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.
1. 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,
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 vadidity 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.
FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY
The inspiration of the
Old Testament Scriptures is clearly implied in the many declarations of our
Lord respecting the fulfilment 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 fulfilment.
We cannot here discuss
the doctrine of inspiration; but on the ground of the Lord’s testimony to the Old
Testament, as above summarized, we may surely affirm that He claims for it
throughout all that is meant by inspiration when we use that 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).
2. 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:
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.
Return to the Aisbitt’s Homepage
