The Pentateuch Controversy as Illustrating the Methods of the Critics

The Pentateuch controversy is so typical of the methods of the critics that it may justify a digression. It former TOnism to hold that books of an literary excel-Le ee ee eS ee age; hence the theory that they belonged to the exilic period. But recent discoveries have shown that this decisionwa donignorance. The spade of the explorer has dug up pFSOHS THRE MTGTaTITG HoUNTehed lone before I he time of Moses. The critics, however, ure indifferent to all such discoveries: Having-made up their minds to discredit the Pentateuch,

they now look about for other grounds to support their case. To this end the following verse in Jeremiah is pressed into service: “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices” (vii, 22). But this merely recites a fact which is as plainly recorded on the Christianized Rationalism

open page of the Book of Exodus as is the

exodus itself. See ee ing to do with Israel’s redemption; it was brought into covenant relationship with God. — fhe spiritual Christian sees a deep significance in this; but the fact is patent to any intelligent reader. Here was the announcement entrusted to Moses at the exodus: “Jf ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant ... ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”* And in the passage already cited Jeremiah was merely quoting this. Here are his words: “I spake not unto your fathers. concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.”+ The critics’ use of the prophet’s language, therefore, is wholly unwarranted. In fact, it is a mere blunder. Another of the isolated texts relied on by the critics is Exodus vi. 3, which they distort into a statement that the name Jehovah was not

* Exodus xix. 5, 6. + Jeremiah vii. 22, 23.

Christianized Rationalism

known to the patriarchs.* But this argument refutes itself; for if the Book of Exodus be a literary forgery, it is certain that the brilliant author of it would not have given himself away like this. j The critics would have us believe that the patriarchs were polytheists, and that four centuries were needed to teach the nation the truth that God is One. The lesson was learned only in the twelfth generation. This preposterous and profane theory is refuted by the experience of Christian missions in every heathen land. Many of us met King Lewanika, of Barotsiland, during his recent visit to England, and we know him to be a worshipper of the Christians’ God. And the gentleman under whose care Lewanika’s son is living in England bears unequivocal testimony that the lad is an intelligent and earnest Christian. And yet I have heard from Captain Bertrand, the distinguished Swiss explorer, that a few years ago Lewanika was a naked savage, who with his own hand murdered his rival chiefs, and that

* The critics refute each other. Prof. Delitzsch finds Yahwe in an inscription of the time of Hammurabi (Babel and Bible.)

Cbristianized Rationalism

his drunken orgies at every new moon were marked by unspeakable excesses. Pastor Coillard, the French miss thus achieved in

Fis Ueiileee he se nacre few short years what God Almighty needed tries to accomplish!

“Pie tevelation of Jehovah at the exodus is

like the revelation of the Father by the Lord

Jesus Christ. Dr. Harnack’s “Jesus” discovered the Father; the Lord Jesus Christ

revealed the Father. Butit- is-onty the spiritual Christian who knows the F true

and deepe deeper sense. In the sad story of Mazzini’s life there are no sadder words than these: “I lfeel God’s power and law more every day, but ‘He cannot weep with me or fill my soul’s void; tfor [ am a man still and tied to earth.” But. this was because Mazzini was (to use Dr. Harnack’s phrase) “certain of God,” and yet ignorant of Christ. For the Christian, albeit “a man still and tied to earth,” knows a God in Christ who can weep with him and fill his soul’s void; in a word, he knows the Father. “Superior persons,” I suppose, would call this anthropomorphism. But as they do not apply the term to their own theory of the Fatherhood of God, the Christian need not be scared by it.