Produced by Al Haines
THE CHRISTIAN VIEW
OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT
BY
FREDERICK CARL EISELEN
Professor in Garrett Biblical Institute
THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN
NEW YORK ---- CINCINNATI ---- CHICAGO
Copyright, 1912
FREDERICK CARL EISELEN
Printed in the United States of America
First Edition Printed September, 1912
Second Printing, June, 1913
Third Printing, May, 1916
Fourth Printing, November, 1917
Fifth Printing, September, 1921
Sixth Printing, September, 1923
Seventh Printing, October, 1925
Eighth Printing, July, 1928
{5}
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
I. THE NEW TESTAMENT VIEW OF THE OLD TESTAMENT . . . . 9
II. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND MODERN SCIENCE . . . . . . . 38
III. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND MODERN CRITICISM . . . . . . 66
IV. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND ARCHAEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . 110
V. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION . . . . 160
VI. THE PERMANENT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT . . 227
INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
OTHER WORKS BY PROFESSOR EISELEN
PROPHECY AND THE PROPHETS
THE MINOR PROPHETS
THE WORKER AND HIS BIBLE
THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
THE PSALMS AND OTHER SACRED WRITINGS
THE PROPHETIC BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (Two Volumes)
{7}
PREFACE
During the past half century the attitude of many men toward the Bible
has undergone a decided change. The old confidence seems to be gone; a
feeling of uncertainty and of unrest has taken its place. This small
volume is intended to set forth the Christian view of the Old
Testament, and to furnish answers to some of the questions men are
asking concerning the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrews, which the early
Christians included in the canon of Christian sacred writings. The old
foundations are not shaken. The Old Testament has stood the tests of
the past, which have been severe and often merciless; and there is
to-day stronger ground than ever for believing that in its pages "men
spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit."
FREDERICK CARL EISELEN.
Evanston, Illinois.
{9}
CHAPTER I
THE NEW TESTAMENT VIEW OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Christian Church has always assigned to the Bible a unique place in
theology and life. What is true of the Bible as a whole is equally
true of that part of the Bible which is known as the Old Testament.
Indeed, until the middle of the second century of the Christian era,
the only Scriptures accepted as authoritative were those of the Old
Testament. Even then, only gradually and under the pressure of real
need, different groups of Christian writings were added and received an
authority equal to that of the older Scriptures. And though in the
course of the centuries there have been some who denied to the Old
Testament a rightful place in Christian thought and life, the Church as
a whole has always upheld the judgment of the early Christians in
making the Old Testament a part of the canon of Christian sacred
writings.
It is worthy of note that the Old Testament played an important part in
the religious life of Jesus. No one can study the records of his life
without seeing that he gathered much of his {10} spiritual nourishment
from its pages. Even in the moments of severest temptation, greatest
distress, and bitterest agony the words of these ancient writings were
on his lips, and their consoling and inspiring messages in his heart
and mind. This attitude of Jesus toward the ancient Hebrew Scriptures
in itself explains the high estimate placed upon them by his followers.
For, in the words of G. A. Smith, "That which was used by the Redeemer
himself for the sustenance of his own soul can never pass out of the
use of his redeemed. That from which he proved the divinity of his
mission and the age-long preparation for his coming must always have a
principal place in his Church's argument for him."[1]
The attitude of Jesus is reflected in his disciples and those who have
given to us the New Testament books. Nearly three hundred quotations
from the Old Testament are scattered throughout the Gospels and
Epistles, and in a number of passages is the value of Old Testament
study specifically emphasized. Perhaps nowhere is this done more
clearly than in 2 Tim. 3. 15-17, in words written primarily of the Old
Testament: "The sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto
salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Every scripture
inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for {11}
correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of
God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."
Evidently the writer of these words considers the sacred writings of
the Hebrews able to inspire a personal saving faith in Jesus, the
Christ; to furnish a knowledge of the things of God; and to prepare for
efficient service. And these are the elements which enter into the
life advocated and illustrated by the Founder of Christianity.
An attempt will be made in this chapter to determine the New Testament
view of the Old Testament for the purpose of discovering what is the
proper Christian view of that part of the Bible. For, if the teaching,
spirit, and example of Jesus have a vital relation to Christian belief,
and if his immediate followers have preserved an essentially accurate
portrayal of him, then the modern Christian view of the Old Testament
should be a reflection of the view of Jesus and of those who, as a
result of their intimate fellowship with him, were in a position to
give a correct interpretation of him and his teaching.
We may inquire, in the first place, what is the New Testament view of
the purpose of the Old Testament Scriptures? The answer to this
inquiry is furnished by the passage in the Second Epistle to Timothy
quoted above. Neither this nor any other passage in the whole Bible
warrants {12} the belief that the Old Testament ever was meant to teach
physical science, or history, or philosophy, or psychology. Everywhere
it is stated or clearly implied that the purpose of all biblical
teaching is to make man morally and spiritually perfect, and to furnish
him "unto every good work." Therefore we may expect that where the Old
Testament writers touch upon questions of science and history they
develop them only in so far as they serve this higher religious and
ethical purpose. This being the biblical view of the purpose of the
Scriptures, any theory of the Old Testament which makes no distinction
between scientific and historical statements on the one hand, and
religious and ethical statements on the other, is inadequate and
erroneous, because it is not in accord with the New Testament teaching
on that point.
The purpose of the Bible is intimately connected with its nature and
character. The New Testament view of the nature and character of the
Old Testament is suggested in Heb. 1. 1, 2: "God, having of old time
spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in
divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in a Son."
Four great truths concerning the Old Testament dispensation are
definitely indicated in these words, with a fifth one implied: (1)
_God_ spoke; (2) God spoke in the prophets, {13} that is, in or through
_human agents_; (3) God spoke _in divers portions_; (4) God spoke _in
divers manners_; (5) the words imply that _the Old Testament
dispensation was incomplete_; it had to be supplemented and perfected
by a revelation in and through a Son. The truths expressed here
constitute the essential elements which enter into the New Testament
view of the Old Testament.
The two expressions, "in divers portions" and "in divers manners,"
concern largely the external form of divine revelation. The former
means that the revelations recorded in the Old Testament were not given
at one time, through one channel or by one man, but at many times,
through many channels, by many men, scattered over a period of many
centuries, in places hundreds of miles apart. One result of this is
seen in the fact that the Old Testament contains many books written by
different authors in successive periods of Hebrew history.
The latter expression has to do with the different kinds of literature
in the Old Testament, but it goes deeper than mere literary form. It
means that in giving revelations of himself during the Old Testament
period God used various methods and means, the different kinds of
literature being simply the outgrowth of the various modes of
revelation.
It is a universal Christian belief that God {14} reveals himself to-day
in divers manners and modes. Every Christian believes, for example,
that God reveals himself in the events of history, be it the history of
individuals or of nations. Again, to many devout persons, God speaks
very distinctly through the outward acts and ceremonies of worship. To
thousands of earnest and sincere Christians connected with churches
using an elaborate ritual, this ritual is no mere form; it is a means
of blessing and grace through which God reveals himself to their souls.
Moreover, God selects certain persons, especially well qualified to
hear his voice; these he commissions as ambassadors to declare him and
his will to the people. The belief in this method of revelation is the
philosophical basis for the offices of the Christian preacher and the
Christian religious teacher. Once more, in his attempt to reach the
human heart God may dispense with all external means; he may and does
reveal himself by working directly upon and in the mind and spirit of
the individual. These are some of the "manners" in which God reveals
himself to his children to-day, and these are some of the means and
manners in which God made himself known during the Old Testament
dispensation. Then, as he does now, he revealed himself in nature, in
the events of history, in the ritual, and by direct impressions; and at
times he selected certain individuals to whom he might {15} make
himself known in all these various ways and who could transmit the
various revelations to others. The Old Testament contains records and
interpretations of these manifold revelations. It is self-evident that
when attempts were made to record these various manifestations of God
different kinds of literature must be used in order to express most
vividly the truth or truths gathered from the divine revelations. The
several kinds of literature, therefore, are the natural outgrowth of
the manifold modes of divine revelation. In the Old Testament five
kinds of literature may be distinguished: the prophetic, the wisdom,
the devotional, the legal or priestly, and the historical. In their
production four classes of religious workers who observed, interpreted,
and mediated the divine revelations, were active: the prophets, the
wise men, the priests (compare Jer. 18. 18), and the psalmists.
The prophetic literature owes its origin to prophetic activity. The
prophets towered above their contemporaries in purity of character,
strength of intellect, sincerity of purpose, intimacy of communion with
God, and illumination by the divine Spirit. As a result of these
qualifications they were able to understand truth hidden from the eyes
and minds of those who did not live in the same intimate fellowship
with Jehovah. Their high conceptions of the character of God enabled
{16} them to appreciate the divine ideals of righteousness, and they
sought with flaming enthusiasm to impress the truths burning in their
hearts upon their less enlightened contemporaries. In carrying out
this purpose they became statesmen, social reformers, and religious and
ethical teachers. No records have been preserved of the utterances of
the earliest prophets. But when, with the general advance in culture,
reading and writing became more common, the prophets, anxious to reach
a wider circle, and to preserve their messages for more willing ears,
put their utterances into writing, and to this new departure we owe the
sublime specimens of prophetic literature in the Old Testament.
In his direct appeal to heart and conscience the ancient prophet
resembles the modern preacher. The wise man, like the prophet, sought
to make the divine will known to others, but in his method he
resembles, rather, the modern religious teacher. His ultimate aim was
to influence conduct and life, but instead of appealing directly to the
conscience he addressed himself primarily to the mind through counsel
and argument, hoping that his appeal to the common sense of the
listener would make an impression, the effects of which might be seen
in transformed conduct. The prophet would have said to the lazy man,
"Thus saith Jehovah, Go to work, thou indolent man." {17} Prov. 24.
30-34 may serve as an illustration of the method of the wise man:
I went by the field of the sluggard,
And by the vineyard of the man void of understanding;
And, lo, it was all grown over with thorns,
The face thereof was covered with nettles,
And the stone wall thereof was broken down
Then I beheld, and considered well;
I saw, and received instruction:
Yet a little sleep, a little slumber,
A little folding of the hands to sleep;
So shall thy poverty come as a robber,
And thy want as an armed man.
Nothing escaped the observation of these men, and from beginning to end
they emphasized the important truth that religion and the daily life
are inseparable. From giving simple practical precepts, the wise men
rose to speculation, and the books of Job and Ecclesiastes bear witness
that they busied themselves with no mean problems.
Of profound significance is also the devotional literature of the Old
Testament. In a real sense the entire Old Testament is a book of
devotion. It is the outgrowth of a spirit of intense devotion to
Jehovah, and it has helped in all ages to nurture the devotional spirit
of its readers. Here, however, the term "devotional" is used in the
narrower sense of those poetic compositions which are primarily the
expressions of the religious experience or emotions of the authors,
generated {18} and fostered by their intimate fellowship with Jehovah.
The chief representative of this literature is the book of Psalms,
which is aptly described by Johannes Arnd in these words: "What the
heart is in man, that is the Psalter in the Bible." The Psalms contain
in the form of sacred lyrics the outpourings of devout souls--prophets,
priests, kings, wise men, and peasants--who came into the very presence
of God, held communion with him, and were privileged to hear the sweet
sound of his voice. No other literary compositions lift us into such
atmosphere of religious thought and emotion. Because these lyrics
reflect personal experiences they may still be used to express emotions
of joy, sorrow, hope, fear, anticipation, etc., even by persons who
live on a higher spiritual plane than did the original authors.
The legal literature differs from the other kinds in that it does not
form separate books, but is embodied in other writings, principally in
the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. All the
representatives of Jehovah--prophets, priests, wise men, and even
psalmists--were thought competent to make known the law of Jehovah, but
the Old Testament makes it clear that at a comparatively early period
the giving of law came to be looked upon as the special duty of the
priests. These priests constituted a {19} very important class of
religious workers among the ancient Hebrews. During the greater part
of the national life their chief functions were the care of the
sanctuary and the performance of ceremonial rites. But in addition to
these duties they continued to administer the law of Jehovah,
consisting not only of ceremonial regulations but also of moral and
judicial precepts and directions. For centuries these laws may have
been transmitted by word of mouth, or were only partially committed to
writing, but when circumstances made it desirable to codify them and
put them in writing the priests would be called upon to take this
advance step. Thus, while it is quite probable that other
representatives of Jehovah helped to formulate laws, the legal
literature embodied in the Old Testament reached its final form under
priestly influence.
The historical literature furnishes an interpretation of the movements
of God in the events of history. It owes its origin in part to
prophetic, in part to priestly, activity. The prophet was an
ambassador of Jehovah appointed to make known the divine will
concerning the past, the present, and the future. Of the present he
spoke as a preacher; when his message concerned the future it took the
form of prediction; but the case might arise that the people failed to
understand the significance of events in their own history, and {20}
thus failed to appreciate the lessons which the events were intended to
teach. If these lessons were not to be lost, some one must serve as an
interpreter, and who would be better qualified to furnish the right
interpretation than the prophet? This demand made of him, in a sense,
an historian, not for the purpose of merely recording events but of
interpreting them at the same time, and these prophetic interpretations
are embodied in the historical literature originating with the prophets.
But not all Old Testament history comes from the prophets. As already
indicated, the legal and ceremonial literature is due to priestly
activity. Now, in connection with the recording of the laws, customs,
institutions, and ceremonial requirements, the origin of these laws and
customs became a matter of interest and importance. This interest, and
the demand for information arising from it, led the priests also to
become historians. And to these priestly writers we are indebted for
not a small part of sacred history.
The third truth taught by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is
that God spoke unto the fathers in or by the prophets, which means,
that he used _human agents_ to mediate his revelations. The Old
Testament may be more than a human production; nevertheless, it will be
{21} impossible to appreciate it adequately unless it is borne in mind
that it contains a human element. In the first place may be noted the
differences in style between various writers. These are frequently the
outgrowth of differences in temperament and early training. Even the
English reader can notice such differences between Amos and Hosea, or
between Isaiah and Jeremiah. Evidently, whatever divine cooperation
the biblical writers enjoyed, they retained enough of their human
faculties and powers to make use of their own peculiar styles.
Again, the hand of man may be seen in the manner of literary
composition. Most Bible students are familiar with the opening words
of the Gospel of Luke: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up
a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among
us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also,
having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to
write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest
know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed."
Evidently, the evangelist carefully sifted the material at hand before
he wrote the Gospel, just as a modern writer would do. In the Old
Testament even clearer evidence is found {22} that the authors of the
several books were guided in the process of composition by the same
principles as writers of extra-biblical productions. The most
suggestive illustrations of this fact are found in the books of
Chronicles, in which reference is made again and again to the sources
from which the compiler gathered his material. In 1 Chron. 29. 29, for
example, mention is made of the "words of Samuel the seer, ... the
words of Nathan the prophet, and ... the words of Gad the seer"; 2
Chron. 9. 29 refers to "words of Nathan the prophet, ... the prophecy
of Ahijah, ... the visions of Iddo the seer." These are only a few of
the references scattered throughout Chronicles, but they are sufficient
to show that in their composition methods employed by secular writers
were used. The same characteristic appears in the book of Proverbs.
According to its own testimony, it contains several separate
collections. After the general title, "Proverbs of Solomon," in 1. 1,
the following additional headings are found: 10. 1, "Proverbs of
Solomon"; 22. 17, "The words of the wise"; 24. 23, "These also are the
sayings of the wise"; 25. 1, "These also are the proverbs of Solomon,
which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out"; 30. 1, "The
words of Agur"; 31. 1, "The words of King Lemuel"; 31. 10-31 is an
anonymous alphabetic acrostic. Similar more or less clearly marked
phenomena may {23} be noted in other Old Testament books, all of them
bearing witness to the presence of a human element in these writings.
More significant are the historical inaccuracies found here and there
in the books. They may not be serious; the substantial accuracy of the
writings may be established, but even the slightest inaccuracy
constitutes a blemish which one would not expect in a work coming
directly from an all-wise God. For example, 2 Kings 18. 10 states that
Samaria was taken in the sixth year of Hezekiah, king of Judah; verse
13 contains the statement that in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah,
Sennacherib, king of Assyria, came against Jerusalem. Now, the date of
the capture of Samaria is definitely fixed by the Assyrian
inscriptions. The city fell either in the closing days of B.C. 722, or
the beginning of B.C. 721. Assuming that it was in 722, the fourteenth
year of Hezekiah would be B.C. 714. But Sennacherib did not become
king of Assyria until B.C. 705, while his attack upon Judah and
Jerusalem was not undertaken until B.C. 701, hence there would seem to
be an inaccuracy somewhere. Certainly, since the primary purpose of
the writings is not historical, but religious, these inaccuracies do
not affect the real value of the book. Nevertheless, their presence
shows that the writings cannot be looked upon as coming in all their
parts directly from {24} God. At some point man must have stepped in
and left marks of his limitations.
More serious perhaps may appear the incompleteness and imperfection of
the religious and ethical conceptions, especially in the older
portions. Read, for example, the twenty-fourth chapter of Second
Samuel. Jehovah is there represented as causing David to number the
people, and when he carried out the command Jehovah was angry and sent
a pestilence which destroyed, not David, but seventy thousand innocent
men. Can any Christian believe that the God of love revealed by Jesus
ever acted in such arbitrary manner? No! The trouble lies with the
author of the passage, who, on account of his relatively low conception
of the character of Jehovah, gave an erroneous interpretation of the
events recorded. A later writer, who had a truer conception of the God
of Israel, saw that a mistake had been made; therefore he introduced
Satan as the one who caused the numbering (1 Chron. 21. 1). Or take
the twenty-second chapter of First Kings, especially verses 19 to 23.
Four hundred prophets of Jehovah urge Ahab to go up against
Ramoth-gilead. On the advice of the king of Judah, Micaiah is called,
who announces, after some hesitation, that the expedition will end
disastrously. He then explains how it happened that the other prophets
told a falsehood: {25} "Therefore hear thou the word of Jehovah: I saw
Jehovah sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by
him on his right hand and on his left. And Jehovah said, Who shall
entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said
on this manner; and another said on that manner. And there came forth
a spirit, and stood before Jehovah, and said, I will entice him. And
Jehovah said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and
will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said,
Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also; go forth, and do so.
_Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of
all these thy prophets_; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee."
Can any Christian believe that our God who is infinitely pure and holy
ever did persuade anyone to tell a lie? God never changes; he has
always been pure and holy; but man was not able in the beginning to
comprehend him in his fullness. The human conceptions of the divine
were imperfect and incomplete, and these imperfect conceptions are
embodied in some of the Old Testament writings. True, as Bowne
suggests, "God might conceivably have made man over all at once by
fiat, but in that case it would have been a magical rather than a moral
revelation."[2]
Throughout the entire book these and other {26} indications of the
presence of a human element may be seen, which the reader cannot afford
to overlook if he would estimate rightly the Old Testament Scriptures.
But while they are there, they must not blind the eyes of the student
to the fourth great truth expressed by the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, namely, that God spoke through these men; in other words, that
there is also a divine element in the Old Testament. In the words of
S. I. Curtis: "While it seems to me that we find abundant evidences of
development in the Old Testament from very simple concrete
representations of God to those which are profoundly spiritual, I am
not able to account for this development on naturalistic principles.
In it I see God at all times and everywhere coworking with human
instruments until the fullness of time should come"[3]. The presence
of this divine element was recognized by Jesus and by all the New
Testament writers, and surely it is a significant fact that in the
first outburst of Christian enthusiasm, and under the living impression
of the unique personality of the Master, no doubt arose concerning the
inspiration and permanent value of the Old Testament. With the
Christian the testimony of Jesus and his disciples carries great
weight. But without appealing to his authority every unbiased reader
may convince himself of the nature and character {27} of the Book; it
is not necessary to depend upon the testimony of men who lived
centuries ago, though they were inspired men. The Book is an open
book, ready for examination, and inviting the closest scrutiny on the
part of every reader.
Former generations found the principal arguments in favor of the belief
in a divine element in the Old Testament in the presence of miracles in
its records and in the fulfillment of prophecy. The present generation
cannot depend upon these arguments exclusively. The whole question of
miracles in the Old Testament has assumed a different aspect within
recent years. In the first place, it is seen that in some places where
formerly a miracle was thought to have been wrought natural causes may
have played a prominent part, as, for example, in the crossing of the
Red Sea and the Jordan. In other cases language which used to be
interpreted literally is now seen to be poetic and imaginative. In
still other cases the absolute historical accuracy of certain
narratives has come to be questioned. All this has resulted in a
weakening of the evidence relied upon by former generations.
Approaching the subject of miracles from another side, a better
acquaintance with the uniformity of nature and the laws of nature has
led some to question even the possibility of miracles, while the
greater emphasis upon the immanence of God has resulted {28} in altered
conceptions of the natural and supernatural, if not in an almost
complete obliteration of any distinction between the two. Since
miracles are involved in so much uncertainty, they do not at present
constitute a very strong argument to prove the presence of a divine
element in the Old Testament to one who is at all skeptically inclined;
indeed, there are many sincere Christians who find miracles useless as
an aid to faith.
In a similar manner, one cannot appeal with the same assurance as
formerly to the fulfillment of prophecy. It is undoubtedly true that
many prophetic utterances were fulfilled; it is equally true that some
were not fulfilled. If, however, the apologist depends upon the
fulfillment of prophecy as a proof, the nonfulfillment of even a single
one weakens his position. Moreover, it is recognized at present that
prophecy in the sense of prediction occupies a relatively insignificant
place in the Old Testament. Besides, scientific methods of study have
shown that some passages interpreted formerly as predictions can no
longer be so interpreted, while in the case of others the
interpretation is more or less doubtful. Here, again, the difficulties
connected with the use of the argument have become so perplexing that
many consider it wise not to use it at all. If used with caution,
prophecy, especially Messianic {29} prophecy, possesses great
evidential value; but the argument from the fulfillment of prophecy as
used formerly has lost much of its worth as a proof of inspiration.
The arguments relied upon at the present time are simpler than those of
the past, and are of such a nature that any fair-minded student can
test them.
In the first place, attention may be called to the essential unity of
the book. There are in the Old World great and magnificent cathedrals,
some of which have been centuries in building, yet in all of them may
be found unity and harmony. How is this to be explained? Although
generation after generation of workmen have labored on the enterprise,
back of all the efforts was a single plan, evolved in the mind of one
man, which mind controlled all the succeeding generations of workmen.
The result is unity and harmony. The Bible has been likened to a
magnificent cathedral. The phenomenon to which reference has been made
in connection with ancient cathedrals may be seen in the Bible as a
whole, as also in the Old Testament considered separately. The latter
contains thirty-nine books, by how many authors no one knows, scattered
over a period of more than a thousand years, written, at least some of
them, independently of one another, in places hundreds of miles apart.
And yet there is one thought running through them all--the {30} gradual
unfolding of God's plan of redemption for the human race. There must
be an explanation of this unity. Is it not natural to find it in the
fact that one and the same divine spirit overshadowed the many men who
made contributions to the Book?
The proof of the presence of a divine element in the Old Testament
which is derived from the essential unity of the book, is confirmed by
the response of the soul to its message, and the effect which it
produces in the lives of those who yield themselves to its teachings.
Jesus and his disciples observed that its message rightly applied would
awaken a response in the human heart; sometimes, indeed, it produced a
sense of indignation, because it carried with it a sentence of
condemnation; at other times it led to loving obedience. And they
themselves experienced the effects of its teaching upon life and
character: it was with truths proclaimed in the Old Testament that
Jesus overcame temptation, and the quotations used in the darkest hours
of his earthly life are an indication that at all times he found the
most refreshing soul food in its pages. The same is true of the early
disciples of Jesus. Undoubtedly, the statement in 2 Tim. 3. 15-17 is
the expression of a living experience; and ever since these words were
written millions of Christians have experienced the uplifting influence
of many portions of the {31} Old Testament Scriptures. They may not
enjoin the finer graces of Christianity, but they insist most strongly
and persistently upon the fundamental virtues which go to make up a
sturdy, noble, righteous, uncompromising character. A message which
produces such divine results bears witness to itself that it embodies
truth which in some sense proceeded from God. This is aptly stated by
Coleridge in these words: "Need I say that I have met everywhere more
or less copious sources of truth and power and purifying impulses, that
I have found words for my inmost thoughts, songs for my joy, utterances
for my hidden griefs, and pleadings for my shame and feebleness? In
short, whatever finds me, bears witness for itself that it has
proceeded from a Holy Spirit, even from the same Spirit which remaining
in itself, yet regenerateth all other powers, and in all ages entering
into holy souls, maketh them friends of God and prophets."[4]
As long as the Old Testament is able to awaken this response and
produce these effects men will believe that it contains a divine
element; and it will accomplish these things whenever men are willing
to study it intelligently and devoutly. What the Old Testament calls
for is not a defense but earnest and devout study. The words of
Richard Rothe concerning the Bible as a whole are applicable also to
the Old Testament Scriptures: {32} "Let the Bible go forth into
Christendom as it is in itself, as a book like other books, without
allowing any dogmatic theory to assign it to a reserved position in the
ranks of books, let it accomplish of itself entirely through its own
character and through that which each man can find in it for himself,
and it will accomplish great things."[5] The words of Professor
Westphal are also worthy to be remembered: "The only thing for our more
enlightened religion to bear in mind is that the proof of revelation is
not necessarily to be found in the formula which claims to herald it,
but, above all, in the specific value of the thing revealed, in the
divine character of the inspired Word which forces our conscience to
recognize in it the expression of God's will itself."[6]
The value and significance of the above argument cannot be
overestimated. But during the past century other proofs have become
available as a result of the careful, painstaking study of the Bible by
scholars in many lands and from various points of view. These
investigations have shown the Old Testament to be a peculiarly unique
book when compared with other sacred literatures of antiquity. This
uniqueness consists principally in the pure and lofty atmosphere which
permeates the whole from beginning to end. One may read its stories of
prehistoric times, its records {33} of history, its law, its poetry,
its prophecy, and everywhere he will find a religious tone and spirit
which, if present at all, is much less marked in the similar
literatures of other nations. The modern scientific student has
approached the Old Testament chiefly from four directions, and in the
pursuit of his work four distinct tests have been applied to the Old
Testament: the tests of science, of criticism, of archaeology, and of
comparative religion. These four tests and their bearing upon the New
Testament, or Christian, view of the Old Testament are considered in
the succeeding pages.
Before closing this chapter one important question remains to be
considered. It may be formulated in this wise: If there are
limitations and imperfections in the Old Testament, or anywhere else in
the Bible, how may they be distinguished from the truth? In the case
of historical or scientific errors the method of procedure may appear
clear to those who hold the New Testament view as to the purpose of the
Old Testament writers; but the situation seems more troublesome in the
case of religious and ethical imperfections, because religion and
ethics are the rightful sphere of the biblical writings. If the Bible
is not the final authority, where can be found a criterion by which the
biblical, or Old Testament, statements may be judged? Startling as the
suggestion {34} to judge scriptures may seem in theory, a moment's
thought will show that it is being done every day by practically every
Christian who seeks spiritual nourishment in the Sacred Book. Who has
not passed through experiences such as are suggested in these words of
Marcus Dods?--"Who is at the reader's elbow as he peruses Exodus and
Leviticus to tell him what is of permanent authority and what is for
the Mosaic economy only? Who whispers as we read Genesis and Kings,
'This is exemplary; this is not'? Who sifts for us the speeches of
Job, and enables us to treasure up as divine truth what he utters in
one verse, while we reject the next as Satanic ravings? Who gives the
preacher authority and accuracy of aim to pounce on a sound text in
Ecclesiastes, while wisdom and folly toss and roll over one another in
confusingly rapid and inextricable contortions? What enables the
humblest Christian to come safely through the cursing Psalms and go
straight to forgive his enemy? What tells us that we may eat things
strangled, though the whole college of apostles deliberately and
expressly prohibited such eating? Who assures us that we need not
anoint the sick with oil, although in the New Testament we are
explicitly commanded to do so? In a word, how is it that the simplest
reader can be trusted with the Bible and can be left to find his own
{35} spiritual nourishment in it, rejecting almost as much as he
receives?"[7] These questions call attention to a common Christian
practice. But, if the practice can be justified as Christian, the
principle underlying the practice may be Christian also; and so it is,
for it is recognized as legitimate in the New Testament.
A single sentence from a New Testament book suggests the answer to the
above questions: "He that is spiritual judgeth all things."[8] The
Scriptures are included among the "all things." But notice, Paul does
not say that anyone may set himself up as judge, but "he that is
spiritual"; that is, the man who is controlled by the spirit of the
Christ. If Jesus has given to the world the highest revelation of God
and truth, then the expressions of all other revelations must be
measured by his revelation, either as an external standard, or as an
inner criterion by him who, in his own experience, has appropriated the
character, spirit, and life of Jesus. He who has thus appropriated the
Christ in his fullness will be able to judge all things. But until he
has reached that standard man's judgment will remain imperfect and more
or less unreliable, and though for his own guidance he is still
dependent upon it, he must guard against the error of setting up his
own imperfect Christian consciousness as the ultimate criterion for all.
{36}
Up to the present time no individual has reached the stage of
experience where he may be appealed to as final authority for all.
Perhaps the sum total of the general Christian consciousness would
prove a more reliable guide, or the Church in so far as it embodies
this consciousness. But it also still falls short of its final glory.
It is in the process of development toward perfection, but it has not
yet reached that stage, and will not reach it until the consciousness
of every individual contributing to it reflects the consciousness of
Jesus himself. Then, and then only, can it be appealed to as an
ultimate criterion in matters religious or Christian, including the
specific question under consideration: What in the Old Testament is
from God, and so, permanent, and what is due to the human limitations
of the authors, and so, temporary and local?
It seems, therefore, necessary to appeal at the present time to what
may be called, in a sense, an external standard: the spirit, the
teaching, and the life of Jesus as it may be determined objectively
from the gospel records. The supreme position occupied by Jesus the
Christ in Christian thinking is well described by W. N. Clarke: "He
[Jesus Christ] has shown God as he is in his character and relations
with men. He has represented life in its true meaning, and opened to
us the real way to genuine welfare and success in existence. {37} What
he has made known commends and proves itself as true by the manner in
which it fits into the human scheme, meets human needs, and renders
thought rational and life successful. God eternally is such a being as
Jesus represents him to be--this is the heart of Christianity, to be
apprehended, not first in thought but first in life and love, and this
is forever true. And it is a revelation never to be superseded, but
forever to be better and better known."[9] By this standard, called by
Clarke the Christian element in the Bible, the Old Testament teaching
must be measured; and by the application of this standard alone is it
possible to separate the human from the divine and to estimate rightly
the permanent value of Old or New Testament teaching. Whatever in the
Scriptures endures this test may be received as of permanent religious
value, because it is divine in the deepest sense.
NOTES ON CHAPTER I
[1] Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament, p. 19.
[2] Studies in Christianity, p. 73.
[3] Primitive Semitic Religions To-day, p. 14.
[4] Letters on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, Letter I.
[5] Quoted in the Old Testament Student, Vol. VIII, p. 84.
[6] The Law and the Prophets, p. 16.
[7] The Bible, Its Origin and Nature, pp. 160, 161.
[8] 1 Cor. 2. 15.
[9] The Use of the Scriptures in Theology, pp. 51, 52.
{38}