Christ found it necessary during his
ministry to retire from the public excitement which his teaching and
miracles had produced. He says that Christ pursued that course "that it
might be fulfilled which _was spoken through Isaiah the prophet_,
saying, Behold my servant whom I have chosen; my beloved in whom my soul
is well pleased; I will put my Spirit upon him and he shall show
judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall any
man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break,
and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto
victory, and in his name shall the Gentiles trust."
This quotation is from Isaiah, forty-second chapter, and first part of
the chapter. The reader will remember that the critics deny this
testimony of Matthew. This forty-second chapter which he (Matthew)
assigns to Isaiah is a part of the book which they affirm has come to us
from some unknown source.
It is worthy of repetition that three times Matthew, the inspired author
of the first gospel, has affirmed without equivocation that the passages
which he quotes were "_spoken by Isaiah the prophet_." The critics say
"No." Which will the reader believe?
The author of the third gospel, describing our Lord's visit to Nazareth,
says: "As his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day,
and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of
the prophet Isaiah, 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; he hath sent me to heal the broken
hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to
the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the
acceptable year of the Lord." Luke iv. 16-19.
_Luke informs us that it was "the book of the prophet Isaiah_" from
which our Savior made this quotation. We turn to the prophecy and
discover that the passage is found in the sixty-first chapter and first
and second verses of the book. But the critics who are correcting our
Bible for us (?) inform us that their same literary discovery holds good
here--that this part of the book _was not_ written by Isaiah. They
assume to hand over this part of the book, knowingly, to the "Great
Unknown" and unknowable prophets. The testimony of Luke contradicts the
critics. He gives Isaiah full credit as the author of the statement. The
reader will doubtless accept the fact that the inspired writer, the
author of Luke's gospel, obtained his information at first hand, from
God himself, who inspired the record.
Again Luke contradicts the critics when he puts on record Philip's
interview with the eunuch, as we find it in Acts viii. 30-33. When
Philip joined himself to the eunuch, by direction of the Spirit, he
"heard him reading _Isaiah the prophet_ (Isaiah liii. 7), and said,
Understandest thou what thou readest?" ... Now, the passage of the
Scriptures which he was reading was this: "He was led as a sheep to the
slaughter and as a lamb before his shearer, dumb, so he opened not his
mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: his generation
who shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth," (R.V., Acts
viii. 30-33.)
Our critics have robbed Isaiah of this passage. It was written, so their
literary skill claims to have discovered, by some prophet who has
successfully concealed himself, and finally disappeared from sight,
leaving no hope that his name will ever be discovered.
Luke informs us that he knew who the prophet was that penned that
touching description of the coming Messiah, and that his name was
Isaiah. This question he has settled.
Turning to the gospel of John, we are furnished the testimony of one of
whom our Lord said, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of
woman, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." This
witness comes before us, therefore, indorsed by Jesus Christ himself,
"The faithful Witness." We ask him, therefore, to speak for himself as
to who is the author of that part of prophecy which the critics are
attempting to wrest from Isaiah.
When the priests and Levites came to ask him, "Who art thou? That we may
give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?" he
replied, "I am the Voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight
the way of the Lord, _as said Isaiah the prophet_." (See John i. 22, 23,
R.V.)
This was his testimony, first concerning himself. We believe him. And
this was his testimony, secondly, concerning the author of the prophecy
which he quoted: "_Isaiah the prophet_."
Again we believe him, and as confidently, concerning the second
statement as the first. And the Apostle John was so confident of its
truth that he put it on record.
The passage quoted (Isaiah xl. 3) belongs to that part of the book which
our critic and his fellow critics have decided was predicted by some
stray prophet, unknown to the world, to the Jewish people or the church.
We prefer the statement of John the Baptist, and its indorsement by John
the Apostle.
The reader will now recall that we have already heard Matthew's
corroboration of the testimony of John the Baptist concerning Isaiah's
claim to this prophecy. (See Matt iii. 3.)
In the gospel of the Apostle John he puts on record his personal
testimony concerning the author of the book bearing Isaiah's name.
Explaining the amazing unbelief of the Jews, he says (xii. 37, 38): "But
though he (Jesus) did so many signs before them, yet they believed not
on him: _that the word of Isaiah the prophet_ might be fulfilled, which
he spake:
"Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the
Lord been revealed?" (R.V.)
The reader will see that this inspired writer of the fourth gospel is
quoting from Isaiah liii. 1, thus testifying to Isaiah's authorship.
Our literary critics have decided that this chapter was forbidden ground
to Isaiah, that, if we are to believe them, he had no connection with
this prophecy.
We are asked to believe that the author of this fifty-third chapter, the
most minute and tender prophecy concerning the Messiah's sufferings for
his people, and rejection by them, has dropped out of sight! We are
asked to believe that the name of the prophet who gave this dramatic
picture of what was to take place on Calvary seven hundred years later,
has been lost in the fog of the passing centuries! We are asked to
believe that the name of the author of the first thirty-nine chapters,
the less important part of the book, has been preserved, but oblivion
has overtaken the author of the book from the fortieth chapter to the
end.
The assumption is an affront to the intelligence of the ordinary reader
of the Bible. It is an impeachment of the honesty of the authors of the
gospels, which the unshaken faith of God's people can never concede.
The reader can now sum up the testimony of Matthew, Mark (see i. 3,
R.V.), Luke, John, and John the Baptist, all of whom with one voice
contradicts the critics. We also prefer, with these witnesses, to
discredit the men who are picking out clauses, verses and chapters here
and there, and guessing them off to authors of their own invention, who
have never been known or heard of.
It is not sufficient for the critics to say that these New Testament
authors knew better, but deferred to popular sentiment, based on
tradition. That can not satisfy our estimate of them as God's divinely
appointed teachers, chosen to make record of the momentous truth on
which the salvation of a lost world hangs. Men, ready to lay down their
lives for the truth, were not the men to play fast and loose with the
Word of God, in deference to a supposed popular sentiment.
Further, our critical friends have assumed to decide for the prophets
that they must prophesy out of their immediate surroundings in such a
marked way, with such continued reference to the events of the period,
that the prophecy must be located in that period. If the critic cannot
find these particular local earmarks, he must push the prophecy to a
point of time with which he can make it synchronize, and which will
satisfy his literary judgment. By this law of determining dates, the
critics claim that the book of Isaiah is a composite work, produced by
different authors and at different times.
On this assumption the latter part of the book of Revelation was not a
revelation to the Apostle John on the Isle of Patmos. The first part of
the book may be adjudged as his. But presently the matter of the book
passes into a realm beyond the time and circumstances that belong to
that period, hence may not claim him as its author. An assumption that
sets aside the claims of Scripture, as to authorship, in order to
harmonize the book with one's literary and critical judgment, may be
dismissed on its own lack of merit.
The proposed law above referred to, as a method of locating prophecy as
to time, or determining the author, is arbitrary, and an absurd attempt
to destroy all the testimony of inspired writers, who have settled the
question of authorship and the date of prophecy.
VIII. THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF JONAH.
_"According to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the
hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, which was of
Gath-hepher." 2 Kings xiv. 25._
_"The word of the Lord came unto Jonah, the son of Amittai, saying,
Arise go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it: for their
wickedness is come up before me." Jonah i. 1, 2._
_"So Jonah arose and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the
Lord." Jonah iii.. 3._
_"And he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be
overthrown." Jonah iii. 4._
_"So the people of Nineveh believed God." Jonah iii. 5._
_"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God
repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them, and he did
it not." Jonah iii. 10._
_"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and
shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas."
Matt. xii. 41._
The book of Jonah has been attacked by the destructive critics. Its
historicity has been denied. The critics, though certain of almost all
of their objections to the Bible, have not all decided whether it is
"based on history, or is a nature myth." Keunen has discovered (?) that
it is "a product of the opposition to the strict and exclusive policy of
Ezra toward heathen nations." Objection is made to the historical
statements of the book on various grounds. The objector interposes this
difficulty: "Can we conceive of a heathen city being converted by an
obscure foreign prophet?"
This objection is of kin to that which can not conceive that by a
creative act of God the universe was brought into being, or the inspired
statement that "the worlds were framed by the word of God." It is the
presence of the supernatural everywhere that is beyond the conception of
the critics.
Again, they interpose the difficulty: "How could the Ninevites give
credence to a man who was not a servant of Ashur?"
Without presenting the multiplied difficulties that rationalism has
supposedly discovered, they may be summed up in their statement
substantially, that the book of Jonah is not historical. Whatever else
it may be, whether legend, myth or allegory, it is not history.
We turn again from the fancies of "Expert Scholarship" to the testimony
of the Bible concerning itself. We discover that the prophet Jonah is
referred to several hundred years before the critics have permitted him
to live. It is written in 2 Kings xiv. 25 that Jeroboam the Second
secured the restoration of certain territory, "according to the word of
the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah,
the son of Amittai the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher."
The name of Jonah, of his family, and the place of residence of his
family, are definitely stated. The work is accomplished "by the hand of
his servant Jonah," and the date of its accomplishment, is so precisely
recorded that these statements could have been disproved had they been
false. Hence, there was a person named Jonah.
Our Lord has settled the questions of the personality and work of Jonah,
if anything can be settled for unbelief. He has affirmed the historical
certainty of the two important events which critical assumption declares
impossible. The critical Jews were demanding a sign from our Lord. He
had wrought many miracles, but they wanted something beyond what he had
given, a miracle for their special benefit. He declined to gratify them.
Of that generation he said: "There shall no sign be given it, but the
sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights
in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth." (Matt. xii. 39-41.) As Jonah was
miraculously preserved for three days and nights and was brought forth,
as by a resurrection, so was the Son of man to be brought forth from the
tomb. His resurrection was to be the crowning miracle, the sign forever
confronting his nation, Jonah's deliverance from apparent death was such
a miracle as convinced the Ninevites that he had a message from God for
them, so Christ's resurrection was to become the keystone of the arch on
which the whole structure of the redemptive system should rest. "He was
raised for our justification." (Rom. iv. 25.)
The reader will mark that our Lord referred to the miraculous
preservation of Jonah, and his deliverance, as a historical event,
recorded in the first and second chapters of the book of Jonah, not as a
myth or allegory, but as a historical fact. "_As_ Jonah was three days
and three nights in the whale's belly, _so_ shall the Son of man be
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." _As_ the one,
_so_ the other. As certainly and literally the one, so certainly and
literally the other. If Jonah's preservation and coming forth from the
fish that God had prepared was only a legend, then was Christ's death,
burial, and resurrection a legend. And in consistency with their
critical theory some of the rationalists have reduced them both to
legend. For _as_ one was, _so_ was the other to be. The statement is
plain, definite narrative, from which there is no escape.
Others of the critical school hold to the historical verity of Christ's
burial and resurrection, but assert that he made use of the assumed
legend concerning Jonah, as we might illustrate any fact in history by a
familiar statement from fiction. To such an assumption we reply that our
Lord was dealing with tremendous realities, such as could not be
belittled by turning for support or illustration to a fictitious story.
He quoted from Old Testament history to illustrate and enforce New
Testament truth. On another occasion he said: "_As_ Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even _so_ must the Son of man be lifted up
that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal
life." Shall we hand over to legendary literature the great historical
fact of the twenty-first chapter of Numbers--God's deliverance of the
people from the fiery serpents--by one look at the uplifted brazen
serpent by the hand of Moses? We may as well reduce one passage to
fiction as the other. "_As_ Jonah ... three days and nights, _so_ the
Son of man. _As_ the serpent was lifted up, _so_ the Son of man shall be
lifted up." This comparison has a definite meaning. The apostle uses it
in his Epistle to the Romans, fifth chapter and twelfth verse. "_As_ by
one man sin entered into the world, ... _so_ death passed upon all men
for that all have sinned." As certainly as sin entered into the world by
one man, so certainly it resulted that death passed upon all men. _As_
Christ's remaining in the grave three days was not a fiction, _so_
Jonah's three days and nights in the great fish that God had prepared
was not a fiction.
Our Lord further certifies to the historicity of the book of Jonah by
his reference to the great prophet's preaching. The critic's objection
is thus stated: "Can we conceive of a heathen city being converted by an
obscure foreign prophet?"
Of course, the objection to the record of that mighty moral movement
comes from those who have counted God out of Jonah's preaching. If they
can eliminate the divine power from that event, they can easily hand the
whole record over to what they are pleased to call the "folk lore of the
Bible." Here, as ever, the critic must rid the Scriptures of the
supernatural.
But our Savior knew that "power belongeth unto God" (Psa. lxii. 11), and
he put on record the repentance of the Ninevites, saying, "The men of
Nineveh shall rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it,
_because they repented at the preaching of Jonah_." (Matt. xii. 41.) But
if the book is not history, our Lord's statement is false, for he says
the Ninevites did repent.
There is no rational possibility of denying our Lord's positive
statement without impeaching his veracity.
His words authorize the following conclusions:
I. There was a prophet whose name was Jonah, as is stated in 2 Kings
xiv. 25. He was not a myth or figment, but a prophet whose personality
is authenticated by Christ himself.
2. There was a city of Nineveh. The skepticism of other days denied the
existence of Nineveh. So completely was the prophecy concerning the
destruction of Nineveh fulfilled that the enemies of God's Word refused
to believe that the city had ever existed, until the excavations of the
last century revealed the hidden ruins. But the word of God was true,
and in God's time Nineveh was revealed.
3. God sent this same prophet Jonah to Nineveh to preach. Christ tells
us what took place under "the preaching of Jonah." It terminated in a
great awakening and reformation for:
4. "The men of Nineveh ... repented at the preaching of Jonah."
Did the Savior know what he was talking about? Did he know the truth of
the statement he made? Or, knowing (as is assumed) that there were no
such events, did he resort to _fiction_ in order to assert the
_certainty_ of his own resurrection? If the latter, then we must correct
his statement concerning Jonah, and read: "As Jonah has been
fictitiously represented to have been three days and three nights in the
whale's belly, so, fictitiously, shall the Son of man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth."
Our Sunday-school teachers, with the words of Christ before them, will
be able to give the critics important information. They can report the
certainty of the historical facts.
IX. RADICAL EXPOSITION.
_"Among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring
in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them,
bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (R.V.) 2 Peter ii. 1._
_"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which
some professing have erred concerning the faith." 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21._
_"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them." 1
Tim. iv. 16._
_"We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that
ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place until the day
dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." 2 Peter i. 19._
The destructive critics have pushed their work far into the field of
both prophecy and exposition. They have relegated to the domain of
mythology the clear and unequivocal historical statements of Scripture.
Where the intrusion of their mythological theory was too large a demand
to make on our credulity, they have attempted a radical exegesis in
proof of their assumptions.
They claim to have discovered that the Church in all the past has
misconceived the first prophetic promise given to man. That promise was
given to our first parents immediately after the fall. God said to the
serpent (Gen. iii. 15): "I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head and thou
shalt bruise his heel."
Our critics have two objections to the interpretation that has always
been given and maintained by Christian scholars and by the Church as a
whole. First, that "the seed of the woman" does not refer to the
Messiah, but to the human race, which is to bruise the serpent's head.
Second, that the serpent engaged in seducing Eve, and here placed under
the curse, does not refer to Satan.
In replying to the objection that the Messiah is not referred to in the
passage, let it be said that the pronoun is a pronoun referring to a
person. It is so translated in the Revised Version. "_He_ shall bruise
thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel." It is not the human race, but
he, an individual person. This person was not to be the seed of the man,
but of the woman.
The announcing angel said to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God." (Luke i. 35.) The child to be born was to be literally and truly
"_the seed of the woman_," and that was the Messiah, the only person of
the entire human race of whom that could be said.