The Testimony of the Bible Concerning the Assumptions of Destructive Criticism by S. E. Wishard
S >>
S. E. Wishard >> The Testimony of the Bible Concerning the Assumptions of Destructive Criticism
THE
TESTIMONY OF THE BIBLE
CONCERNING THE
Assumptions of Destructive Criticism
BY
S.E. WISHARD, D.D.
LOS ANGELES, CAL.
JOHNSON & HANEY
BIBLE INSTITUTE PRESS
1909
Copyright, 1909
By S.E. WISHARD, D.D.
Presentation Copy
* * * * *
"In the defence and confirmation of the truth"
--_Phil 1:7_
BIBLE INSTITUTE
Los Angeles, Calif.
FOREWORD.
_This booklet is sent out
To all Sabbath-school teachers,
To the young people of the Christian churches,
And to all believers in the living Word_.
* * * * *
The work of the destructive critics has been widely disseminated in
current literature. Magazines, secular newspapers, and some religious
papers are giving currency to these critical attacks on the Word of God.
The young people of our churches are exposed to the insidious poison of
this skepticism. It comes to them under the guise of a broader and more
liberal scholarship. They have neither the time nor the equipment to
enter the field of criticism, nor is this work demanded of them.
While abler pens are meeting and answering the questions raised by
destructive critics, something may be said that will clear away the fog
produced by them and enable young Christians to come directly to the
truth.
Hence this booklet is an attempt to "give God a chance" to have his say.
The testimony presented is on the divine plan of giving, "Precept upon
precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line," "lest we
forget."
There has been no attempt to cover the whole ground of destructive
criticism in the brief compass of this booklet. It will be enough to
permit God to answer; hence, in the following pages he speaks for
himself. We are content that his voice shall be heard.
S.E. WISHARD.
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM 9
II. SHOULD REPLY BE MADE? 17
III. WAS MOSES A LITERARY FICTION? 25
IV. WERE CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES MISTAKEN? 39
V. THE ATTACK ON THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS 59
VI. ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING THE BOOK OF ISAIAH 73
VII. GOD'S REPLY TO THESE ASSUMPTIONS. 87
VIII. THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF JONAH 101
IX. RADICAL EXPOSITION 111
X. GOD HIS OWN INTERPRETER 119
I. OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
_"Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love,
as Christ also hath loved us." Eph. v. 1, 2._
_"Be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any
man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves and to
all men." 1 Thess. v. 14, 15._
_"He that believeth shall not make haste." Isa. xxviii. 16._
_"The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments
are sure. They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and
uprightness." Psa. cxi. 7, 8._
_"My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Isa, xlvi.
10._
The attitude which God's people should assume toward destructive
criticism has been questioned. It should certainly be a position of calm
patience, that can deliberately weigh valid testimony, and abide by the
decision of intelligent judgment. The history and life of the Church for
nearly two thousand years should go for something. They are not to be
swept away by the bluff, the egoism of what claims to be the only
"Expert Scholarship."
There is no occasion for a panic. Truth that has been, and has builded
noble, goodly life, is truth still, and ever will be. It is not a time
for denunciation. The assumptions of the destructive critics are so
enormous, so radically revolutionary, so directly aimed at vital truth,
that one's heart is stirred. There is danger of yielding to the heat of
a righteous indignation. It is not well to lose one's intellectual and
moral poise, even in a contest involving the honor of God and the
welfare of immortal souls. But "he that believeth shall not make haste."
The lovers of the Book that has safely passed through every storm of
antagonism that the Prince of Darkness could evoke, need not now be
moved to hasty utterance. The eternal foundations of truth, like him who
laid them, are "the same, yesterday, to-day and forever." The Book, with
all its precious doctrines, is here to stay. It can not be destroyed.
Fire has not burned it, water has not quenched it, the edicts of tyrants
and popes have not been able to break its power. The Church of God can
calmly rest on "the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." (1
Peter i. 23.) Hence we may calmly move on undisturbed in our work.
Further, our attitude should be marked by an intelligent understanding
of the question involved. It is not a question of fair, honest
criticism, for the purpose of a deeper knowledge of God and his truth.
All reverent and helpful study of the Word of God is critical, and is
the kind of criticism that the Book challenges. Our Lord invites it, and
urges us to "search the Scriptures," which testify of him.
It is assumed by the rationalistic critics that we have entered a new
era, that the Bible has never been studied until within recent years.
This is an assumption unworthy of scientific scholarship. Critics who
have not sought to destroy the Word of God, but, by thorough
investigation, to determine its claims, have been at work on the
Scriptures in all the past, seeking to know the mind of the Spirit.
There is, and ever has been a legitimate study of the Bible. Hence,
there are absolutely no grounds for the assumption of the rationalists.
The Church of Christ is not opposed to the application of the best
methods and best scholarship in the investigation of revealed truth.
Indeed, the Protestant Church has ever been the mother of the highest
education, and has had an open ear to the call of God--"Come, let us
reason together."
It is well to understand that the poorly-concealed purpose of the school
of higher critics is not to press the just and holy claims of God's Word
on the human conscience, but to eliminate the supernatural from it. The
Christian Church should understand this. If atheistic scientists can
construct a universe without God, by evolutionary processes, and the
critics can construct a Bible without the supernatural, "the wisdom of
this world" will have pretty thoroughly disposed of God.
In the attitude of the Church toward destructive criticism, sometimes
called historical, or constructive, we must not fail to discover its
bearing on the character of Christ. For the final conflict of all
skepticism of every grade and quality is in reference to the person and
work of Christ. The elimination of the supernatural from the Bible would
be an invalidation of Christ's claims and testimony. It would place him
before the world as a false teacher, a fraud, a charlatan. Loyalty to
the Word, and to the Incarnate Word, demands, therefore, that we should
clearly understand the end to which this rationalism is drifting. For
Christ's testimony concerning the Old Testament Scriptures, which will
be presented later in this discussion, is so thoroughly in conflict with
the modern critical assumptions that it must be disposed of by those
claiming expert scholarship. In the attempt to accomplish that feat,
they put our Lord under such limitations as would rob him of his
character as Teacher and Redeemer.
The "experts" are logically driven to one of two conclusions: either
that Christ did not know the facts of the Old Testament Scriptures,
which he believed and was sent to teach, or, knowing the facts, he
deemed it not important to teach them.
The first assumption puts our Savior on the basis of a fallible human
teacher, and nothing more. The second assumption contradicts all the
professions of the critics. For they affirm to-day that the professed
discoveries of the mistaken views of the Bible are of the utmost
importance, and as honest men they are in conscience obliged to make
them known, while claiming that Christ did not make them known.
Shall we assume that these views, which they deem so important to-day,
were of no importance when the Church of Christ first took form? We may
ask, what estimate should we have of Christ, who, knowing his people
were in error as to the authorship and origin of the Scriptures, would
leave them in darkness for more than eighteen hundred years? Is it to be
assumed that he would wait through the long centuries for the coming of
critics to enlighten his people? That is what we are logically asked to
accept at their hands. It is thus made clear that the issue of this
conflict, as in all the past, is narrowed down to the person and
character of our Savior. It is well to face the issue calmly, and with a
clear understanding of what is pending. Did Christ know truth? Was he
honest? Hence, the attitude of the Church should be taken in view of the
trend of modern critical discussion.
II. SHOULD REPLY BE MADE?
_"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Psa. xi.
3._
_"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess. v. 21._
_"Buy the truth and sell it not." Prov. xxiii. 23._
_"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that
you should earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered unto
the saints." Jude 3._
_"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have
been taught, whether by word or our epistle." 2 Thess. ii. 15._
_"I am set for the defense of the gospel." Paul, Phil. i. 17._
It is a question among earnest Christian men, who are busily engaged in
the work of the Master, as to whether we should turn aside long enough
to make reply to the destructive critics. It is affirmed that, as the
Word of God has already passed through all the attacks that have been
made upon it, it will defend itself in the future as in the past--that
our duty is to preach the gospel. Certainly the victories of the gospel
are a noble defense of its truth and power to save. There should be no
respite from this work. But there are vast multitudes of people that
permit the critics to do their thinking for them. They are not well
informed concerning the Scriptures, and consequently are not prepared to
repel the attacks of skepticism, nor to reply to the specious arguments
or positive assumptions of the critics. These multitudes are in danger
of casting aside the Word of God, and missing the offer of eternal life.
The fact of the increased activity of the enemies of the truth must be
known to Christian people. Their organized and persistent use of the
press has gained for them a wide hearing. Shall the Christian people
deny themselves this instrumentality of getting a hearing for God and
his truth before the world? Would not silence be construed by the world
as meaning that the cause dear to the heart of God's people is
indefensible?
It should be known to all lovers of the truth that the skepticism widely
sown by the destructive critics has entered the Protestant Church and
many of our institutions of learning.
"Read the utterances of representative men and teachers in her
communion, who deny the Incarnation, repudiate vicarious sacrifice, make
light of the story of the resurrection, and refine the risen Son of God
into nothing more than the spirit and essence of truth; or, at most, the
disembodied ghost of a man who called himself a Messiah, mistaken in his
claims, but authoritative in his morals." (Rev. I.M. Holdeman.)
The author of this statement refers also to the fact that there are
"modern professors of theology who convict the very prophets whom they
hold up as exemplars of righteousness, of absolute literary fraud, and
deliberate piracy." They "demonstrate with cool precision that the
higher critics of to-day are better informed concerning the mistakes of
Moses than was he who claimed that Moses wrote of him, and prove to
their own satisfaction and the belief of many followers that Jesus
Christ, our Lord, was limited in intelligence, and would, if he were
here to-day, deny some of the statements he once so unqualifiedly made."
We may not shut our eyes to the fact that many of our colleges are more
or less infected with this rationalistic criticism. Some of our
theological professors have substituted the theory of evolution for the
Scriptural doctrine of creation by the Word of God. Our young men
preparing for the work of the ministry are under the influence and
instruction of some of these teachers here in our own country.
It is a matter for thanksgiving that we have literary and theological
institutions into which the destructive critics have never
entered--institutions that stand for the Word of God as given by the
Holy Spirit, and believed in by God's servants in the past and to-day.
We do well to recognize the further fact concerning the effort to
eliminate the supernatural from the Bible, that the work of the
rationalists has permeated the literature of the day. In this age of
reading fiction, that form of literature has become a convenient vehicle
for taking everything out of the hands of Providence. It has become easy
to leave God out of his universe and supplant him with the heroic in
man. Hence, the literary appetite, ever craving the human instead of the
divine, turns away from the truth that confronts the conscience of the
reader with God and his claims.
For the defense of truth we have the example of prophets, apostles, and
Christ himself. Much of the work of the prophets of the Old Testament
was devoted to the exposure of the "New Thought" of their times. Moses
dealt thoroughly with the new theology that asserted: "These be thy
gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." The
heresy was ended as suddenly as it was introduced.
The Epistle to the Galatians was Paul's reply to the Judiazing teachers
who would substitute ceremonials for the doctrine of justification by
faith. His Epistle to the Ephesians was a constructive work, in answer
to Jewish prejudice and teaching, in which he set forth the unity of
Jews and Gentiles in one Church, which is the body of Christ. In his
Epistle to the Corinthians he answered their false views of marriage. He
shamed their partisan spirit, in which some claimed to be of Paul, some
of Apollos, some of Christ. He labored most earnestly to convince them
of their false views concerning the resurrection, and dealt faithfully
with the errorists concerning the inquiry that was coming to the Church
through their magnifying and perverting the use of the gift of tongues.
He showed them a more excellent way.
There should be no turning aside from preaching a full and free gospel,
nor should there be any halting in its defense, or against the effort to
eliminate the supernatural from the Word of God. The critical work that
logically leaves us a Savior ignorant of the Scriptures, or, if knowing
them, afraid to meet Jewish prejudice by correcting their mistakes,
should be kindly, candidly, and manfully met by those to whom the truth
has given life.
III. WAS MOSES "A LITERARY FICTION"?
_"God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses,
Moses. And he said, Here am I.... Come now, therefore, and I will send
thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people, the children
of Israel, out of Egypt!' Exod. iii. 4, 10._
_"And afterward Moses and Aaron went in and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the
Lord God of Israel, Let my people go." Exod. v. 1._
_"Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw
out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the
passover.... And the children of Israel did according to the word of
Moses.... And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth,
about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, besides children"
Exod. xii. 21, 35, 37._
_"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the
tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel."
Exod. xxxiv. 27._
_"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words
of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded
the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
Take this book of the law and put it in the side of the ark of the
covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness
against thee" Deut. xxxi. 24-26._
We turn now to the assumption that Moses was not the author, under God,
of the Pentateuch. The destructive critics do not agree among themselves
as to the origin of the Pentateuch. Dates and authors are variously
adjusted among those claiming to be experts. There is, however,
agreement on one point, that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. It is
affirmed that his name has been attached to it to give it authority,
because many of the events recorded and much of the history took place
during the period of Moses' life and in connection with his influence.
But the critics place the _record_ of those events almost altogether
after the exile, between nine hundred and a thousand years after the
time of Moses.
It was once affirmed that writing was not used in the days of Moses, and
therefore he could not have written the five books that claim him as
their author. But the fact now brought to light, and conceded by the
critics and all well-informed scholars, that writing antedated Moses by
many centuries, has swept out of existence that objection. But the
question is still raised as to the Mosiac authorship of the Pentateuch.
It is said in reply:
_First_--The Holy Spirit declares by the mouth of Stephen that "Moses
was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words
and deeds." Acts vii. 22.
Writing was long known to and practiced by the Egyptians, hence the man
trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians _was competent_ to write the
Pentateuch.
_Second_--The Pentateuch very definitely claims Moses as its author, not
once or twice, but many times, all through these writings.
"The Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and
rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, for I will utterly put out the
remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." Exod. xvii. 14. This was not
the law, parts of which even some of the critics concede that Moses
wrote. It was God's judgment against Amalek. But it was written in a
book. What book? The inspired Scriptures say it was written here in
Exodus xvii. 14. And again it was repeated in Deut. xxv. 19, and that
Moses wrote it.
In the twenty-fourth chapter of Exodus Moses has given an account of
God's call to him, to Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders, to
come up to Horeb. Moses was called into the immediate presence of God,
while the others remained at a distance. After his interview with
Jehovah it is written: "Moses came and told the people all the words of
the Lord.... And _Moses wrote all the words of the Lord_." Exod. xxiv,
3, 4.
In the thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus God is represented as giving
definite instructions to Moses concerning worship, at the conclusion of
which "the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words, for after the
tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel."
Exod. xxxiv. 27.
We turn to the positive statement in Deuteronomy xxxi. 9. The chapter
opens with the declaration that "Moses spake these words unto all
Israel," giving an extended account of what the words were. In the ninth
verse it is stated: ... "_And Moses wrote this law_ and delivered it
unto the priests and unto all the elders of Israel." What became of that
writing of Moses? Was it lost? Or is the statement false? And did some
later writer forge the statement, attributing the writing to Moses, to
give weight and authority to the forgery? To ask the question is to
answer it. "Moses wrote all the words of the Lord."
In the twenty-fourth verse in this same chapter in Deuteronomy it is
stated that "Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a
book." Yet the critics teach that this book, Deuteronomy, was not
written until after the exile, almost a thousand years after the events
narrated. Does not critical credulity make larger demands than are laid
on faith?
The summing up of the book of Numbers, of what had been said and written
in the book, is stated in the last chapter and last verse, namely, that
"these are the commandments and the judgments which the Lord commanded
_by the hand of Moses_ unto the children of Israel." Again and again it
is affirmed in the Pentateuch that God commanded Moses to write, and
that he did write, but the critics affirm that the hand of Moses had
nothing to do with producing the books of the Pentateuch--that they were
written after the exile!
Not only does the Pentateuch distinctly teach the Mosaic authorship of
the five books of Moses, appropriately so called, but all the Old
Testament saints entertained the opinion which the Jewish people and the
Christian Church hold to-day, that God spake to Moses, and that _Moses
committed to writing_ the messages that God gave him and commanded him
to write, embracing the story of God's miracles, his instruction and
dealing with them in the wilderness.
We find the critics contradicted in the Scriptures from Joshua to
Malachi. To Joshua God said: "As I was with Moses, so will I be with
thee." (Joshua i. 5.) Eight times in the first chapter of the book of
Joshua God accredits Moses with having received and having given the law
to Joshua and the people.
The Pentateuch is the book which God, speaking to Joshua, calls "the law
which my servant Moses commanded thee" (Joshua i. 7), and it was so
accepted by Joshua. Was he mistaken? or the critics? He had long enjoyed
most intimate relations with Moses, and knew what Moses had written by
the command of God.
David affirms that God had "made known his ways unto Moses, and his acts
unto the children of Israel" (Psa. ciii. 7). We have seen that the man
Moses was competent to write, and did write, what God had made known to
him (Deut xxxi. 24). The Psalms are illuminated and set aflame with the
faith of Israel, that Moses said and wrote what is ascribed to him in
the Pentateuch.
Ezra, Nehemiah, and the prophets down to Malachi reiterated the same
belief, sung and taught it to their children. Were they mistaken?
The finding of the Pentateuch during Josiah's reign, which had been lost
in the rubbish of the temple during the wicked reign of Manasseh and
Ammon, is evidently referred to in 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14, 15; "Hilkiah the
priest found the book of the law of Jehovah by the hand of Moses.
(Margin, R.V.) And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan, I have found
The Book of the law of the house of the Lord." Four times within seven
verses it is called "_The Book_." It was read before the King, who
humbled himself, and prepared himself and the people to observe the
Passover as it had been prescribed in "the law of Moses." Josiah
commanded them to "kill the Passover, and sanctify yourselves and
prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the
Lord _by the hand of Moses_" (2 Chron. xxxv. 6). This took place long
before the exile, which the critics insist was the beginning of Israel's
literature, and after which they say the Pentateuch was written.
Ezra testifies to the existence of the Mosaic law before his time. His
testimony establishes the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Ezra vii.
6: "This Ezra ... was a ready scribe _in the law of Moses_."
After the return from captivity Ezra describes the building of the altar
in these definite terms: "Then stood up Joshua, the son of Jozadak, and
his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his
brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt
offerings thereon, _as it is written in the law of Moses_, the man of
God" (Ezra iii. 2). Was Ezra deceiving the people?
There are several things to be noted here:
1. _There was a written law of Moses_, the man of God, then in
existence. It was not a written law of Ezra which the priests palmed off
as the written law of Moses.
2. _There was a priestly order_, according to the written law of Moses
the man of God, not according to the invention of the exiles returning
from captivity, under the pretense that Moses wrote it.
3. The altar was built according to the written law of Moses the man of
God. These records by Ezra effectually bar the door against the critical
conjecture that the Pentateuch, in which the written law of Moses the
man of God is found, was fabricated after the exile.
The definite law for the place of building the altar, by which the
priests proceeded in the days of Ezra, is recorded by "Moses the man of
God," in Deut. xii. 5-7: "Unto the place which the Lord your God shall
choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his
habitation shall ye seek, and thither shalt thou come; and thither shall
ye bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices and your tithes and
heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill
offerings, and the firstlings of your herds, and your flocks; and there
ye shall eat before the Lord your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that
ye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein the Lord thy God
hath blessed thee."