{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_15812/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_15812","id":"gutenberg_15812","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15812","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Juliet Sutherland, David King, and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE BIBLE\n\nCONCERNING THE\n\nAssumptions of Destructive Criticism\n\nBY\n\nS.E. WISHARD, D.D.\n\nLOS ANGELES, CAL.\n\nJOHNSON & HANEY\n\nBIBLE INSTITUTE PRESS\n\n1909\n\nCopyright, 1909\n\nBy S.E. WISHARD, D.D.\n\n\nPresentation Copy\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"In the defence and confirmation of the truth\"\n\n--_Phil 1:7_\n\n\nBIBLE INSTITUTE\n\nLos Angeles, Calif.\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD.\n\n  _This booklet is sent out\n  To all Sabbath-school teachers,\n  To the young people of the Christian churches,\n  And to all believers in the living Word_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe work of the destructive critics has been widely disseminated in\ncurrent literature. Magazines, secular newspapers, and some religious\npapers are giving currency to these critical attacks on the Word of God.\nThe young people of our churches are exposed to the insidious poison of\nthis skepticism. It comes to them under the guise of a broader and more\nliberal scholarship. They have neither the time nor the equipment to\nenter the field of criticism, nor is this work demanded of them.\n\nWhile abler pens are meeting and answering the questions raised by\ndestructive critics, something may be said that will clear away the fog\nproduced by them and enable young Christians to come directly to the\ntruth.\n\nHence this booklet is an attempt to \"give God a chance\" to have his say.\nThe testimony presented is on the divine plan of giving, \"Precept upon\nprecept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line,\" \"lest we\nforget.\"\n\nThere has been no attempt to cover the whole ground of destructive\ncriticism in the brief compass of this booklet. It will be enough to\npermit God to answer; hence, in the following pages he speaks for\nhimself. We are content that his voice shall be heard.\n\nS.E. WISHARD.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n                                                     PAGE\n\n   I. OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM        9\n\n  II. SHOULD REPLY BE MADE?                           17\n\n III. WAS MOSES A LITERARY FICTION?                   25\n\n  IV. WERE CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES MISTAKEN?          39\n\n   V. THE ATTACK ON THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS             59\n\n  VI. ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING THE BOOK OF ISAIAH       73\n\n VII. GOD'S REPLY TO THESE ASSUMPTIONS.               87\n\nVIII. THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF JONAH           101\n\n  IX. RADICAL EXPOSITION                             111\n\n   X. GOD HIS OWN INTERPRETER                        119\n\n\n\n\nI. OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.\n\n_\"Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love,\nas Christ also hath loved us.\" Eph. v. 1, 2._\n\n_\"Be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any\nman; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves and to\nall men.\" 1 Thess. v. 14, 15._\n\n_\"He that believeth shall not make haste.\" Isa. xxviii. 16._\n\n_\"The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments\nare sure. They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and\nuprightness.\" Psa. cxi. 7, 8._\n\n_\"My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.\" Isa, xlvi.\n10._\n\n\nThe attitude which God's people should assume toward destructive\ncriticism has been questioned. It should certainly be a position of calm\npatience, that can deliberately weigh valid testimony, and abide by the\ndecision of intelligent judgment. The history and life of the Church for\nnearly two thousand years should go for something. They are not to be\nswept away by the bluff, the egoism of what claims to be the only\n\"Expert Scholarship.\"\n\nThere is no occasion for a panic. Truth that has been, and has builded\nnoble, goodly life, is truth still, and ever will be. It is not a time\nfor denunciation. The assumptions of the destructive critics are so\nenormous, so radically revolutionary, so directly aimed at vital truth,\nthat one's heart is stirred. There is danger of yielding to the heat of\na righteous indignation. It is not well to lose one's intellectual and\nmoral poise, even in a contest involving the honor of God and the\nwelfare of immortal souls. But \"he that believeth shall not make haste.\"\n\nThe lovers of the Book that has safely passed through every storm of\nantagonism that the Prince of Darkness could evoke, need not now be\nmoved to hasty utterance. The eternal foundations of truth, like him who\nlaid them, are \"the same, yesterday, to-day and forever.\" The Book, with\nall its precious doctrines, is here to stay. It can not be destroyed.\nFire has not burned it, water has not quenched it, the edicts of tyrants\nand popes have not been able to break its power. The Church of God can\ncalmly rest on \"the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.\" (1\nPeter i. 23.) Hence we may calmly move on undisturbed in our work.\n\nFurther, our attitude should be marked by an intelligent understanding\nof the question involved. It is not a question of fair, honest\ncriticism, for the purpose of a deeper knowledge of God and his truth.\nAll reverent and helpful study of the Word of God is critical, and is\nthe kind of criticism that the Book challenges. Our Lord invites it, and\nurges us to \"search the Scriptures,\" which testify of him.\n\nIt is assumed by the rationalistic critics that we have entered a new\nera, that the Bible has never been studied until within recent years.\nThis is an assumption unworthy of scientific scholarship. Critics who\nhave not sought to destroy the Word of God, but, by thorough\ninvestigation, to determine its claims, have been at work on the\nScriptures in all the past, seeking to know the mind of the Spirit.\nThere is, and ever has been a legitimate study of the Bible. Hence,\nthere are absolutely no grounds for the assumption of the rationalists.\nThe Church of Christ is not opposed to the application of the best\nmethods and best scholarship in the investigation of revealed truth.\nIndeed, the Protestant Church has ever been the mother of the highest\neducation, and has had an open ear to the call of God--\"Come, let us\nreason together.\"\n\nIt is well to understand that the poorly-concealed purpose of the school\nof higher critics is not to press the just and holy claims of God's Word\non the human conscience, but to eliminate the supernatural from it. The\nChristian Church should understand this. If atheistic scientists can\nconstruct a universe without God, by evolutionary processes, and the\ncritics can construct a Bible without the supernatural, \"the wisdom of\nthis world\" will have pretty thoroughly disposed of God.\n\nIn the attitude of the Church toward destructive criticism, sometimes\ncalled historical, or constructive, we must not fail to discover its\nbearing on the character of Christ. For the final conflict of all\nskepticism of every grade and quality is in reference to the person and\nwork of Christ. The elimination of the supernatural from the Bible would\nbe an invalidation of Christ's claims and testimony. It would place him\nbefore the world as a false teacher, a fraud, a charlatan. Loyalty to\nthe Word, and to the Incarnate Word, demands, therefore, that we should\nclearly understand the end to which this rationalism is drifting. For\nChrist's testimony concerning the Old Testament Scriptures, which will\nbe presented later in this discussion, is so thoroughly in conflict with\nthe modern critical assumptions that it must be disposed of by those\nclaiming expert scholarship. In the attempt to accomplish that feat,\nthey put our Lord under such limitations as would rob him of his\ncharacter as Teacher and Redeemer.\n\nThe \"experts\" are logically driven to one of two conclusions: either\nthat Christ did not know the facts of the Old Testament Scriptures,\nwhich he believed and was sent to teach, or, knowing the facts, he\ndeemed it not important to teach them.\n\nThe first assumption puts our Savior on the basis of a fallible human\nteacher, and nothing more. The second assumption contradicts all the\nprofessions of the critics. For they affirm to-day that the professed\ndiscoveries of the mistaken views of the Bible are of the utmost\nimportance, and as honest men they are in conscience obliged to make\nthem known, while claiming that Christ did not make them known.\n\nShall we assume that these views, which they deem so important to-day,\nwere of no importance when the Church of Christ first took form? We may\nask, what estimate should we have of Christ, who, knowing his people\nwere in error as to the authorship and origin of the Scriptures, would\nleave them in darkness for more than eighteen hundred years? Is it to be\nassumed that he would wait through the long centuries for the coming of\ncritics to enlighten his people? That is what we are logically asked to\naccept at their hands. It is thus made clear that the issue of this\nconflict, as in all the past, is narrowed down to the person and\ncharacter of our Savior. It is well to face the issue calmly, and with a\nclear understanding of what is pending. Did Christ know truth? Was he\nhonest? Hence, the attitude of the Church should be taken in view of the\ntrend of modern critical discussion.\n\n\n\n\nII. SHOULD REPLY BE MADE?\n\n_\"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?\" Psa. xi.\n3._\n\n_\"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.\" 1 Thess. v. 21._\n\n_\"Buy the truth and sell it not.\" Prov. xxiii. 23._\n\n_\"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common\nsalvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that\nyou should earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered unto\nthe saints.\" Jude 3._\n\n_\"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have\nbeen taught, whether by word or our epistle.\" 2 Thess. ii. 15._\n\n_\"I am set for the defense of the gospel.\" Paul, Phil. i. 17._\n\n\nIt is a question among earnest Christian men, who are busily engaged in\nthe work of the Master, as to whether we should turn aside long enough\nto make reply to the destructive critics. It is affirmed that, as the\nWord of God has already passed through all the attacks that have been\nmade upon it, it will defend itself in the future as in the past--that\nour duty is to preach the gospel. Certainly the victories of the gospel\nare a noble defense of its truth and power to save. There should be no\nrespite from this work. But there are vast multitudes of people that\npermit the critics to do their thinking for them. They are not well\ninformed concerning the Scriptures, and consequently are not prepared to\nrepel the attacks of skepticism, nor to reply to the specious arguments\nor positive assumptions of the critics. These multitudes are in danger\nof casting aside the Word of God, and missing the offer of eternal life.\n\nThe fact of the increased activity of the enemies of the truth must be\nknown to Christian people. Their organized and persistent use of the\npress has gained for them a wide hearing. Shall the Christian people\ndeny themselves this instrumentality of getting a hearing for God and\nhis truth before the world? Would not silence be construed by the world\nas meaning that the cause dear to the heart of God's people is\nindefensible?\n\nIt should be known to all lovers of the truth that the skepticism widely\nsown by the destructive critics has entered the Protestant Church and\nmany of our institutions of learning.\n\n\"Read the utterances of representative men and teachers in her\ncommunion, who deny the Incarnation, repudiate vicarious sacrifice, make\nlight of the story of the resurrection, and refine the risen Son of God\ninto nothing more than the spirit and essence of truth; or, at most, the\ndisembodied ghost of a man who called himself a Messiah, mistaken in his\nclaims, but authoritative in his morals.\" (Rev. I.M. Holdeman.)\n\nThe author of this statement refers also to the fact that there are\n\"modern professors of theology who convict the very prophets whom they\nhold up as exemplars of righteousness, of absolute literary fraud, and\ndeliberate piracy.\" They \"demonstrate with cool precision that the\nhigher critics of to-day are better informed concerning the mistakes of\nMoses than was he who claimed that Moses wrote of him, and prove to\ntheir own satisfaction and the belief of many followers that Jesus\nChrist, our Lord, was limited in intelligence, and would, if he were\nhere to-day, deny some of the statements he once so unqualifiedly made.\"\n\nWe may not shut our eyes to the fact that many of our colleges are more\nor less infected with this rationalistic criticism. Some of our\ntheological professors have substituted the theory of evolution for the\nScriptural doctrine of creation by the Word of God. Our young men\npreparing for the work of the ministry are under the influence and\ninstruction of some of these teachers here in our own country.\n\nIt is a matter for thanksgiving that we have literary and theological\ninstitutions into which the destructive critics have never\nentered--institutions that stand for the Word of God as given by the\nHoly Spirit, and believed in by God's servants in the past and to-day.\n\nWe do well to recognize the further fact concerning the effort to\neliminate the supernatural from the Bible, that the work of the\nrationalists has permeated the literature of the day. In this age of\nreading fiction, that form of literature has become a convenient vehicle\nfor taking everything out of the hands of Providence. It has become easy\nto leave God out of his universe and supplant him with the heroic in\nman. Hence, the literary appetite, ever craving the human instead of the\ndivine, turns away from the truth that confronts the conscience of the\nreader with God and his claims.\n\nFor the defense of truth we have the example of prophets, apostles, and\nChrist himself. Much of the work of the prophets of the Old Testament\nwas devoted to the exposure of the \"New Thought\" of their times. Moses\ndealt thoroughly with the new theology that asserted: \"These be thy\ngods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.\" The\nheresy was ended as suddenly as it was introduced.\n\nThe Epistle to the Galatians was Paul's reply to the Judiazing teachers\nwho would substitute ceremonials for the doctrine of justification by\nfaith. His Epistle to the Ephesians was a constructive work, in answer\nto Jewish prejudice and teaching, in which he set forth the unity of\nJews and Gentiles in one Church, which is the body of Christ. In his\nEpistle to the Corinthians he answered their false views of marriage. He\nshamed their partisan spirit, in which some claimed to be of Paul, some\nof Apollos, some of Christ. He labored most earnestly to convince them\nof their false views concerning the resurrection, and dealt faithfully\nwith the errorists concerning the inquiry that was coming to the Church\nthrough their magnifying and perverting the use of the gift of tongues.\nHe showed them a more excellent way.\n\nThere should be no turning aside from preaching a full and free gospel,\nnor should there be any halting in its defense, or against the effort to\neliminate the supernatural from the Word of God. The critical work that\nlogically leaves us a Savior ignorant of the Scriptures, or, if knowing\nthem, afraid to meet Jewish prejudice by correcting their mistakes,\nshould be kindly, candidly, and manfully met by those to whom the truth\nhas given life.\n\n\n\n\nIII. WAS MOSES \"A LITERARY FICTION\"?\n\n_\"God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses,\nMoses. And he said, Here am I.... Come now, therefore, and I will send\nthee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people, the children\nof Israel, out of Egypt!' Exod. iii. 4, 10._\n\n_\"And afterward Moses and Aaron went in and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the\nLord God of Israel, Let my people go.\" Exod. v. 1._\n\n_\"Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw\nout and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the\npassover.... And the children of Israel did according to the word of\nMoses.... And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth,\nabout six hundred thousand on foot that were men, besides children\"\nExod. xii. 21, 35, 37._\n\n_\"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the\ntenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.\"\nExod. xxxiv. 27._\n\n_\"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words\nof this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded\nthe Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,\nTake this book of the law and put it in the side of the ark of the\ncovenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness\nagainst thee\" Deut. xxxi. 24-26._\n\n\nWe turn now to the assumption that Moses was not the author, under God,\nof the Pentateuch. The destructive critics do not agree among themselves\nas to the origin of the Pentateuch. Dates and authors are variously\nadjusted among those claiming to be experts. There is, however,\nagreement on one point, that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. It is\naffirmed that his name has been attached to it to give it authority,\nbecause many of the events recorded and much of the history took place\nduring the period of Moses' life and in connection with his influence.\nBut the critics place the _record_ of those events almost altogether\nafter the exile, between nine hundred and a thousand years after the\ntime of Moses.\n\nIt was once affirmed that writing was not used in the days of Moses, and\ntherefore he could not have written the five books that claim him as\ntheir author. But the fact now brought to light, and conceded by the\ncritics and all well-informed scholars, that writing antedated Moses by\nmany centuries, has swept out of existence that objection. But the\nquestion is still raised as to the Mosiac authorship of the Pentateuch.\nIt is said in reply:\n\n_First_--The Holy Spirit declares by the mouth of Stephen that \"Moses\nwas learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words\nand deeds.\" Acts vii. 22.\n\nWriting was long known to and practiced by the Egyptians, hence the man\ntrained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians _was competent_ to write the\nPentateuch.\n\n_Second_--The Pentateuch very definitely claims Moses as its author, not\nonce or twice, but many times, all through these writings.\n\n\"The Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and\nrehearse it in the ears of Joshua, for I will utterly put out the\nremembrance of Amalek from under heaven.\" Exod. xvii. 14. This was not\nthe law, parts of which even some of the critics concede that Moses\nwrote. It was God's judgment against Amalek. But it was written in a\nbook. What book? The inspired Scriptures say it was written here in\nExodus xvii. 14. And again it was repeated in Deut. xxv. 19, and that\nMoses wrote it.\n\nIn the twenty-fourth chapter of Exodus Moses has given an account of\nGod's call to him, to Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders, to\ncome up to Horeb. Moses was called into the immediate presence of God,\nwhile the others remained at a distance. After his interview with\nJehovah it is written: \"Moses came and told the people all the words of\nthe Lord.... And _Moses wrote all the words of the Lord_.\" Exod. xxiv,\n3, 4.\n\nIn the thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus God is represented as giving\ndefinite instructions to Moses concerning worship, at the conclusion of\nwhich \"the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words, for after the\ntenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.\"\nExod. xxxiv. 27.\n\nWe turn to the positive statement in Deuteronomy xxxi. 9. The chapter\nopens with the declaration that \"Moses spake these words unto all\nIsrael,\" giving an extended account of what the words were. In the ninth\nverse it is stated: ... \"_And Moses wrote this law_ and delivered it\nunto the priests and unto all the elders of Israel.\" What became of that\nwriting of Moses? Was it lost? Or is the statement false? And did some\nlater writer forge the statement, attributing the writing to Moses, to\ngive weight and authority to the forgery? To ask the question is to\nanswer it. \"Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.\"\n\nIn the twenty-fourth verse in this same chapter in Deuteronomy it is\nstated that \"Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a\nbook.\" Yet the critics teach that this book, Deuteronomy, was not\nwritten until after the exile, almost a thousand years after the events\nnarrated. Does not critical credulity make larger demands than are laid\non faith?\n\nThe summing up of the book of Numbers, of what had been said and written\nin the book, is stated in the last chapter and last verse, namely, that\n\"these are the commandments and the judgments which the Lord commanded\n_by the hand of Moses_ unto the children of Israel.\" Again and again it\nis affirmed in the Pentateuch that God commanded Moses to write, and\nthat he did write, but the critics affirm that the hand of Moses had\nnothing to do with producing the books of the Pentateuch--that they were\nwritten after the exile!\n\nNot only does the Pentateuch distinctly teach the Mosaic authorship of\nthe five books of Moses, appropriately so called, but all the Old\nTestament saints entertained the opinion which the Jewish people and the\nChristian Church hold to-day, that God spake to Moses, and that _Moses\ncommitted to writing_ the messages that God gave him and commanded him\nto write, embracing the story of God's miracles, his instruction and\ndealing with them in the wilderness.\n\nWe find the critics contradicted in the Scriptures from Joshua to\nMalachi. To Joshua God said: \"As I was with Moses, so will I be with\nthee.\" (Joshua i. 5.) Eight times in the first chapter of the book of\nJoshua God accredits Moses with having received and having given the law\nto Joshua and the people.\n\nThe Pentateuch is the book which God, speaking to Joshua, calls \"the law\nwhich my servant Moses commanded thee\" (Joshua i. 7), and it was so\naccepted by Joshua. Was he mistaken? or the critics? He had long enjoyed\nmost intimate relations with Moses, and knew what Moses had written by\nthe command of God.\n\nDavid affirms that God had \"made known his ways unto Moses, and his acts\nunto the children of Israel\" (Psa. ciii. 7). We have seen that the man\nMoses was competent to write, and did write, what God had made known to\nhim (Deut xxxi. 24). The Psalms are illuminated and set aflame with the\nfaith of Israel, that Moses said and wrote what is ascribed to him in\nthe Pentateuch.\n\nEzra, Nehemiah, and the prophets down to Malachi reiterated the same\nbelief, sung and taught it to their children. Were they mistaken?\n\nThe finding of the Pentateuch during Josiah's reign, which had been lost\nin the rubbish of the temple during the wicked reign of Manasseh and\nAmmon, is evidently referred to in 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14, 15; \"Hilkiah the\npriest found the book of the law of Jehovah by the hand of Moses.\n(Margin, R.V.) And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan, I have found\nThe Book of the law of the house of the Lord.\" Four times within seven\nverses it is called \"_The Book_.\" It was read before the King, who\nhumbled himself, and prepared himself and the people to observe the\nPassover as it had been prescribed in \"the law of Moses.\" Josiah\ncommanded them to \"kill the Passover, and sanctify yourselves and\nprepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the\nLord _by the hand of Moses_\" (2 Chron. xxxv. 6). This took place long\nbefore the exile, which the critics insist was the beginning of Israel's\nliterature, and after which they say the Pentateuch was written.\n\nEzra testifies to the existence of the Mosaic law before his time. His\ntestimony establishes the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Ezra vii.\n6: \"This Ezra ... was a ready scribe _in the law of Moses_.\"\n\nAfter the return from captivity Ezra describes the building of the altar\nin these definite terms: \"Then stood up Joshua, the son of Jozadak, and\nhis brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his\nbrethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt\nofferings thereon, _as it is written in the law of Moses_, the man of\nGod\" (Ezra iii. 2). Was Ezra deceiving the people?\n\nThere are several things to be noted here:\n\n1. _There was a written law of Moses_, the man of God, then in\nexistence. It was not a written law of Ezra which the priests palmed off\nas the written law of Moses.\n\n2. _There was a priestly order_, according to the written law of Moses\nthe man of God, not according to the invention of the exiles returning\nfrom captivity, under the pretense that Moses wrote it.\n\n3. The altar was built according to the written law of Moses the man of\nGod. These records by Ezra effectually bar the door against the critical\nconjecture that the Pentateuch, in which the written law of Moses the\nman of God is found, was fabricated after the exile.\n\nThe definite law for the place of building the altar, by which the\npriests proceeded in the days of Ezra, is recorded by \"Moses the man of\nGod,\" in Deut. xii. 5-7: \"Unto the place which the Lord your God shall\nchoose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his\nhabitation shall ye seek, and thither shalt thou come; and thither shall\nye bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices and your tithes and\nheave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill\nofferings, and the firstlings of your herds, and your flocks; and there\nye shall eat before the Lord your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that\nye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein the Lord thy God\nhath blessed thee.\"\n\nIt is Ezra, not the critics, who informs us that this was \"written in\nthe law of Moses the man of God.\" We will be pardoned for accepting the\ntestimony of Ezra. He does not mean to forsake his faith in the Mosaic\nauthorship of the Pentateuch, for he writes in chapter vi. 18: \"They set\nthe priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for\nthe service of God, which is at Jerusalem; _as it is written in the book\nof Moses_.\"\n\nIn the eighth chapter of the book of Nehemiah, that great servant of God\naffirms his faith in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, which was\nalso the faith of all the people of his time. In the first verse in this\nchapter he informs us that \"all the people gathered themselves together,\nas one man, into the street that is before the water gate, and they\nspake unto Ezra the scribe to bring _the book of the law of Moses_,\nwhich the Lord had commanded to Israel.\" Ezra was not to make a book and\ncall it the book of Moses, as some of the critics teach, but to \"bring\nthe book of the law of Moses,\" a book in their possession already made,\nand with which they were already familiar--\"_The Book of the Law of\nMoses_.\"\n\n\"The Book of the Law of Moses\" was the Jewish title given to the\nPentateuch at that time, and is so recognized again and again. Nehemiah\nviii. 14 affirms again: \"They found written in the law, which the Lord\nhad commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in\nbooths in the feast of the seventh month.\" Nehemiah quotes this \"command\nof the Lord by Moses\" from Lev. xxiii. 39-42, which was a fraud on the\npart of Nehemiah, if Moses was not the author of the book. Again he says\nin the thirteenth chapter of Nehemiah and first verse: \"On that day they\nread in the book of Moses, in the audience of the people\"; but it was\nnot the book of Moses if he had not written it, but the book of another\none of the \"unknown\" so frequently found (?) in Scripture by our\ncritics.\n\nThe book of Moses in which this last reference from Nehemiah is written\nis the command that the \"Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into\nthe congregation of God for ever,\" and is recorded in Deut. xxiii. 3, 4.\n\nBut our critical friends inform us that Deuteronomy was not written\nuntil after the captivity. Hence, the logic of their position is, that\nNehemiah attributes to Moses what he did not write, and proves himself\nto be either ignorant of the truth or practicing a fraud upon the\npeople. We prefer the testimony of Nehemiah to that of the latter-day\ncritics.\n\nIt should be repeated that the prophets and inspired writers down to\nMalachi reiterated their confidence in the Mosaic authorship of the\nPentateuch. And he, the last messenger of the Old Testament to Israel,\ngave them this message from God: \"Remember ye _the law of Moses_ my\nservant, which I commanded unto him\" (Mal. iv. 4). Indeed, the entire\ntestimony of the Old Testament is in harmony with the positive\nstatements made in the Pentateuch, that Moses was commanded to write,\nand that he actually and positively \"wrote all the words of the Lord\"\n(Exod. xxiv. 4). There is not a word, syllable, hint, or shadow of a\nhint assigning these five books of Moses to a later date or author.\n\nThe presumption, or guess, of the critics carries no weight in the face\nof the testimony of the entire Old Testament that God commanded Moses to\nwrite, and that he did write, the five books attributed to him.\n\n\n\n\nIV. WERE CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES MISTAKEN?\n\n_Christ said to his apostles:_\n\n_\"Ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea,\nand in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.\" Acts i. 8._\n\n_\"I speak the truth in Christ and lie not.\" Paul in 1 Tim. ii. 7._\n\n_\"Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness and the first begotten of\nthe dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.\" The Apostle John in\nRev. i. 5._\n\n_\"We know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these\nmiracles that thou doest, except God be with him,\" Nicodemus, in John\niii. 2._\n\n_\"If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?\" Christ, in John viii.\n46._\n\n_\"I am the way, the truth and the life.\" Christ, in John xiv. 6._\n\n\nThe opinions and testimony of the apostles are certainly worth\nsomething. They had three years of instruction under our Lord, and the\npromise from him that the Holy Spirit should guide them into all truth.\n(John xvi. 13.)\n\nA study of the writers of the New Testament proves that they are in\nabsolute harmony with the writers of the Old Testament as to the Mosaic\nauthorship of the five books of the Pentateuch. Luke ii. 22 informs us\nthat the mother of Jesus, \"when the days of her purification were\naccomplished according to the _law of Moses_,\" brought the child \"to\npresent him to the Lord.\" This was done, according to Leviticus xii.\n2-6, and accredits that book to Moses, and not to some imaginary author.\n\nThe Apostle John informs us that \"the law was given by Moses, but grace\nand truth came by Jesus Christ\" (John i, 17). If he has misled us in\nreference to Moses and the law, can we trust him in reference to grace\nand truth by Jesus Christ?\n\nWhen Peter made his address to the people who were surprised at the\nhealing of the cripple, he said: \"_Moses truly said_ unto the fathers, A\nprophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren,\"\n(See Acts iii. 22.)\n\nThis saying of Moses is recorded in Deut xviii. 15, the contents of\nwhich book are introduced to us in these words; \"These be the words\nwhich Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness,\nin the plain over against the Red Sea\" (Deut. i. 1), referring to the\nwhole books spoken by Moses, the learned man, mighty in words and deeds,\nbut not recorded, the critics say, until after the exile, about a\nthousand years! This you are asked to believe on the basis of the\nprofessed or assumed acumen of the critics!\n\nFurther, in his great speech before the Sanhedrim at his martyrdom,\nStephen quotes Moses as having received full and complete directions\nfrom God concerning the tabernacle. (Acts vii. 44.) In the twenty-fifth\nchapter of Exodus, the book in which Moses was commanded to write and\ndid write, these directions are recorded. We accept Stephen's testimony,\nadded to that of Exod. xxv., rather than the testimony of the critics.\n\nWhen Paul was writing to the Corinthians of the blindness of the Jews (2\nCor. iii. 15) he said: \"Even unto _this day, when Moses is read_, the\nveil is upon their hearts.\"\n\nMoses must have written something if he was read. What has become of his\nwritings? Is it not the Pentateuch which the Scriptures everywhere call\nthe writings of Moses? Undoubtedly, yes.\n\nIn Paul's missionary sermon at Antioch in Pisidia, he declared to his\naudience that through Christ \"all that believe are justified from all\nthings, from which ye could not be justified _by the law of Moses_\"\n(Acts xiii. 39).\n\nWhy does Paul refer to the ceremonial of the Jewish ritual as the law of\nMoses? It must be answered that Paul was a Jew. He was familiar with the\nJewish scriptures. He had read the following passages and believed them,\nand was grounded in the truth which they declare, that \"by the hand of\nMoses\" they were given to the people.\n\nTo satisfy the reader that they were \"given by the hand of Moses\" the\nfollowing Scriptures are furnished:\n\n1. \"Aaron and his sons did all things which were commanded _by the hand\nof Moses_.\" (Lev. viii. 36.)\n\n2. \"That ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the\nLord hath spoken unto them _by the hand of Moses_.\" (Lev. x. 11.)\n\n3. \"These are the statutes and judgments and laws which the Lord made\nbetween him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai, _by the hand of\nMoses_.\" (Lev. xxvi. 46.)\n\n4. \"These were they that were numbered of the families of the\nKohathites, all that might do service in the tabernacle of the\ncongregation, which Moses and Aaron did number, according to the\ncommandment of the Lord _by the hand of Moses_.\" (Num. iv. 37.)\n\n5. \"These ... whom Moses and Aaron numbered, according to the word of\nthe Lord _by the hand of Moses_.\" (Num. iv. 45.)\n\n6. \"According to the commandment of the Lord they were numbered _by the\nhand of Moses_.\" (Num. iv. 49.)\n\n7. \"They kept the charge of the Lord, at the commandment of the Lord,\n_by the hand of Moses._\" (Num. ix. 23.)\n\n8. \"And they first took their journey according to the commandment of\nthe Lord _by the hand of Moses_.\" (Num. x. 13.)\n\n9. \"Even all that the Lord hath commanded you _by the hand of Moses_,\nfrom the day that the Lord commanded Moses.\" (Num. xv. 23.)\n\n10. \"That no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to\noffer incense before the Lord, that he be not as Kora and his company,\nas the Lord said to him _by the hand of Moses_.\" (Num. xvi. 40.)\n\n11. \"And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lord\ncommanded _by the hand of Moses_.\" (Num. xxvii. 23.)\n\n12. \"These are the commandments and the judgments which the Lord\ncommanded _by the hand of Moses_.\" (Num. xxxvi. 13.)\n\n13. \"By lot was their inheritance, as the Lord commanded _by the hand of\nMoses_.\" (Joshua xiv. 2.)\n\n14. \"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Appoint out for you\ncities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you _by the hand of Moses_.\"\n(Joshua xx. 2.)\n\n15. \"The Lord commanded _by the hand of Moses_ to give us cities to\ndwell in, with the suburbs thereof for our cattle.\" (Joshua xxi. 2.)\n\n16. \"And the children of Israel gave by lot unto the Levites these\ncities with their suburbs, as the Lord commanded _by the hand of\nMoses_.\" (Joshua xxi. 8.)\n\n17. \"And the children of Reuben, and the children of Gad, and the half\ntribe of Manasseh returned, ... according to the word of the Lord _by\nthe hand of Moses_.\" (Joshua xxii. 9.)\n\n18. \"And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would\nhearken unto the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded their\nfathers _by the hand of Moses_.\" (Judges iii. 4.)\n\n19. \"Thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to\nbe thine inheritance, as thou spakest _by the hand of Moses, thy\nservant_.\" (1 Kings viii. 53.)\n\n20. \"There hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he\npromised _by the hand of Moses his servant_.\" (1 Kings viii. 56.)\n\n21. \"So that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them,\naccording to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances _by the\nhand of Moses_.\" (2 Chron. xxxiii. 8.)\n\n22. \"To kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare your\nbrethren, that they may do according to the word of the Lord, _by the\nhand of Moses_.\" (2 Chron. xxxv. 6.)\n\n23. \"Thou ... madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst\nunto them precepts, statutes and laws, _by the hand of Moses thy\nservant_.\" (Neh. ix. 14.)\n\n24. \"Thou leddest thy people like a flock _by the hand of Moses and\nAaron_.\" (Psa. lxxvii. 20.)\n\nPaul was familiar with these statements of the Jewish Scriptures. He\nbelieved them. (2 Cor. iv. 13.) He believed that God gave \"the whole law\nand the statutes and the ordinances _by the hand of Moses_\" (2 Chron.\nxxxiii. 8), who was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was\nmighty in words and deeds. (Acts vii. 22.) Hence he called the\nScriptures \"The Law of Moses.\"\n\nSome of the critics will concede that many things were done by Moses,\nbut not recorded until after the exile. Think of it! The laws, statutes,\nand ordinances which were vital to the life of the Jewish nation, which\nhad been given at Sinai, and were announced with the sanctions of life\nor death, were not recorded by God's appointed leader, whom he had\ntrained in all the learning of the times, but were left for almost a\nthousand years to uncertain tradition!\n\nPaul had not forgotten the above statements concerning Moses' personal\nconnection with the giving of the law. Before Felix he was arraigned,\nand testified \"what the prophets and Moses did say.\" (Acts xxvi. 22.)\n\nTo the Jews at Rome \"he expounded and testified the kingdom of God,\npersuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the laws of Moses and out\nof the prophets.\" (Acts xxviii. 23.)\n\nIn his Epistle to the Roman Christians he says (quoting from Lev. xviii.\n5): \"For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which\nis of the law shall live thereby.\" (Rom. x. 5, R.V.)\n\nTo the Corinthian Christians he says: \"It is written in the _law of\nMoses_. Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox when he treadeth out\nthe corn.\" (1 Cor. ix. 9.) Here again he quotes from Deut. xxv. 4, and\nrepeats the quotation in 1 Tim. v. 18. But the critics deny that it was\nwritten until after the exile, at least nine hundred or one thousand\nyears later.\n\nThe Apostle James adds his testimony to that of Paul, while addressing\nthe assembly of the apostles at Jerusalem, saying: \"For Moses of old\ntime hath in every city them that preach him, _being read_ in the\nsynagogues every Sabbath.\" (Acts xv. 21.)\n\nWe have learned in these quotations from Matthew, Luke, John, Stephen,\nPeter, and Paul, their repeated testimony, their unvarying faith that\n_Moses both spoke and wrote_ the scriptures contained in the Pentateuch.\nWe have seen that their faith was founded on twenty-four inspired\ndeclarations that these five books were given \"_by the hand of Moses_.\"\nThese statements are found in the books themselves, from Leviticus to\nthe Psalms. If inspired testimony is worth anything, the case is closed,\nand the critics' case goes out of court, more than disproved.\n\n\nWAS CHRIST MISTAKEN?\n\n\nThe reader will be interested to know what Christ has to say of the\ncritics' denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. For he who\n\"spake as never man spake,\" he of whom the Father said, \"This is my\nbeloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, _hear ye him_,\" this same Jesus\nhad some very positive opinions on the subject before us. He has spoken\nclearly and definitely. We may not turn away from his testimony.\n\n1. After healing the leper, our Lord said to him: \"Go thy way, show\nthyself to the priest, and offer the gift that _Moses commanded_ for a\ntestimony unto them.\" (See Matt. viii. 4, Mark i. 44, Luke v. 14.)\n\nOur Savior here quotes from Lev. xiv. 2-8. Moses had been commanded to\nwrite the words that God had given him. (Exod. xxxiv. 27.) \"And Moses\nwrote all the words of the Lord\" (Exod. xxiv. 4), hence our Lord quotes\nthe passage in Leviticus _from Moses_.\n\n2. The Pharisees, always captious and controversial, sought to entangle\nthe Savior in a discussion on the subject of divorce. Replying, \"He\nsaith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered\nyou to put away your wives.\" (Matt. xix. 8.) Our Lord here quotes from\nthe Mosaic law (Deut. xxiv. I-4), recognizing Moses as the author of the\nsame.\n\n3. He rebuked the scribes and Pharisees also for turning from the word\nof God to the traditions of men. \"For Moses said, Honor thy father and\nthy mother.\" (Mark vii. 10.) This quotation is from Exod. xx. 12, and\nDeut. v. 16. They had made the command of Moses of no effect, had\nviolated the law which Christ taught had been given by Moses.\n\n4. The Sadducees came to him with their controversy concerning the\nresurrection. They presented to him an unanswerable argument, as they\nsupposed, against the doctrine, questioning as to whose wife she should\nbe in the resurrection, who has had seven husbands in this life. Christ\nreplied (Mark xii. 26, 27): \"As touching the dead, that they rise; have\nye not read in the _book of Moses_ how in the bush God spake unto him,\nsaying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of\nJacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.\"\n\nThis quotation by our Lord is from Exod. iii. 6, and he calls the book\nfrom which it is made \"the book of Moses.\" Did Christ know whether it\nwas the book of Moses or of some unknown author who had so artfully\npalmed it off under false colors as to deceive the entire Jewish nation?\n\nOr, as certain of the critics teach, did Christ know that the pretense\nthat it was the book of Moses was a fraud, but, in view of public\nopinion, was unwilling to expose the deception? To ask these questions\nis to uncover the animus of the critical assumptions which logically\nattack the character of Christ himself.\n\nChrist knew who was the author of the book, and knowing, he affirmed\nthat it was \"_The Book of Moses_.\"\n\n5. In our Lord's parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Dives is\nrepresented as pleading that some one be sent from the dead to warn his\nbrothers, lest they also come into this place of torment. The reply to\nhis request was: \"They have Moses and the prophets.... If they hear not\nMoses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose\nfrom the dead.\" (Luke xvi. 29, 30.) \"Moses and the prophets\" was the\nname for the Jewish Bible. If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, the\nname of their Bible was false, and the Savior indorsed a falsehood. We\nbelieve \"the faithful and true Witness,\" and reject the critics who\ndishonor his character.\n\n6. After Christ's resurrection he walked and communed with the two\ndisciples on the way to Emmaus. He instructed them concerning the\nMessiah's death, and, \"beginning at Moses\" (Luke xxiv. 27), informed\nthem that it was God's plan, foretold in the Old Testament. He appeared\nto his apostles and declared to them that \"all things must be fulfilled\nwhich are written in the law of Moses and the prophets.\" (Luke xxiv.\n44.) The critics deny Moses' authorship, but Christ affirms it, using\nthe language that means the Pentateuch. _We believe him_.\n\n7. In our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus he recognizes Moses in\nconnection with the book of Numbers. He refers to the historical\nincident, if our critical friends will leave us any Biblical history, in\nNumbers xxi. 8, 9. He says: \"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the\nwilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up,\" (John iii. 14.)\n\nRecurring to the passage in Numbers, we learn that, in the dire distress\nof the people for their sins, God commanded Moses to make a brazen\nserpent, and lift it up before the people, that they might look and\nlive.\n\nCertain of the critical school consent that Moses, was connected with\nthe event, but did not record it. Indeed! And what proof that he failed\nto make the record? It was personal to himself. It was symbolically\nprophetic of the crucifixion of Christ, as our Savior used it, an event\ntoward which all prophecy moved. And we have already learned that nine\ntimes it has been stated in the book of Numbers that the acts, precepts,\nand statutes of this book were done and given by \"_the hand of Moses_.\"\n\n8. To the Jews, seeking to murder their Messiah, he said; \"Do not think\nthat I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you,\neven Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses ye would have\nbelieved me, _for he wrote of me_.\" (See John v. 45, 46.)\n\nWhen and where did he write of Christ? He wrote of him in the five books\nwhich are ascribed to Moses by all the Old Testament Scriptures, and by\nChrist and his apostles. He wrote of him in Gen. iii. 15, when God\npromised that \"the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head.\"\nHe wrote of Christ in Gen. xii. 3, when God promised Abraham: \"In thee\nshall all families of the earth be blessed.\" He wrote of the Messiah\nwhen he recorded Jacob's prophecy in Gen. xlix. 10: \"The scepter shall\nnot depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh\ncome.\" Moses wrote of Christ, when under divine direction he instituted\nthe passover, as recorded in the twelfth chapter of Exodus.\n\nHe wrote of Christ in the Levitical ritual, when under God's instruction\nhe set up the system of types, for the tabernacle and the temple\nservice, which taught the fundamentals of the New Testament\ngospel--_redemption by the blood_.\n\nThe whole tabernacle and its furniture was necessary to complete the\nsymbolism that should represent the Messiah. The altar, the laver, the\nshew bread, the golden candlestick, the mercy seat, and the officiating\nhigh priest. For \"Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make\nthe tabernacle,\" and received positive direction as to how he should\nconstruct it, that redemption should echo from every part of the\nservice. Beautiful and glorious was the service that proclaimed \"Christ\nand him crucified.\" Christ's testimony here is twofold: That \"Moses\nwrote,\" and that he \"wrote of me,\" of Christ, the witness of these\nthings.\n\n9. It was at the feast of tabernacles, in the year 29 A.D., that the\nJews attacked the Savior in a fierce controversy, because he healed on\nthe Sabbath day. He was teaching in the temple when they charged him\nwith violating the Sabbath.\n\nTo that charge he replied: \"_Did not Moses give you the law_? Yet none\nof you keepeth the law.\" (See John vii. 19.) He affirms in most positive\nterms, that can not be twisted into the shadow of a negation, that Moses\ngave them the law. The interrogative form of his statement is\nrhetorically the strongest possible affirmation.\n\n10. Once more, in the twenty-third verse of the same chapter, Christ\nrefers to the fact that their children received circumcision on the\nSabbath day, that \"the law of Moses be not broken.\"\n\nThe sum of Christ's testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch\nis before us. Ten times our Lord asserts in the passages quoted that the\nlaw given in the Pentateuch was the \"law of Moses.\" He affirms that in\nthat law \"he wrote of me.\" From Genesis to Revelation there is continued\naffirmation by prophets, apostles, and by Christ, who can not lie, that\nthe five books of the Pentateuch are the books of Moses, under the\nguiding hand of the Spirit of God.\n\nA recent writer, who has gone over the testimony of the Bible itself\nagainst the critics, says: \"We find in them (the writers of the Old\nTestament) more than eight hundred quotations from, or references to,\nthe first five books of the Bible, and not a hint is given that Moses is\nnot their author,\" but he is everywhere recognized as the author, under\nGod.\n\nWitnesses multiply with every restudy of the book, proving the Mosaic\nauthorship of the first five books of _The Book_. \"What shall we say,\nthen, to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?\"\n\n\n\n\nV. THE ATTACK ON THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS.\n\n_\"The Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle\nof the congregation, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel and say\nunto them, If any man of you bring an offering, ye shall bring your\noffering of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock.\" Lev. i. I,\n2._\n\n_\"And when any will offer a meat offering unto the Lord, his offering\nshall be of fine flour, and he shall pour oil upon it, and put\nfrankincense thereon.\" Lev. ii. 2._\n\n_\"And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, ... he shall lay\nhis hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the\ntabernacle of the congregation, and Aaron's sons the priests shall\nsprinkle the blood upon the altar round about,\" Lev. iii. 1, 2._\n\n_\"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of\nIsrael, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the\ncommandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done,\n... let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock\nwithout blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering.\" Lev. iv. 1, 2, 3._\n\n_\"His truth endureth to all generations.\" Psa. c. 5._\n\n\nHaving considered the critical assault on the Pentateuch as a whole,\nattention should be called to the special criticisms on the book of\nLeviticus. A prominent representative of the school of critics affirmed\nin his recent lectures at Long Beach, California, that the Hebrews had\nno literature until their connection with the Babylonians while in\ncaptivity, that their literature was developed during their agricultural\nlife while in Babylon. He affirmed that the sacrificial ritual of the\nbook of Leviticus had its roots in the heathen sacrifices growing out of\ntheir false conception that their deities must be appeased by the\nshedding of blood. The Levitical ritual was, therefore, never written\nnor given by Moses. If this gentleman and the critics that hold with him\nare correct, we must conclude with them that Moses never saw or heard of\nour book of Leviticus.\n\nIn reply let it be said:\n\n1. The denial of the existence of Hebrew literature prior to the exile\nis thoroughly answered and set aside by the records discovered on the\nEgyptian monuments and writings before and during Israel's bondage. Many\nof the critics have found this criticism untenable, and have abandoned\nit. They have been obliged to concede that Egyptian and Babylonian\nliterature existed long before the time of Moses. The best scholarship\nof to-day affirms that \"the discovery and first use of writing is\ncertainly as old as the time of Abraham.\" (See Schaff-Hergoz, Enc. Art.\nWriting.)\n\n2. If the Bible itself is not a fraud, writing was constantly in use in\nthe time of Moses. See:\n\n(1) Exod. vii. 14: \"The Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial\nin a book.\"\n\n(2) Exod. xxiv. 4: \"And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.\"\n\n(3) Exod. xxxiv. 27: \"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these\nwords.\"\n\n(4) Exod. xxxiv. 28: \"And he (God) wrote upon the tables the words of\nthe covenant.\"\n\n(5) Num. v. 23: \"And the priest shall write these curses in a book.\"\n\n(6) Num. xi. 26: \"They were of them that were written.\"\n\n(7) Num. xvii. 2: \"Write thou every man's name upon his rod.\"\n\n(8) Num. xvii. 3: \"Write Aaron's name upon the rod of Levi.\"\n\n(9) Num. xxxiii. 2: \"And Moses wrote their goings out according to their\njourneyings by the commandment of the Lord.\"\n\n(10) Deut. vi. 9: \"Thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house and\nupon thy gates.\"\n\n(11) Deut xi. 20. Repeats the last reference cited.\n\n(12) Deut. xvii, 18: \"When he (the king) sitteth upon the throne of his\nkingdom, he shall write him a copy of this law in a book.\"\n\nThese are a few out of the many passages in the Pentateuch in which God\nhas commanded his servant to write, and in which it is positively stated\nthat his servant did write. One of two things is certain, either the\nwhole Pentateuch is a fraud, having stated repeatedly that writing was\ncommanded and practiced, or the book is true, and the fraud must be\ncharged to the belated critics.\n\nThe reader will see very clearly that the purpose of such criticism is\nto eliminate the supernatural from the Bible, as has been said, and\ndestroy its certitude.\n\nIt is too late in the day for the Professor's criticism, that Hebrew\nliterature had its first development during the exile. \"Stephen full of\nthe Holy Spirit, looking steadfastly into heaven,\" read the record of\nhistory concerning Moses differently. Stephen could not have heard the\nChautauqua lecturer's statement, for he affirmed that \"Moses was learned\nin all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds.\"\n\n3. Consider now the assumptions of the critics in the face of the claims\nof the book of Leviticus. In the first verses of the book it is written:\n\"And the Lord called upon Moses, and spake unto him out of the\ntabernacle of the congregation, saying.\" Then follow God's specific\ndirections concerning\n\n(1) The burnt offering;\n\n(2) The meat offering, and\n\n(3) The sin offering, occupying the whole of the first three chapters.\nThe fourth chapter is introduced in the same explicit language.\n\n(4) The sin offering.\n\nThis definite direction of God to Moses extends to the sixth chapter of\nthe book. Here again the same formula of speech is employed, God\nspeaking to Moses gave directions concerning\n\n(5) The trespass offering.\n\nIn the eighth chapter we have God's direct communication to Moses, and\nMoses' response in such phrases as the following, and all in a single\nchapter: \"And the Lord spake to Moses, ... and Moses did as the Lord\ncommanded him, ... and Moses said unto the congregation, ... and Moses\nbrought Aaron and his sons, ... as the Lord commanded Moses, ... and\nMoses brought Aaron's sons, as the Lord commanded Moses.\" Ten times in\nthis single chapter it is recorded that God spake to Moses, and Moses\nobeyed God.\n\nAnd yet our critic would have us believe one of two things; God either\ntook the heathen sacrificial ritual, veneered it with some sort of\ndivine approval, and handed it over to his people for their use, or by\nsome sort of evolution the book of Leviticus came up out of the heathen\nmethod of appeasing their malevolent deities!\n\nLet the facts be summarized. In every one of the twenty-seven chapters\nof the book of Leviticus God is represented as commanding Moses, and\nMoses is represented as doing the thing which God required of him, and\nseveral times in many of the chapters. In the eighteenth chapter\nnineteen definite things are done by Moses, the seventeenth verse\nasserting that all this was done \"as the Lord commanded Moses.\"\n\nThe following references are absolutely unanswerable by the critics,\nviz.:\n\nLev. i. 1: \"The Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him.\"\n\nLev. iv. 1: \"The Lord spake unto Moses, saying,\" etc.\n\nLev. vi. 1; \"And the Lord spake unto Moses.\"\n\nLev. viii. 1: \"And the Lord spake unto Moses.\"\n\nLev. viii. 36: \"Aaron and his sons did all things which the Lord\ncommanded by the hand of Moses.\"\n\nLev. ix. 6: \"And Moses said, This is the thing which the Lord commanded\nthat ye should do.\"\n\nLev. xi. 1: \"And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron.\"\n\nLev. xii. 1: \"And the Lord spake unto Moses.\"\n\nLev. xiii. 1: \"And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron.\"\n\nLev. xiv. 1: \"And the Lord spake unto Moses.\"\n\nLev. xiv. 33: \"And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron.\"\n\nWithout further repetition of this phraseology, the reader will find the\nsame in the following references, viz.: xv. 1, xvi. 1, xvii. 1, xviii.\n1, xix. 1, xx. 1, xxi. 1, xxii. 1-17, xxiii. 1, xxiv. 1, xxv. 1, xxvii.\n1-34.\n\nHere are twenty-five positive statements that God spake to Moses, or\ncommanded Moses. Does language mean anything? Is there any escape from\nthe truth, except by a denial of the entire Word of God?\n\nGod and Moses are the active agents in every chapter in the book of\nLeviticus. And this fact is definitely stated in the last verse of\nLeviticus: \"These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses.\"\n\nYou might as well attempt to blot the sun from the heavens at high noon\nas to eliminate from the book of Leviticus the one great and\ndivinely-appointed personality, Moses, the lawgiver, the leader the\nactor, and under God the author of the book.\n\nA further word concerning the date of Leviticus. When was it written? As\nalready stated, the critics place the time of the writing after the\nexile, between nine hundred and one thousand years after the decease of\nMoses. Something additional should be added to what has already been\nsaid on the subject.\n\nThe reader of the English Bible will see that Leviticus immediately\nfollows Exodus by the connective \"and.\" The same Hebrew connective\nunites Exodus with Genesis, and Numbers with Leviticus. The natural,\ngrammatical, and logical inference is, that the author of Genesis is the\nauthor of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.\n\nIn addition to this fact we have the testimony of some of the prophets\nwho lived before the exile, that they were familiar with what the\ncritics call \"the priestly code,\" which is elaborated in Leviticus.\n\nProfessor Stanley Leathes adduces forty-five allusions to the books of\nMoses in the book of Amos. (See _Bible Student and Teacher_, October,\n1906.) Amos' prophetic work was \"in the northern kingdom, between 807\nand 765 B.C., during the reign of Jeroboam II, when the kingdom of\nIsrael was at the height of its splendor.\" (See Schaff-Herzog, Enc. Art.\nAmos.) This was more than two hundred years before the restoration from\nthe exile, long before the captivity, which the critics designate as the\nbeginning of the literary period.\n\nProfessor Leathes affirms that \"there is apparent acquaintance with and\nreference to each book of the Pentateuch in this prophecy.\" He shows\nthat Leviticus is referred to in nine passages in Amos. The reference in\nAmos iv. 5 to \"a sacrifice in thanksgiving with leaven\" is an allusion\nto the law of thanksgiving in Lev. vii. 13.\n\nIn giving God's message to Israel in a time of great backsliding, Amos\nsaid to them: \"Though ye offer unto me burnt offerings and meat\nofferings, I will not accept them, neither will I regard the peace\nofferings of your fat beasts.\" (Amos v. 23.)\n\nThis is an allusion to the law of burnt offerings and meat offerings set\nforth in the first chapter of Leviticus. But the critics inform us that\nthere was no law concerning these offerings until several hundred years\nafter Amos ceased to prophesy!\n\nAgain, enumerating the sins of the people, Amos charges them with giving\nthe Nazarites wine to drink. \"Ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink, and\ncommanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not.\" (Amos ii. 12.) This was a\nviolation of the law of God as found in Num. vi. 2, 3, showing at least\nthat the Pentateuch, of which Leviticus is an important part, was known\nto Amos, long before the period to which Leviticus has been assigned by\nthe destructive critics.\n\nHosea adds his testimony to that of Amos and Ezekiel. Again and again he\nrefers to the law of sacrifices as taught in Leviticus. \"They shall be\nashamed because of their sacrifices.\" \"They sacrifice on the tops of the\nmountains and burn incense upon the hills.\" (Hosea iv. 13, 19.)\n\nConcerning Ephraim, God says by the prophet Hosea: \"I wrote for him ten\nthousand things of my law.\" (Hosea viii. 12, R.V.) He refers to the law\nas given to Moses in all its length and breadth.\n\nThe critics demand large credulity from us. They ask us to accept their\nposition that the Bible itself was mistaken as to its authorship, that\nChrist and his apostles were mistaken; or at least did not tell the\ntruth when they assigned the Pentateuch (Leviticus included) to Moses.\nThey then ask us to believe that the Bible is not only unimpaired by the\nmistakes which the experts claim to have discovered, but is really much\nimproved by the discovery!\n\nIt passes rational comprehension that we are permitted to expunge from\nthe Word of God, on the ground of literary criticism, the positive and\nrepeated statements of inspired men, and of the Son of God, and yet\nassume that we have an unimpaired revelation!\n\nWe rather turn to the glorious array of witnesses to the integrity of\nthe Bible that God has furnished--the book itself, Moses and the\nprophets, all the New Testament writers and the \"Teacher sent from God.\"\nFrom these witnesses we rest in the unshaken belief that \"God spake all\nthese words\" (Ex. xx. 1) and that \"Moses wrote all the words of the\nLord\" (Ex. xxiv. 4), including Leviticus.\n\n\n\n\nVI. ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING THE BOOK OF ISAIAH.\n\n_\"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is there anything too\nhard for me?\" Jer. xxxii. 27._\n\n_\"God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth\nunto God.\" Psa. lxii. 11._\n\n_\"Great is our Lord, and of great power; his understanding is infinite.\"\nPsa. cxlvii. 5._\n\n_\"He revealeth the deep and secret things; he knoweth what is in the\ndarkness, and that the light dwelleth with him.\" Dan. ii. 2._\n\n_\"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world\" Acts\nxv. 18._\n\n_\"The Lord looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men.\" Psa.\nxxxiii. 13._\n\n_\"Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what\nthou shalt say.\" Ex. iv. 12._\n\n_\"And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand\nnot; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.\" Isaiah vi. 9._\n\n\nThe critics claim to have discovered, on literary and other evidence,\nthat the Church of Christ, in all its branches, has been mistaken in all\nthe past concerning the author of the book known as the Prophecies of\nIsaiah. They assume that all the foremost scholars of the world, and the\nfaith of God's people, have been misled. Our critical advisers profess\nto have discovered that there were at least two, and probably many more\nprophets, whose writings compose the book. They refuse to recognize\nIsaiah alone as the author; and for several reasons:\n\n_First_--Because of the change of style of composition from the\nthirty-ninth chapter to the close of the book.\n\n_Second_--On the ground that the theme is more exalted than in the first\nthirty-nine chapters. Hence, it is assumed that these last chapters\ncould not have been written by Isaiah.\n\n_Third_--On the ground that Cyrus is mentioned by name, in the\nforty-fourth and forty-fifth chapters of the book, as the restorer of\nJerusalem. Hence, our critics conclude that this part of the book must\nhave been written after the event, as the prophet (it is assumed) could\nnot name Cyrus before his birth.\n\n_Fourth_--The critics assume that the prophet must prophesy out of his\nimmediate surroundings, whatever that may mean. They furnish their\ntroubled disciples the comforting assurance that these discoveries do\nnot diminish the value of the book, but render it more accurate and\ninteresting as a literary work. The professor already quoted, a fair\nrepresentative of the critical school, in his recent lectures, referred\nto on a preceding page, distinguished the authors of the book as \"Isaiah\nand the Great Unknown Prophet.\" Other critics multiply, somewhat\nindefinitely, the number of \"The Unknowns.\" Our critic regards the\nchange in _style and theme_ from the thirty-ninth chapter to the end of\nthe book as valid proof of at least the dual authorship of the book.\n\nThis assumption instantly raises the question as to who is the author of\nprophetic themes. Is it the prophet himself or the Holy Spirit? Does the\nprophet himself bring forth the prophecy of his own foreknowledge? Or,\nis the Holy Spirit the inspirer of themes new and old? Happily God has\nsettled the question for us. He declares by his Apostle Peter \"that no\nprophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation\"; that is, of the\nprophet's own disclosure. \"For prophecy came not of old time by the will\nof man; but _holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy\nSpirit_.\" (2 Peter i. 20, 21.) It is, therefore, bold assumption to\naffirm that God could not give to the same prophet new and more exalted\nthemes in his progressive revelation of truth. It is a limitation of God\nhimself to the critic's notion of what should, or should not be. This\nwould eliminate the divine element of the book by a sweep of the\ncritic's pen. It is an assumption too groundless to need a reply.\n\nFurther, as to the change of style. Nothing is more natural or\nreasonable than the fact that a change of theme should produce a change\nof style. A more exalted theme must quicken the imagination, set the\nemotions aflame, stimulate all the mental and moral powers of the\nauthor. A historical statement, a commonplace theme, can be dealt with\nin a commonplace style, while new and uplifting truth awakens new powers\nin the writer. Milton's Paradise Lost was entirely different from his\nordinary prose composition. Dr. John Watson's sermons were on a higher\nlevel than his books of fiction. Writers who do much of their literary\nwork on the level plain on which the people move, frequently rise to\nmountain peaks of sublime composition when the occasion and theme demand\nit.\n\nThe style in the later chapters of the book of Isaiah is just what we\nwould expect from the prophet when the Holy Spirit opened to his\nenraptured mind the theme of redemption through a suffering Messiah, in\nthe fifty-third and following chapters of the book.\n\nThe objection to conceding the authorship of the entire book to Isaiah,\nbecause the prophet mentions Cyrus by name before his birth, is made in\nthe face of the fundamental fact already stated that God inspired the\nwriter, and is therefore the author of prophecy, \"declaring the end from\nthe beginning.\" (Isa. xlvi. 10.) He knows all the future and whom he\nwill choose to accomplish his glorious purposes. To deny this fact is to\ndeny all prophecy. If God can not foretell future events and the\ninstruments for their accomplishment, there can be no prophecy, and\nGod's omniscience is impeached. Isaiah prophesied in the seventh chapter\nand fourteenth verse: \"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,\nand shall call his name Immanuel.\" Matthew affirms that this prophecy\nwas fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. (Matt. i. 22, 23.) He also declares\nin the same connection that the announcing angel foretold that the name\n\"Jesus\" was to be given to the Messiah at his birth. These\npreannouncements must be cast aside if the critic's dictum is accepted.\nShall we discredit Isaiah, the announcing angel, and Matthew on the\nground of the critic's literary acumen?\n\nFurther, the student of the Word will remember that when Jeroboam was\nbringing disaster upon Israel, God sent his prophet to declare: \"Behold\na son shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon\nthee (the altar at Bethel) shall he offer the priests of the high places\nthat burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.\"\nMore than three hundred years after this prophecy was given, according\nto Usher's Chronology, Josiah was born and did the precise things that\nwere predicted concerning him. (See 1 Kings xiii. 2 and 2 Kings xxiii,\n15, 16.) The omniscience of the Holy Spirit can predict the name of the\ninstrument as readily as the event which is to be accomplished.\n\nAgain, undoubtedly the prophet must speak out of his own environment. He\ncan speak only where he is. But who is to decide how many and what\nallusions he must make to custom or incident in order to satisfy the\ncritic, as to his time and place in history?\n\nThe tailor who decides that he must have twenty yards of cloth to make a\nsuit of clothes, when ten yards are sufficient, will shortly be wanting\ncustomers. The critic who has decided how many and what kind of\nsynchronous events must be furnished by the prophet, in order to secure\nhis credence as to authorship, will be left without a prophet or a\nBible.\n\nThe erection of an arbitrary law, by which to interpret history or\nprophecy in the Bible, is contrary to all the treatment which secular\nliterature receives from these same critics.\n\nFrom these strained, forced and unphilosophical methods of dealing with\nprophecy, we turn to the testimony of the inspired book itself. The book\nof Isaiah is distinguished by a phraseology peculiar to this prophet. He\nspeaks of God as \"The Holy One of Israel.\" This title, as applied to\nGod, is used only seven times in the entire Old Testament; once in 2\nKings, three times in the Psalms, twice in the prophecies of Jeremiah,\nand once in Ezekiel, but never in the minor prophets. But Isaiah uses\nthis title as applied to God, twenty-two times, running through the\nentire book from the first to the sixtieth chapter.\n\nThe reader will be interested to note how the repeated use of the\nphrase--\"The Holy One of Israel\"--attests the unity of the authorship of\nthe entire book. Hence the passages (\"line upon line, line upon line\")\nare here presented to give their unequivocal testimony to our Sabbath\nSchool teachers.\n\n1: Isaiah I:4--\"They have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked _the\nHoly One of Israel to anger_.\"\n\n2: Isaiah v:18, 19--\"Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of\nvanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope: that say ... let the\ncounsel of _the Holy One of Israel_ draw nigh and come, that we may know\nit.\"\n\n3: Isaiah v:24--\"Because they have cast away the law of the Lord of\nhosts, and despised the word of _the Holy One of Israel_.\"\n\n4: Isaiah xii:6--\"Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion; for great\nis _the Holy One of Israel_ in the midst of thee.\"\n\n5: Isaiah xvii:7--\"At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his\neyes shall have respect to _the Holy One of Israel_.\"\n\n6: Isaiah xxix:19--\"The poor among man shall rejoice in _the Holy One of\nIsrael_.\"\n\n7: Isaiah xxx:11--\"Cause _the Holy One of Israel_ to cease from before\nus.\" (The language of a rebellious people.)\n\n8: Isaiah xxx:12--\"Wherefore, thus saith _the Holy One of Israel_,\nbecause ye despise this word ... therefore this iniquity shall be to you\nas a breach ready to fall.\"\n\n9: Isaiah xxx:15--\"Thus saith the Lord God, _the Holy One of Israel_; In\nreturning and rest shall ye be saved.\"\n\n10: Isaiah xxxi:1--\"They look not unto _the Holy One of Israel_, neither\nseek the Lord.\"\n\n11: Isaiah xli:14--\"Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I\nwill help thee, I will help thee saith the Lord, and thy Redeemer, _the\nHoly One of Israel_.\"\n\n12: Isaiah xli:16--\"Thou shalt rejoice in the Lord, and shalt glory in\n_the Holy One of Israel_.\"\n\n13: Isaiah xli:20--\"That they may see, and know, and consider, and\nunderstand together, that the hand of the Lord hath done this, and _the\nHoly One of Israel_ hath created it.\"\n\n14: Isaiah xliii:13--\"I am the Lord thy God, _the Holy One of Israel,\nthy_ Savior.\"\n\n15: Isaiah xlv:11--\"Thus saith the Lord, _the Holy One of Israel_, and\nhis Maker, Ask me of things to come, concerning my sons, and concerning\nthe work of my hands command ye me.\"\n\n16: Isaiah xlvii:4--\"As for our Redeemer, the Lord of hosts is his name,\n_the Holy One of Israel_.\"\n\n17: Isaiah xlviii:17--\"Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, _the Holy One\nof Israel_, I am the Lord thy God, which teacheth thee to profit, which\nleadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.\"\n\n18: Isaiah xlix:7--\"Thus saith the Lord ... Kings shall see and arise,\nprinces also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and\n_the Holy One of Israel_, and he shall choose thee.\"\n\n19: Isaiah liv:5--\"For thy Maker is thine husband; The Lord of hosts is\nhis name, and thy Redeemer is _the Holy One of Israel_; The God of the\nwhole earth shall he be called.\"\n\n20: Isaiah lv:5--\"Nations that knew not thee, shall run unto thee\nbecause of the Lord thy God, and for _the Holy One of Israel_.\"\n\n21: Isaiah lx:9--\"The Isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish\nfirst, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with\nthem, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to _the Holy One of\nIsrael_, because he hath glorified thee.\"\n\n22: Isaiah lx:14--\"And they shall call thee the city of the Lord, the\nZion of _the Holy One of Israel_.\"\n\nThe reader will notice that this phrase, as applied to God is a\ncharacteristic of Isaiah. We have not found it in any of the minor\nprophets, and but twice in the prophecies of Jeremiah, and once in\nEzekiel. But Isaiah uses it more than twenty times, running from the\nfirst to the sixtieth chapter. He uses it ten times before reaching the\nfortieth chapter, and twelve times in the chapters following, which the\ncritics have assigned to some unknown author or authors. Shall we be\nasked to conclude that the unknown authors adopted Isaiah's style, his\nphraseology, from the fortieth chapter to the end of the book? For what\nmotive? To conceal themselves? The assumption is too large. If the first\nthirty-nine chapters of this book are accepted, as the prophecies of\nIsaiah, by every law of fair criticism the whole book must claim this\nprophet as its author.\n\n\n\n\nVII. GOD'S REPLY TO THESE ASSUMPTIONS.\n\n_\"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?\" Rom. ix. 20._\n\n_\"At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses,\nshall the matter be established.\" Deut. xix. 15._\n\n_\"Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our\nlearning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might\nhave hope.\" Rom. xv. 4._\n\n_\"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are\nwritten for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.\" 1\nCor. x. 11._\n\n_\"My people shall know my name, therefore they shall know in that day\nthat I am he that doth speak, Behold, it is I.\" Isaiah lii. 6._\n\n\nIn the New Testament we have in the Gospels and the Epistles God's\nteachings concerning the Old Testament. The writers of the New Testament\nhad the promise of our Lord that \"The Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit,\nwhom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and\nbring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.\"\n(John xiv. 26.)\n\nIn the fulfillment of this promise they have given us the testimony of\nGod, the Holy Spirit, on all the subjects of which they have written.\nWhat, therefore, is their testimony concerning the author of the book of\nIsaiah? Did that prophet write the book, or is it a patched book from\nvarious authors?\n\nMatthew, the inspired author of the book that bears his name, quotes\nfrom Isaiah xl. 3: \"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,\nPrepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway\nfor our God.\" (See Matt. iii. 3.)\n\nThe critics inform us that this prophecy was not given by Isaiah, but by\nsome unknown prophet, and was bound up with Isaiah's prophecies, and\nlabeled as his. Matthew informs us that it was a prophecy concerning\nJohn the Baptist, and was given by Isaiah himself, and not by another.\nHe says (iii. 3), referring to John the Baptist: \"For this is he that\nwas spoken of through _Isaiah the prophet_, saying:\n\n\"The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the\nLord, Make his paths straight.\" (R.V.)\n\nAgain, in Matt. viii. 17, the author of this gospel quotes a passage\nfrom the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. The critics have handed this\nfifty-third chapter over to the Unknown prophet or prophets. They affirm\nagain that the theme and literary style of this chapter are such that\nIsaiah could not have written it. They base their affirmation on their\nown literary discoveries, their ability to detect the footprints of some\nother prophet, though they do not inform us who that prophet is. They\nare sure that it was not Isaiah, for they have already placed him under\nsuch limitations that, according to their critical decision, he could\nnot write the chapter. Of course, their conclusion is reached by\npractically denying the Holy Spirit's agency--logically denying that\n\"holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.\" (2 Peter\ni. 21.)\n\nThe inspired author of the gospel of Matthew had a different conception\nof the Holy Spirit's agency in giving prophecy to the world. He had not\ndiscovered the limitations of the prophet, which the critics profess to\nhave found. Hence, in giving the history of God's gracious and\nmiraculous work of casting out demons and healing the sick, he declares\n(Matt. viii. 17), without a shadow of a mistake, that Christ wrought\nthese miracles, \"that it might be fulfilled _which was spoken through\nIsaiah the prophet_, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our\ndiseases.\" (See also Isaiah liii. 4.)\n\nAs Matthew is on the witness stand, the reader will be interested to\nhear his testimony further. In his gospel (xii. 17-21) he testifies that\nIsaiah wrote the forty-second chapter of the prophecy that bears his\nname. Matthew quotes the first four verses of the chapter, in\nexplanation of the fact that Christ found it necessary during his\nministry to retire from the public excitement which his teaching and\nmiracles had produced. He says that Christ pursued that course \"that it\nmight be fulfilled which _was spoken through Isaiah the prophet_,\nsaying, Behold my servant whom I have chosen; my beloved in whom my soul\nis well pleased; I will put my Spirit upon him and he shall show\njudgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall any\nman hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break,\nand smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto\nvictory, and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.\"\n\nThis quotation is from Isaiah, forty-second chapter, and first part of\nthe chapter. The reader will remember that the critics deny this\ntestimony of Matthew. This forty-second chapter which he (Matthew)\nassigns to Isaiah is a part of the book which they affirm has come to us\nfrom some unknown source.\n\nIt is worthy of repetition that three times Matthew, the inspired author\nof the first gospel, has affirmed without equivocation that the passages\nwhich he quotes were \"_spoken by Isaiah the prophet_.\" The critics say\n\"No.\" Which will the reader believe?\n\nThe author of the third gospel, describing our Lord's visit to Nazareth,\nsays: \"As his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day,\nand stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of\nthe prophet Isaiah, and when he had opened the book, he found the place\nwhere it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath\nanointed me to preach the gospel; he hath sent me to heal the broken\nhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to\nthe blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the\nacceptable year of the Lord.\" Luke iv. 16-19.\n\n_Luke informs us that it was \"the book of the prophet Isaiah_\" from\nwhich our Savior made this quotation. We turn to the prophecy and\ndiscover that the passage is found in the sixty-first chapter and first\nand second verses of the book. But the critics who are correcting our\nBible for us (?) inform us that their same literary discovery holds good\nhere--that this part of the book _was not_ written by Isaiah. They\nassume to hand over this part of the book, knowingly, to the \"Great\nUnknown\" and unknowable prophets. The testimony of Luke contradicts the\ncritics. He gives Isaiah full credit as the author of the statement. The\nreader will doubtless accept the fact that the inspired writer, the\nauthor of Luke's gospel, obtained his information at first hand, from\nGod himself, who inspired the record.\n\nAgain Luke contradicts the critics when he puts on record Philip's\ninterview with the eunuch, as we find it in Acts viii. 30-33. When\nPhilip joined himself to the eunuch, by direction of the Spirit, he\n\"heard him reading _Isaiah the prophet_ (Isaiah liii. 7), and said,\nUnderstandest thou what thou readest?\" ... Now, the passage of the\nScriptures which he was reading was this: \"He was led as a sheep to the\nslaughter and as a lamb before his shearer, dumb, so he opened not his\nmouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: his generation\nwho shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth,\" (R.V., Acts\nviii. 30-33.)\n\nOur critics have robbed Isaiah of this passage. It was written, so their\nliterary skill claims to have discovered, by some prophet who has\nsuccessfully concealed himself, and finally disappeared from sight,\nleaving no hope that his name will ever be discovered.\n\nLuke informs us that he knew who the prophet was that penned that\ntouching description of the coming Messiah, and that his name was\nIsaiah. This question he has settled.\n\nTurning to the gospel of John, we are furnished the testimony of one of\nwhom our Lord said, \"Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of\nwoman, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.\" This\nwitness comes before us, therefore, indorsed by Jesus Christ himself,\n\"The faithful Witness.\" We ask him, therefore, to speak for himself as\nto who is the author of that part of prophecy which the critics are\nattempting to wrest from Isaiah.\n\nWhen the priests and Levites came to ask him, \"Who art thou? That we may\ngive an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?\" he\nreplied, \"I am the Voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight\nthe way of the Lord, _as said Isaiah the prophet_.\" (See John i. 22, 23,\nR.V.)\n\nThis was his testimony, first concerning himself. We believe him. And\nthis was his testimony, secondly, concerning the author of the prophecy\nwhich he quoted: \"_Isaiah the prophet_.\"\n\nAgain we believe him, and as confidently, concerning the second\nstatement as the first. And the Apostle John was so confident of its\ntruth that he put it on record.\n\nThe passage quoted (Isaiah xl. 3) belongs to that part of the book which\nour critic and his fellow critics have decided was predicted by some\nstray prophet, unknown to the world, to the Jewish people or the church.\nWe prefer the statement of John the Baptist, and its indorsement by John\nthe Apostle.\n\nThe reader will now recall that we have already heard Matthew's\ncorroboration of the testimony of John the Baptist concerning Isaiah's\nclaim to this prophecy. (See Matt iii. 3.)\n\nIn the gospel of the Apostle John he puts on record his personal\ntestimony concerning the author of the book bearing Isaiah's name.\nExplaining the amazing unbelief of the Jews, he says (xii. 37, 38): \"But\nthough he (Jesus) did so many signs before them, yet they believed not\non him: _that the word of Isaiah the prophet_ might be fulfilled, which\nhe spake:\n\n\"Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the\nLord been revealed?\" (R.V.)\n\nThe reader will see that this inspired writer of the fourth gospel is\nquoting from Isaiah liii. 1, thus testifying to Isaiah's authorship.\n\nOur literary critics have decided that this chapter was forbidden ground\nto Isaiah, that, if we are to believe them, he had no connection with\nthis prophecy.\n\nWe are asked to believe that the author of this fifty-third chapter, the\nmost minute and tender prophecy concerning the Messiah's sufferings for\nhis people, and rejection by them, has dropped out of sight! We are\nasked to believe that the name of the prophet who gave this dramatic\npicture of what was to take place on Calvary seven hundred years later,\nhas been lost in the fog of the passing centuries! We are asked to\nbelieve that the name of the author of the first thirty-nine chapters,\nthe less important part of the book, has been preserved, but oblivion\nhas overtaken the author of the book from the fortieth chapter to the\nend.\n\nThe assumption is an affront to the intelligence of the ordinary reader\nof the Bible. It is an impeachment of the honesty of the authors of the\ngospels, which the unshaken faith of God's people can never concede.\n\nThe reader can now sum up the testimony of Matthew, Mark (see i. 3,\nR.V.), Luke, John, and John the Baptist, all of whom with one voice\ncontradicts the critics. We also prefer, with these witnesses, to\ndiscredit the men who are picking out clauses, verses and chapters here\nand there, and guessing them off to authors of their own invention, who\nhave never been known or heard of.\n\nIt is not sufficient for the critics to say that these New Testament\nauthors knew better, but deferred to popular sentiment, based on\ntradition. That can not satisfy our estimate of them as God's divinely\nappointed teachers, chosen to make record of the momentous truth on\nwhich the salvation of a lost world hangs. Men, ready to lay down their\nlives for the truth, were not the men to play fast and loose with the\nWord of God, in deference to a supposed popular sentiment.\n\nFurther, our critical friends have assumed to decide for the prophets\nthat they must prophesy out of their immediate surroundings in such a\nmarked way, with such continued reference to the events of the period,\nthat the prophecy must be located in that period. If the critic cannot\nfind these particular local earmarks, he must push the prophecy to a\npoint of time with which he can make it synchronize, and which will\nsatisfy his literary judgment. By this law of determining dates, the\ncritics claim that the book of Isaiah is a composite work, produced by\ndifferent authors and at different times.\n\nOn this assumption the latter part of the book of Revelation was not a\nrevelation to the Apostle John on the Isle of Patmos. The first part of\nthe book may be adjudged as his. But presently the matter of the book\npasses into a realm beyond the time and circumstances that belong to\nthat period, hence may not claim him as its author. An assumption that\nsets aside the claims of Scripture, as to authorship, in order to\nharmonize the book with one's literary and critical judgment, may be\ndismissed on its own lack of merit.\n\nThe proposed law above referred to, as a method of locating prophecy as\nto time, or determining the author, is arbitrary, and an absurd attempt\nto destroy all the testimony of inspired writers, who have settled the\nquestion of authorship and the date of prophecy.\n\n\n\n\nVIII. THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF JONAH.\n\n_\"According to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the\nhand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, which was of\nGath-hepher.\" 2 Kings xiv. 25._\n\n_\"The word of the Lord came unto Jonah, the son of Amittai, saying,\nArise go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it: for their\nwickedness is come up before me.\" Jonah i. 1, 2._\n\n_\"So Jonah arose and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the\nLord.\" Jonah iii.. 3._\n\n_\"And he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be\noverthrown.\" Jonah iii. 4._\n\n_\"So the people of Nineveh believed God.\" Jonah iii. 5._\n\n_\"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God\nrepented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them, and he did\nit not.\" Jonah iii. 10._\n\n_\"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and\nshall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas.\"\nMatt. xii. 41._\n\n\nThe book of Jonah has been attacked by the destructive critics. Its\nhistoricity has been denied. The critics, though certain of almost all\nof their objections to the Bible, have not all decided whether it is\n\"based on history, or is a nature myth.\" Keunen has discovered (?) that\nit is \"a product of the opposition to the strict and exclusive policy of\nEzra toward heathen nations.\" Objection is made to the historical\nstatements of the book on various grounds. The objector interposes this\ndifficulty: \"Can we conceive of a heathen city being converted by an\nobscure foreign prophet?\"\n\nThis objection is of kin to that which can not conceive that by a\ncreative act of God the universe was brought into being, or the inspired\nstatement that \"the worlds were framed by the word of God.\" It is the\npresence of the supernatural everywhere that is beyond the conception of\nthe critics.\n\nAgain, they interpose the difficulty: \"How could the Ninevites give\ncredence to a man who was not a servant of Ashur?\"\n\nWithout presenting the multiplied difficulties that rationalism has\nsupposedly discovered, they may be summed up in their statement\nsubstantially, that the book of Jonah is not historical. Whatever else\nit may be, whether legend, myth or allegory, it is not history.\n\nWe turn again from the fancies of \"Expert Scholarship\" to the testimony\nof the Bible concerning itself. We discover that the prophet Jonah is\nreferred to several hundred years before the critics have permitted him\nto live. It is written in 2 Kings xiv. 25 that Jeroboam the Second\nsecured the restoration of certain territory, \"according to the word of\nthe Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah,\nthe son of Amittai the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher.\"\n\nThe name of Jonah, of his family, and the place of residence of his\nfamily, are definitely stated. The work is accomplished \"by the hand of\nhis servant Jonah,\" and the date of its accomplishment, is so precisely\nrecorded that these statements could have been disproved had they been\nfalse. Hence, there was a person named Jonah.\n\nOur Lord has settled the questions of the personality and work of Jonah,\nif anything can be settled for unbelief. He has affirmed the historical\ncertainty of the two important events which critical assumption declares\nimpossible. The critical Jews were demanding a sign from our Lord. He\nhad wrought many miracles, but they wanted something beyond what he had\ngiven, a miracle for their special benefit. He declined to gratify them.\nOf that generation he said: \"There shall no sign be given it, but the\nsign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights\nin the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three\nnights in the heart of the earth.\" (Matt. xii. 39-41.) As Jonah was\nmiraculously preserved for three days and nights and was brought forth,\nas by a resurrection, so was the Son of man to be brought forth from the\ntomb. His resurrection was to be the crowning miracle, the sign forever\nconfronting his nation, Jonah's deliverance from apparent death was such\na miracle as convinced the Ninevites that he had a message from God for\nthem, so Christ's resurrection was to become the keystone of the arch on\nwhich the whole structure of the redemptive system should rest. \"He was\nraised for our justification.\" (Rom. iv. 25.)\n\nThe reader will mark that our Lord referred to the miraculous\npreservation of Jonah, and his deliverance, as a historical event,\nrecorded in the first and second chapters of the book of Jonah, not as a\nmyth or allegory, but as a historical fact. \"_As_ Jonah was three days\nand three nights in the whale's belly, _so_ shall the Son of man be\nthree days and three nights in the heart of the earth.\" _As_ the one,\n_so_ the other. As certainly and literally the one, so certainly and\nliterally the other. If Jonah's preservation and coming forth from the\nfish that God had prepared was only a legend, then was Christ's death,\nburial, and resurrection a legend. And in consistency with their\ncritical theory some of the rationalists have reduced them both to\nlegend. For _as_ one was, _so_ was the other to be. The statement is\nplain, definite narrative, from which there is no escape.\n\nOthers of the critical school hold to the historical verity of Christ's\nburial and resurrection, but assert that he made use of the assumed\nlegend concerning Jonah, as we might illustrate any fact in history by a\nfamiliar statement from fiction. To such an assumption we reply that our\nLord was dealing with tremendous realities, such as could not be\nbelittled by turning for support or illustration to a fictitious story.\nHe quoted from Old Testament history to illustrate and enforce New\nTestament truth. On another occasion he said: \"_As_ Moses lifted up the\nserpent in the wilderness, even _so_ must the Son of man be lifted up\nthat whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal\nlife.\" Shall we hand over to legendary literature the great historical\nfact of the twenty-first chapter of Numbers--God's deliverance of the\npeople from the fiery serpents--by one look at the uplifted brazen\nserpent by the hand of Moses? We may as well reduce one passage to\nfiction as the other. \"_As_ Jonah ... three days and nights, _so_ the\nSon of man. _As_ the serpent was lifted up, _so_ the Son of man shall be\nlifted up.\" This comparison has a definite meaning. The apostle uses it\nin his Epistle to the Romans, fifth chapter and twelfth verse. \"_As_ by\none man sin entered into the world, ... _so_ death passed upon all men\nfor that all have sinned.\" As certainly as sin entered into the world by\none man, so certainly it resulted that death passed upon all men. _As_\nChrist's remaining in the grave three days was not a fiction, _so_\nJonah's three days and nights in the great fish that God had prepared\nwas not a fiction.\n\nOur Lord further certifies to the historicity of the book of Jonah by\nhis reference to the great prophet's preaching. The critic's objection\nis thus stated: \"Can we conceive of a heathen city being converted by an\nobscure foreign prophet?\"\n\nOf course, the objection to the record of that mighty moral movement\ncomes from those who have counted God out of Jonah's preaching. If they\ncan eliminate the divine power from that event, they can easily hand the\nwhole record over to what they are pleased to call the \"folk lore of the\nBible.\" Here, as ever, the critic must rid the Scriptures of the\nsupernatural.\n\nBut our Savior knew that \"power belongeth unto God\" (Psa. lxii. 11), and\nhe put on record the repentance of the Ninevites, saying, \"The men of\nNineveh shall rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it,\n_because they repented at the preaching of Jonah_.\" (Matt. xii. 41.) But\nif the book is not history, our Lord's statement is false, for he says\nthe Ninevites did repent.\n\nThere is no rational possibility of denying our Lord's positive\nstatement without impeaching his veracity.\n\nHis words authorize the following conclusions:\n\nI. There was a prophet whose name was Jonah, as is stated in 2 Kings\nxiv. 25. He was not a myth or figment, but a prophet whose personality\nis authenticated by Christ himself.\n\n2. There was a city of Nineveh. The skepticism of other days denied the\nexistence of Nineveh. So completely was the prophecy concerning the\ndestruction of Nineveh fulfilled that the enemies of God's Word refused\nto believe that the city had ever existed, until the excavations of the\nlast century revealed the hidden ruins. But the word of God was true,\nand in God's time Nineveh was revealed.\n\n3. God sent this same prophet Jonah to Nineveh to preach. Christ tells\nus what took place under \"the preaching of Jonah.\" It terminated in a\ngreat awakening and reformation for:\n\n4. \"The men of Nineveh ... repented at the preaching of Jonah.\"\n\nDid the Savior know what he was talking about? Did he know the truth of\nthe statement he made? Or, knowing (as is assumed) that there were no\nsuch events, did he resort to _fiction_ in order to assert the\n_certainty_ of his own resurrection? If the latter, then we must correct\nhis statement concerning Jonah, and read: \"As Jonah has been\nfictitiously represented to have been three days and three nights in the\nwhale's belly, so, fictitiously, shall the Son of man be three days and\nthree nights in the heart of the earth.\"\n\nOur Sunday-school teachers, with the words of Christ before them, will\nbe able to give the critics important information. They can report the\ncertainty of the historical facts.\n\n\n\n\nIX. RADICAL EXPOSITION.\n\n_\"Among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring\nin destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them,\nbringing upon themselves swift destruction.\" (R.V.) 2 Peter ii. 1._\n\n_\"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane\nand vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which\nsome professing have erred concerning the faith.\" 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21._\n\n_\"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them.\" 1\nTim. iv. 16._\n\n_\"We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that\nye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place until the day\ndawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.\" 2 Peter i. 19._\n\n\nThe destructive critics have pushed their work far into the field of\nboth prophecy and exposition. They have relegated to the domain of\nmythology the clear and unequivocal historical statements of Scripture.\nWhere the intrusion of their mythological theory was too large a demand\nto make on our credulity, they have attempted a radical exegesis in\nproof of their assumptions.\n\nThey claim to have discovered that the Church in all the past has\nmisconceived the first prophetic promise given to man. That promise was\ngiven to our first parents immediately after the fall. God said to the\nserpent (Gen. iii. 15): \"I will put enmity between thee and the woman,\nand between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head and thou\nshalt bruise his heel.\"\n\nOur critics have two objections to the interpretation that has always\nbeen given and maintained by Christian scholars and by the Church as a\nwhole. First, that \"the seed of the woman\" does not refer to the\nMessiah, but to the human race, which is to bruise the serpent's head.\nSecond, that the serpent engaged in seducing Eve, and here placed under\nthe curse, does not refer to Satan.\n\nIn replying to the objection that the Messiah is not referred to in the\npassage, let it be said that the pronoun is a pronoun referring to a\nperson. It is so translated in the Revised Version. \"_He_ shall bruise\nthy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.\" It is not the human race, but\nhe, an individual person. This person was not to be the seed of the man,\nbut of the woman.\n\nThe announcing angel said to Mary, \"The Holy Spirit shall come upon\nthee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also\nthat holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of\nGod.\" (Luke i. 35.) The child to be born was to be literally and truly\n\"_the seed of the woman_,\" and that was the Messiah, the only person of\nthe entire human race of whom that could be said.\n\nWe are not left, however, to an exegetical statement alone, although\nthat is absolutely unequivocal. The promise was repeated to Abraham, to\nIsaac, to Jacob, and to David. The seed of the woman was to be the\nMessiah, the Christ, triumphing over the power of Satan. The race has\nnot triumphed over Satan, but has been a failure.\n\nThe Holy Spirit has settled the question in Paul's Epistle to the\nGalatians, iii. 16: \"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.\n_He saith not, and to seeds, as of many_ (or, the human race), _but as\nof one, and to thy seed which is Christ_.\" On the human side, our Savior\nwas of the line of Abraham, and David, but was singularly and literally\n\"_the seed of the woman_,\" being the Son of God.\n\nHe called himself the Son of man only in the sense that he was born of\nher who was of the race of man. He ever claimed God as his Father, and\nin a different sense from that in which men can claim God as Father. His\nclaim to be the Son of God was the claim to be equal with God, which no\ncreated being dare make.\n\nThe Holy Spirit further declares, in Hebrews ii. 14; \"For as much then\nas the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself\nlikewise took part of the same, that through death (his death on the\ncross) he might destroy him (Satan) that had the power of\ndeath\"--\"bruise the serpent's head.\" It was Satan that inflicted death.\nHe was the first higher critic who changed and denied the word of God,\nsaying to the woman, \"Ye shall not die.\" Through his denial of the word\nof God, he deceived the woman and brought spiritual death on the race.\nThis was the work of Satan, according to the New Testament teaching. He\nis the same that God calls the serpent in the third chapter of Genesis.\nFor the Holy Spirit informs us, in 2 Cor. xi. 3, that \"the serpent\nbeguiled Eve,\" and states definitely who the serpent is--\"that old\nserpent called the devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world.\"\n(Rev. xii. 9.)\n\nHaving God's testimony that the serpent and the devil are one and the\nsame, we are prepared for the mark which our Lord puts on him, \"A\nmurderer from the beginning ... and no truth in him.\" He had always\nsought to pervert and discredit the word of God. He suggested to Eve\nthat she did not understand God's command; she had taken it too\nliterally, which is a popular form of attacking the Bible today. \"Yea,\nhath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?\" Are you not\nmistaken? And when he had injected the doubt into the mind of Eve, had\ngained an advantage, he seized it and boldly denied the word of God, \"Ye\nshall not die.\" He is an artful critic and successfully did his deadly\nwork.\n\nHence, the first great promise which God gave to the fallen pair, and\nthrough them to the race, set the seed of the woman, the Messiah, in\nconflict with \"that old serpent called the devil and Satan.\" That\npromise is now in process of fulfillment, and must reach its final\nconsummation when John's apocalyptic vision is fulfilled, \"And the devil\nthat deceived them (the nations) shall be cast into the lake of fire and\nbrimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be\ntormented day and night, forever and ever.\"\n\n\n\n\nX. GOD HIS OWN INTERPRETER.\n\n_\"To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not accordingly to this\nword, it is because there is no light in them.\" Isaiah viii. 20._\n\n_\"Thy law is the truth.\" Psa. cxix. 142._\n\n_\"Thy testimonies that thou hast commanded are righteous and very\nfaithful.\" Psa. cxix. 138._\n\n_\"Lead me in thy truth and teach me.\" Psa. xxv. 5._\n\n_\"The word of our God shall stand forever.\" Isaiah xl. 8._\n\n_\"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.\"\nMark xiii. 31._\n\n\nThe destructive critics have assaulted the most precious prophetic\nscriptures. It has been already stated that the final aim of skepticism\nis against the person of Christ. If the unbelieving world can be rid of\nboth the prophecies concerning Christ, and the history of his life, his\nsacrificial death and resurrection, they will be rid of that stumbling\nstone which they have been pleased to call the \"much-abused\nsupernaturalism.\" Hence, the strenuous effort is made to destroy\npredictive prophecy concerning the person of the Son of God. The fact\nthat there are more than thirty-five prophecies, containing one hundred\nand thirty distinct counts, concerning the birth, the life, the\nteaching, the death, and the resurrection of our Lord, greatly disturbs\nthe critics.\n\nThe prophecy of Isaiah ix. 6 has been troublesome. The prophet foretold,\nin distinct and unimpeachable language, the coming of the Messiah: \"For\nunto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government\nshall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,\nCounsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of\nPeace.\"\n\nA critic who claims to be loyal to the word of God says concerning this\npassage: \"The prophet always paints upon the canvas the events of the\n_near_ future. I can not believe that Isaiah ix. 6 refers to a far-off\nevent, because it would not give comfort to his people at that time.\" As\nthis prophecy was given more than seven hundred years before the coming\nof the Messiah, our critic concludes that it could be of no practical\nbenefit to Israel, hence, must have referred to some person who must\nsoon appear.\n\nTo affirm that this promise of the Messiah long before his coming \"would\nnot give comfort to his people\" is mere assumption. The time of his\ncoming was not announced, and the people were to live in expectation of\nthe event, which expectation was to be their stay and comfort. This\nassumption would vitiate the promise of his coming made to our first\nparents. Gen. iii. 15, the promises made to Moses; Deut xviii. 15, the\npredictions made in Psa. xxii. 1, 8, 16, 18, in which his cry on the\ncross, the taunt of his enemies, the piercing of his hands and feet, and\nthe parting of his raiment among the soldiers, were all predicted.\n\nThe prediction that \"Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little\namong the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto\nme, he that is to be the Ruler of Israel; whose goings forth have been\nof old, from everlasting\" (Micah v. 2) was made seven hundred years\nbefore the coming of Christ, and, according to critical assumption,\ncould not refer to our Savior, \"because it would not give comfort to his\npeople.\"\n\nIndeed, no prophecy preceding the time of Isaiah ix. 6 could be allowed\nto refer to Christ, on the assumption of the critic. More than this, the\nprediction of Christ's second advent is vitiated by this assumption. It\nwas more than eighteen hundred years ago that the angels said to the\ndisciples who were steadfastly watching his ascension: \"This same Jesus\nwho is taken from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye\nhave seen him go into heaven.\" Was there no comfort to the disciples in\nthe promise of his return, though they did not live to witness it? Paul,\nenlarging on the promises of Christ's return, said to the Thessalonians:\n\"Wherefore comfort one another with these words.\"\n\nLet us now consider the prophecy in its context. The prophecy of the\nseventh and eighth chapters is projected on through the ninth. The first\nverse of this chapter predicts some relief of the former sufferings of\nthe people for their sins.\n\n\"The people that walked in darkness (verse 2) have seen great light.\"\nThe prophet informs us who it was, to whom this light should come. The\ninhabitants of \"the land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim,\" which\nembraced the region of Galilee, in which the larger portion of Christ's\nministry was exercised. Matthew quotes this scripture as fulfilled by\nthe coming of our Savior. (See Matt. iv. 12-16.) \"Now when Jesus had\nheard that John was cast into prison he departed into Galilee, and\nleaving Nazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea\ncoast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim; _that it might be\nfulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet_, saying, The land of\nZabulon and the land of Nephthalim, by way of the sea, beyond Jordan,\nGalilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw a great\nlight, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, light is\nsprung up.\"\n\nUndoubtedly the prophet looked into the future, when the coming of the\nMessiah should bring the light of the gospel into that region so\nparticularly described by him. And the inspired writer of the gospel of\nMatthew positively applies the context of Isaiah ix. 6 to our Lord.\nThen, proceeding with the explanation as to how the light should break\nforth in \"Galilee of the Gentiles,\" the prophet announces (verse 6)\nthat, \"for unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the\ngovernment shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called\nWonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The\nPrince of Peace.\"\n\nThe reader may well investigate the language of this prediction, \"for\nunto us a Child is born.\" The \"for\" is given as an explanation, a reason\nfor the coming light to \"Galilee of the Gentiles,\" a region and a people\nthat had been for generations \"in the shadow of death.\" The light was to\nbreak forth because a child was to be born and a son given.\n\nThe announcement was made as if the event had taken place, though so far\nin the future. This is in accordance with the form of predictive\nprophecy, as in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, where the atoning\nwork of Christ is spoken of as already accomplished, though it remained\nto be achieved in the future. The prophet said of that work: \"He hath\nborne our griefs and carried our sorrows.... He was wounded for our\ntransgressions.... He was bruised for our iniquities.... The Lord hath\nlaid on him the iniquities of us all.\" So it is stated in this prophecy:\n\"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given,\" for the promise\nof God is the same to him as the fulfillment. His word is equivalent to\nhis deed. It cost him as much to purpose and pledge as to fulfill his\npledge. Hence, the prophecy speaks of the thing as done, since God has\npromised to do it. Seven centuries before he came, the prophet said,\n\"unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given.\"\n\nOur critical friends can not inform us who was the \"Son given.\" They can\nonly say it must refer to some \"_near future event_.\" Let our Book speak\nfor itself. It gives no uncertain testimony.\n\n1. \"_The government shall be upon his shoulder_.\"\n\nAs already stated in the context, and affirmed by Matthew, it is he that\nshould bring light to the Gentiles. There is only one who is himself \"a\nlight to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel.\" (Luke\nii. 32.) He said of himself: \"I am the light of the world.\" (John ix.\n5.)\n\nThe government is his. He is the \"Only Potentate, the King of kings and\nLord of lords.\" (1 Tim. vi. 15.)\n\nThere is only One Potentate, One Ruler, One who could say, \"All power is\ngiven unto me in heaven and in earth.\" (Matt. xxviii. 18.) There is only\nOne who could say, \"All things are delivered unto me of my father.\"\n(Matt. xi. 27.) There is only One of whom it could be said, \"Of the\nincrease of his government and peace there shall be no end,\" and that is\nsaid of the \"Child born unto us and the Son given,\" and is a part of the\nprophecy concerning him. (Isaiah ix. 7.)\n\nAll earthly thrones have crumbled, all earthly kings and potentates have\nslept in the dust of death with the poorest of their subjects. But of\nthis Son given, Daniel says: \"There was given him dominion, and glory,\nand a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him;\nhis dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and\nhis kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.\" (Daniel vii. 14.)\n\n2. \"_His name shall be called Wonderful_.\"\n\nHis name means his character, his person. He, himself, shall be called\nWonderful, in a sense in which no other person can be entitled to that\ndesignation. Nicodemus accredited him as a wonderful instructor. \"We\nknow that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these\nmiracles that thou doest, except God be with him.\" (John iii. 2). His\nenemies that were sent to arrest him quailed before him, and returned to\nthe chief priests and Pharisees, saying, \"Never man spake like this\nman.\"\n\nA devout scholar has well said: \"The manner of his birth was wonderful;\nhis humility, self-denial, and sorrows were wonderful; his mighty works\nwere wonderful; his dying agonies were wonderful; his resurrection and\nascension were all fitted to excite admiration and wonder.\"\n\n3. \"_His name shall be called ... Counsellor_.\"\n\nThis term plainly indicated his exalted wisdom and dignity. The wisdom\nof men comes to naught; their counsel shall perish with them. But there\nis One, who understands, who declares the end from the beginning. Of him\nit is said: \"The counsel of the Lord standeth forever; the thoughts of\nhis heart to all generations.\" (Psa. xxxiii. 11.) He says of himself,\n\"Counsel is mine and sound wisdom\" (Prov. viii. 14), and it was by his\n\"determinate counsel and foreknowledge\" that the glorious scheme of\nredemption and complete salvation from sin was planned and executed.\nHence, he takes to himself the title, \"The Great and Mighty God, ...\ngreat in counsel, and mighty in work.\" (Jer. xxxii. 19.) Therefore, the\nChild that was to be born, the Son that was to be given, was to have a\nname, and \"his name shall be called ... Counsellor.\"\n\n4. \"_His name shall be called ... The Mighty God_.\"\n\nAnd now we are face to face with the Lord Jehovah, and the positive\nstatement that this was the promised Son. By what guessing or critical\nlegerdemain one who claims loyalty to the word of God and ordinary\nintelligence can attempt to sweep away these definite and determinate\nstatements, and crowd some insignificant worm of the dust into the place\ngiven to him who was in the beginning, who was with God and _who was\nGod_, we can not comprehend.\n\nAnd still the prophet rises to the climax, to make sure that \"wayfaring\nmen, though fools, shall not err,\" and adds the prediction concerning\nthe coming Son that,\n\n5. \"_His name shall be called ... The Everlasting Father_.\"\n\nThe Revised Version gives the same rendering as the accepted version,\nand adds the marginal reading, \"Father of Eternity.\" The sense of the\npassage is the same. The name \"Everlasting Father\" was the name of the\ncoming Son. He would be Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, not for a\nshort time, but eternally, forever and ever--\"the same yesterday,\nto-day, and forever.\" His care of his people would never cease.\n\nThe distinctions between the persons of the trinity were not made in the\nOld Testament, as in the New. Jehovah was God, the Lord was God, and was\nknown as Jehovah God, the Everlasting Father. The incarnation of the\nsecond person in the trinity gave emphasis to his sonship, in order to\nput him in brotherly relation to us. \"Wherefore he is not ashamed to\ncall them brethren.\"\n\nThis prophecy of Isaiah, however, condescends to accommodate our\nweakness, and necessity, and gives to the promised child the name by\nwhich he is recognized in the New Testament, for\n\n6. \"_His name shall be called ... The Prince of Peace_.\"\n\nAt the birth of the Child the angel choir sang \"Glory to God in the\nhighest, and _on earth peace_, good will toward men.\" (Luke ii. 14.)\n\"Him hath God exalted with his right hand _to be a Prince_ and a Savior,\nto give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.\" (Acts v. 31.)\n\nIsaiah spoke as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. He gave to Israel this\nassuring promise for their comfort, that the Seed of the woman, the\nMessiah, was coming not as a fallible, impotent ruler, but as a Prince\nand Savior. Israel failed to comprehend the glorious things predicted,\nand even yet they are not fully unfolded. But the Messiah did not fail\nto come, and, as predicted, he came at Bethlehem. Every phase of his\nlife, and the mighty work of redemption, all that was predicted of his\nearthly career, has been accomplished. And now, at the right hand of the\nFather, he is moving to the final consummation of his purposes of\nredeeming grace.\n\nHe will not be moved from his purposes by the uncritical attempts of\nrationalism to destroy the confidence of God's people in his revealed\ntruth. We can move forward confidently in our work, knowing that nothing\nshall pass from his Word until all is fulfilled.\n\nIn this very brief study, in which God has spoken through the testimony\nof his word, we have only touched a few points in which the truth of\nScripture has been assailed. But the testimony of the Book settles all\nquestions. We can well rest on the assurance, \"Forever O Lord, thy word\nis settled in heaven,\" and can not be unsettled on the earth. Our\nSunday-school teachers and Christian young people can not fail to\ncomprehend, and will rejoice in the fullness and power of God's\ntestimony through prophet, apostle, and Christ the incarnate Word. To\nhim be honor, glory, and dominion forever. Amen.","title":"The Testimony of the Bible Concerning the Assumptions of Destructive Criticism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":20345}