Although the great central truth of redemption, that "the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world," and that we have in the New Testament a true record of this mission, rests, as has been shown, upon an immovable foundation, we have as yet seen the argument in only half its strength. Not until we consider the advent of Christ in connection with the bright train of revelations that preceded and prepared the way for his coming, do we see it in its full glory, or comprehend the amount of divine testimony by which it is certified to us. We have already seen, chap. 5. 1, how the events recorded in the Acts of the Apostles follow, as a natural sequel, from the truth of the gospel history; how, if we admit the former, we ought, for very consistency, to admit the latter also, since the two cling together as inseparable parts of one great plan. It is now proposed to look backward from the Saviour's advent to the preceding series of revelations, and show how naturally in the plan of God they preceded that great event, and how inseparably they were connected with it as parts of one great whole.
1. The supernatural mission of Christ furnishes, in and of itself, a very strong presumption in favor ofprevioussupernatural revelations. That such a mighty event as this should have burst upon the world abruptly, without any previous preparation, is contrary to the whole order of providence as well as of nature, which is, "first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." And since the advent of Christ was miraculous in the fullest sense of the term, why should not the way for it have been prepared by miraculous revelations aswell as by providential movements? The natural sun does not emerge suddenly from the darkness of night: his approach is preceded by the day-star and the dawn. So were the revelations which God made to men from Adam to Malachi, with the mighty movements of his providence that accompanied them, the day-star and the dawn that ushered in upon the world the glorious sun of righteousness.
2. We have the great fact that the Jewish people, among whom our Lord appeared, and from among whom he chose the primitive preachers of the gospel, possessed a firm and deeply-rooted belief in the unity of God and his infinite perfections. That such a belief was a necessary foundation for the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, all of which are underlaid by that of trinity in unity, is self-evident. Now, this belief was peculiar to the Jews, as contrasted with other nations; and it was held, moreover, not simply by a few philosophers and learned men among them, but by the mass of the people. No other example of a whole nation receiving and holding firmly this fundamental doctrine of religion existed then, or had ever existed; and no adequate explanation of this great fact has ever been given, except that contained in the revelation of God to this people recorded in the Old Testament. It was not by chance, but in accordance with the eternal plan of redemption, that the Messiah appeared where as well as when he did; not in Egypt in the days of Pharaoh, nor in Nineveh, or Babylon, or Greece, or Rome; but among the Jewish people, when now "the fulness of time was come."
3. The impossibility of any attempt to dissever the revelations of the Old Testament from those of the New appears most clearly when we consider theexplicit declarationsof our Saviour, and after him the apostles, on this point. If we know any thing whatever concerning the doctrines of our Lord Jesus, we know that he constantly taught his disciples that he had come in accordance with the prophecies of the Old Testament. If there were found in his discourses only one or two remote allusions to these prophecies, there would be more show of reason in thefavorite hypothesis of rationalists, that the disciples misapprehended their Lord's meaning. But his teachings are so numerous and explicit on this point that, even aside from the inspiration of the writers, such an explanation is not to be thought of for a moment. It was with two of them a matter of personal knowledge that "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself," Luke 24:27; and with all of them that he said, after his resurrection, in reference to his past teachings: "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me." Luke 24:44. That in Christ were fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, appears in every variety of form in the gospel narratives. It constituted, so to speak, the warp into which the Saviour wove his web of daily instruction. Now if a single thread, unlike all the rest in substance and color, had found its way into this warp, we might, perhaps, regard it as foreign and accidental; but to dissever from our Lord's words all his references to the prophecies concerning himself in the Old Testament, would be to take out of the web all the threads of the warp, and then the web itself would be gone. No unbiased reader ever did, or ever could gain from the words of Christ and his apostles any other idea than that Jesus of Nazareth came in accordance with a bright train of supernatural revelations going before and preparing the way for his advent. This idea is so incorporated into the very substance of the New Testament that it must stand or fall with it.
4. Having contemplated the indivisible nature of revelation from the position of the New Testament, we are now prepared to go back and look at it from the platform of the Old Testament. We shall find this thickly sown with those great principles which underlie the plan of redemption, and bind it together as one glorious whole.
Firstof all, we have in the narrative of Adam's fall and the consequences thence proceeding to the race, the substratum, soto speak, on which the plan of redemption is built. From this we learn that alienation from God and wickedness is not the original condition of the race. Man was made upright and placed in communion with God. From that condition he fell, in the manner recorded in the Old Testament; and to restore him, through Christ, to his primitive state is the work which the gospel proposes to accomplish. The great historic event of redemption is that "the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil;" and these are the very works described in the narrative now under consideration, namely, the seduction of man from his allegiance to God, with the misery and death that followed. The primitive history of man's apostacy contains, then, the very key to the plan of redemption. So it is plainly regarded by the apostle Paul. He builds upon it arguments relating not to the outworks of redemption, but to its inward nature. He makes the universality of man's fallen condition through the sin of Adam the platform on which is built the universality of the provisions of salvation through Christ. "As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Rom. 5:18, 19. "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor. 15:21, 22. How could the original transaction of the fall, through the wiles of the devil, and the manifestation of God's Son to destroy the works of the devil, be more indissolubly bound together as parts of one great whole than in these words of an inspired apostle?
Secondly, the Abrahamic covenant connects itself immediately with the mission and work of Christ. It was made with Abraham, not for himself and his posterity alone, but for all mankind: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Gen. 22:18. And if the Abrahamic covenant had respect to the whole human family, the same must be true ofthe Mosaic economy in itsultimatedesign; since this did not abrogate the covenant made with Abraham, as the apostle Paul expressly shows, Gal. 3:17, but rather came in as subordinate to it, and with a view of preparing the way for the accomplishment of its rich provisions of mercy for "all families of the earth." The Mosaic economy was then a partial subservient to a universal dispensation.
The Abrahamic covenant was also purely spiritual in its character, the condition of its blessings being nothing else than faith. The apostle Paul urges the fact that this covenant was made with Abraham before his circumcision, lest any should say that it was conditioned wholly or in part upon a carnal ordinance: "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." Rom. 4:11. The seal of circumcision, then, did not make the covenant valid, for the covenant existed many years before the rite of circumcision was instituted. Faith was the only condition of Abraham's justification. "He believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen. 15:6.
And if we look at the promise contained in the Abrahamic covenant, "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed," we find it to be the very substance of the gospel, as the apostle Paul says: "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Gal. 3:8. The incarnation and work of Christ are, according to the uniform representation of the New Testament, nothing else but the carrying out of the covenant made with Abraham, for this covenant was made for all mankind, was purely spiritual, being conditioned on faith alone, and its substance is Christ, in whom all nations are blessed.
And while God has thus indissolubly linked to the incarnation of his Son this high transaction with Abraham, we see how he has at the same time connected it with the first promise made in Eden, and thus with the fall of man through thesubtilty of Satan. The promise in Eden is that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. The promise to Abraham is that in his seed, which is also the seed of the woman, all the families of the earth shall be blessed. Now it is by the bruising of the serpent's head, or, in New Testament language, by destroying the works of the devil, that Abraham's seed blesses all the families of the earth. The two promises, then, are in their inmost nature one and the same, and their fulfilment constitutes the work of Christ.
Thirdly, the end of the Mosaic economy is Christ. Its general scope is thus briefly summed up by Paul: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Gal. 3:25. But not to insist on this, let us contemplate its three great institutions—the prophetic, the kingly, and the priestly order.
The mode of communication which God employed on Sinai the people could not endure, and they besought him, through Moses, that it might be discontinued: "Speak them with us," they said, "and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die." Ex. 20:19. Of this request God approved, and promised: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee." Deut. 18:18. The point of special emphasis is, that the great Prophet here promised, who is Christ, should beone of their brethren, as Moses was. His personal advent was for many ages delayed; but in the meantime his office was foreshadowed by the prophetical order in Israel, consisting of men sent by God to address their brethren. Thus the old dispensation and the new are linked together by the great fundamental principle—that God should address man through man—which runs through both. The whole series of Old Testament prophecies, moreover, point to Christ as their end and fulfilment; "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Rev. 19:10.
The kingly office of the Old Testament connects itself with that of Christ in a special way. Not only did the headship given to David and his successors over the covenant people ofGod adumbrate the higher headship of Christ, but David had from God the promise: "Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever." 2 Sam. 7:16. This promise is fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, "the seed of David according to the flesh," according to the express declaration of the New Testament: "The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Luke 1:32, 33.
The priestly office, with the blood of the sacrifices connected with it, prefigured Christ, "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." By the stream of sacrificial blood that flowed for so many ages was set forth that great fundamental truth of redemption, that "without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22. The sacrifices of the Mosaic law were continually repeated, because "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Heb. 10:4. But when Christ had offered his own blood on Calvary for the sins of the world, the typical sacrifices of the law ceased for ever, having been fulfilled in the great Antitype, "in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." Ephes. 1:7.
5. Since the Old Testament and the New are thus inseparably connected as parts of one grand system of revelation, of which the end is Christ, it follows that the later revelations of the New Testament are the true interpreters of the earlier, which are contained in the Old. This is only saying that the Holy Ghost is the true and proper expositor of his own communications to man. From the interpretations of Christ and his apostles, fairly ascertained, there is no appeal. And they are fairly ascertained when we have learned in what sense they must have been understood by their hearers. All expositions of the Old Testament that set aside, either openly or in a covert way, the supreme authority of Christ and his apostles, are false, and only lead men away from the truth as it is in Jesus.
The termPentateuchis composed of the two Greek words,pente,five, andteuchos, which in later Alexandrine usage signifiedbook. It denotes, therefore, the collection of five books; or, the five books of the law considered as a whole.
1. In our inquiries respecting the authorship of the Pentateuch, we begin with the undisputed fact that it existed in its present form in the days of Christ and his apostles, and had so existed from the time of Ezra. When the translators of the Greek version, called the Septuagint, began their work, about 280 B.C., they found the Pentateuch as we now have it, and no one pretends that it had undergone any change between their day and that of Ezra, about 460 B.C. It was universally ascribed to Moses as its author, and was called in common usagethe law, or thelaw of Moses.
2. That the authorship of the law in its written form is ascribed to Moses in the New Testament every one knows. "The law was given by Moses;" "Did not Moses give you the law?" "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me;" "For the hardness of your heart he," Moses, "wrote you this precept;" "Master, Moses wrote unto us;" "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" etc. Since now the whole collection of books was familiarly known to the people asthe law, orthe law of Moses, it is reasonable to infer that our Saviour and his apostles use these terms in the same comprehensive sense, unless there is a limitation given in the context. Such a limitation the apostle Paul makes when he opposes to the Mosaic law the previous promise to Abraham: "The covenant that was confirmed before of God inChrist, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Gal. 3:17, and compare the following verses. But in the following chapter Paul manifestly employs the wordsthe lawof the whole Pentateuch, to every part of which he, in common with the Jewish people, ascribed equal and divine authority: "Tell me, ye that desire to be underlaw"—under a system of law, the article being wanting in the original—"do ye not hearthe law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman," etc., Gal. 4:21, seq., where the reference is to the narrative recorded in Genesis, as a part of the law. So also in the following passage: "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day," Acts 15:21; the term Moses necessarily means the law of Moses, as comprehending the whole Pentateuch, for it was that which was read in the synagogues. Compare the words of Luke: "After the reading of the law and the prophets," Acts 13:15. And in general, when Christ and his apostles speak of Moses or the law, without any limitation arising from the context, thus, "The law was given by Moses;" "They have Moses and the prophets," etc., we are to understand them as referring to the Pentateuch as a whole, for such was the common usage of the Jewish people, and such must have been their apprehension of the meaning of the terms.
3. But it may be said, Christ and his apostles did not speak as critics, but only in a popular way. That they did not speak of the Pentateuch as critics, is certain. They had no occasion for doing so, since no Jew doubted either its divine authority or its Mosaic authorship. But when we consider, on the one side, with what unsparing severity our Lord set aside the traditions of the Pharisees as "the commandments of men," and on the other, how he and his apostles ascribed equal divine authority to every part of the Pentateuch, as will be shown in the next chapter, and how unequivocally they sanctioned the universal belief that Moses was its author, we must acknowledge that wehave the entire authority of the New Testament for its Mosaic authorship in every essential respect. This is entirely consistent with the belief that inspired men, like Ezra, and perhaps also prophetical men of an earlier age, in setting forth revised copies of the Pentateuch, that is, copies which aimed to give the true text with as much accuracy as possible, may have added here and there explanatory clauses for the benefit of the readers of their day. Such incidental clauses, added by men of God under the guidance of his Spirit, would not affect in the least the substance of the Pentateuch. It would still remain in every practical sense the work of Moses, and be so regarded in the New Testament.
Whether there are, or are not, in the Pentateuch, such clauses added by a later hand, and not affecting either its essential contents or its Mosaic authorship, is an open question to be determined by impartial criticism. At the present day editors carefully indicate their explanatory notes; but this was not the usage of high antiquity. At the close of the book of Deuteronomy, for example, there is immediately added, without any explanatory remark, a notice of Moses' death. We are at liberty to assume, if we have cogent reasons for so doing, that brief explanatory clauses were sometimes interwoven into the Mosaic text; as, for example, the remark in Gen. 36:31, which is repeated in 1 Chron. 1:43, a book ascribed to Ezra; Exod. 16:35, 36, etc.
Whether there are, or are not, in the Pentateuch, such clauses added by a later hand, and not affecting either its essential contents or its Mosaic authorship, is an open question to be determined by impartial criticism. At the present day editors carefully indicate their explanatory notes; but this was not the usage of high antiquity. At the close of the book of Deuteronomy, for example, there is immediately added, without any explanatory remark, a notice of Moses' death. We are at liberty to assume, if we have cogent reasons for so doing, that brief explanatory clauses were sometimes interwoven into the Mosaic text; as, for example, the remark in Gen. 36:31, which is repeated in 1 Chron. 1:43, a book ascribed to Ezra; Exod. 16:35, 36, etc.
4. Going back now to the days of theRestorationunder Zerubbabel and his associates, about 536 B.C., we find that the very first act of the restored captives was to set up "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." The narrative goes on to specify that "they offered burnt-offerings thereon unto the Lord, even burnt-offerings morning and evening. They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt-offerings by number, according to the custom, as the duty of every day required; and afterwards offered the continual burnt-offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the Lord that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a free-will offering unto the Lord." Ezra 3:1-5. About ninety years afterwards, uponthe completion of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah, about 445 B.C., we find Ezra the priest—"a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given," Ezra 7:6—on the occasion of the feast of tabernacles bringing forth "the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel," and reading in it "from the morning unto midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand." In this work he was assisted by a body of men, who "caused the people to understand the law;" and the reading was continued through the seven days of the feast: "day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God." Neh. ch. 8. It was not the book of Deuteronomy alone that they read. We might infer this from the extent of the reading, which was sufficient for all the preceptive parts of the Pentateuch. But here we are not left to mere inference. On the second day "they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month;" and that they should "fetch olive-branches, and pine-branches, and myrtle-branches, and palm-branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written." Neh. 8:13-17. The precept concerning booths with boughs of trees occurs in Lev. 23:40-43, a passage which they might naturally enough reach on the second day.
Ezra's assistants gave the sense not by labored expositions, but by interpreting the Hebrew in the Chaldee vernacular of the people. This would about double the time devoted to a given section. All that pertained to the structure of the tabernacle was superseded by the first temple, which served the returned captives as their model in the erection of the second. We may well suppose that this was omitted. There would then remain only four or five chapters in the book of Exodus. Thus the passage in question would naturally fall on the second day.
Ezra's assistants gave the sense not by labored expositions, but by interpreting the Hebrew in the Chaldee vernacular of the people. This would about double the time devoted to a given section. All that pertained to the structure of the tabernacle was superseded by the first temple, which served the returned captives as their model in the erection of the second. We may well suppose that this was omitted. There would then remain only four or five chapters in the book of Exodus. Thus the passage in question would naturally fall on the second day.
5. Jewish tradition ascribes to Ezra the work of settling the canon of the Old Testament, and setting forth a corrected edition of the same. Though some things included in this tradition are fabulous, the part of it now under consideration iscorroborated by all the scriptural statements concerning him, nor is there any reasonable ground for doubting its correctness. Be this as it may, it is admitted that from Ezra's day onward the Pentateuch existed in its present form. We are sure, therefore, that "the book of the law of Moses," out of which he read to the people, was the book as we now have it—the whole Pentateuch, written, according to uniform Jewish usage, on a single roll. Ezra belonged to the priestly order that had in charge the keeping of the sacred books, Deut. 31:25, 26, compared with 2 Kings 22:8, and was moreover "a ready scribe in the law of Moses." His zeal for the reëstablishment of the Mosaic law in its purity shines forth in his whole history. In his competency and fidelity we have satisfactory evidence that the law of Moses which he set forth was the very law which had been handed down from ancient times, and of which we have frequent notices in the books of Kings and Chronicles.
It is generally supposed that Ezra himself wrote the books of Chronicles. They were certainly composed about his time. To admit, as all do, that in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah the law of Moses means the Pentateuch as a whole, and to deny that it has the same meaning in the books of Chronicles, is very inconsistent. Certainly the book which Ezra set forth was the book which he found ready at hand, and therefore the book referred to in the Chronicles, and the Kings also. Any explanatory additions which he may have made did not affect its substance. It remains for the objector to show why it was not, in all essential respects, the book which Hilkiah found in the temple, 2 Chron. 34:14, and to which David referred in his dying charge to Solomon, 1 Kings 2:3.
It is generally supposed that Ezra himself wrote the books of Chronicles. They were certainly composed about his time. To admit, as all do, that in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah the law of Moses means the Pentateuch as a whole, and to deny that it has the same meaning in the books of Chronicles, is very inconsistent. Certainly the book which Ezra set forth was the book which he found ready at hand, and therefore the book referred to in the Chronicles, and the Kings also. Any explanatory additions which he may have made did not affect its substance. It remains for the objector to show why it was not, in all essential respects, the book which Hilkiah found in the temple, 2 Chron. 34:14, and to which David referred in his dying charge to Solomon, 1 Kings 2:3.
6. Passing by, for the present, the notices of the law of Moses contained in the book of Joshua, we come to the testimony of the book of Deuteronomy. We have seen that the Mosaic authorship of the book, as a part of the Pentateuch, is everywhere assumed by the writers of the New Testament. But, in addition to this, they make quotations from it under the forms, "Moses wrote," "Moses truly said unto the fathers," etc. Mark 10:3-5; Acts 3:22; Rom. 10:19. If we examine the book itself, its own testimony is equally explicit. In chap.17:24 Moses directs that when the Israelites shall appoint a king, "he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites." In the opinion of some, this language refers to the whole law of Moses, while others would restrict it to the book of Deuteronomy; but all are agreed that it includes the whole of the latter work, with the exception of the closing sections. By a comparison of this passage with chaps. 28:58; 31:9, 24-26, the evidence is complete that Moses wrote this law, and delivered it to the priests, to be laid up by the side of the ark in the tabernacle. If this testimony needed any corroboration, we should have it in the character of the work itself. It is the solemn farewell of the aged lawgiver to the people whose leader he had been for the space of forty years. In perfect harmony with this are the grandeur and dignity of its style, its hortatory character, and the exquisite tenderness and pathos that pervade every part of it. It is every way worthy of Moses; nor can we conceive of any other Hebrew who was in a position to write such a book.
7. The book of Deuteronomy contains a renewal of the covenant which God made with the children of Israel at Sinai. Chap. 29:10-15. Moses himself distinguishes between the former and the latter covenant. "These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb." Chap. 29:1. With each covenant was connected a series of laws; those belonging to the latter being mainly, but not entirely, a repetition of laws given with the first covenant. We have seen that Moses wrote the second covenant, and all the laws connected with it. From Exodus, ch. 24, we learn that he wrote also the book of the first covenant containing, we may reasonably suppose, all of God's legislation up to that time. The inference is irresistible that he wrote also the laws that followed in connection with the first covenant. It is an undeniable fact that these laws underlie the whole constitution of the Israelitish nation, religious,civil, and social. They cannot, then, have been the invention of a later age; for no such fraud can be imposed, or was ever imposed upon a whole people. They are their own witness also that they were given by the hand of Moses, for they are all prefaced by the words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying." When we consider their fundamental character, their extent, and the number and minuteness of their details, we cannot for a moment suppose that they were left unwritten by such a man as Moses, who had all the qualifications for writing them. Why should not the man who received them from the Lord have also recorded them—this man educated at the court of Egypt, and learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, who had already written "the book of the covenant," and afterwards wrote the journeyings of the Israelites, Numb. ch. 23, and the book of Deuteronomy? An express statement from Moses himself is not needed. The fact is to be understood from the nature of the case, and to call it in question is gratuitous skepticism.
8. The form of the Mosaic laws that precede the book of Deuteronomy is in perfect harmony with the assumption that Moses himself not only received them, but wrote them. They bear the impress of having been recorded not continuously, but from time to time, as they were communicated to him. In this way the historical notices which are woven into them—the matter of the golden calf, Exodus, ch. 32, the death of Nadab and Abihu, Leviticus, ch. 10, the blasphemy of Shelomith's son, Leviticus, ch. 24, and the numerous incidents recorded in the book of Numbers—all these narratives find a perfectly natural explanation. Some of these incidents—as, for example, the blasphemy of Shelomith's son—come in abruptly, without any connection in the context; and their position can be accounted for only upon the assumption that they were recorded as they happened. In this peculiar feature of the Mosaic code before Deuteronomy, we have at once a proof that Moses was the writer, and that the historical notices connected with it were also recorded by him. The result at which we arrive is that the whole record from God's appearance to Moses andhis mission to Pharaoh has Moses himself for its author. The authorship of the preceding part of the Pentateuch will be considered separately.
9. The above result in reference to that part of the law which precedes Deuteronomy, is confirmed by thetestimony of the New Testament. In disputing with the Sadducees, our Lord appealed to the writings of Moses, which they acknowledged: "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Luke 20:37. It was by recording the words of God, as given in Exodus 3:6, that Moses called the Lord the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The apostle Paul, again, referring to Lev. 18:5, says: "Moses describeth"—literally,writeth—"the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them." Rom. 10:5. Here also belong certain passages that speak of precepts in "the law of Moses," as Luke 2:22-24, where the reference is to various precepts in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers—Exod. 13:2; 22:29; 34:19; Lev. 12:2, seq.; Numb. 3:13; 8:17; 18:15—John 7:22, 23, where the reference is to Lev. 12:2; for with the New Testament writers "the law of Moses" means the law written by Moses. In like manner we find references in the Old Testament to the books of the law of Moses that precede Deuteronomy—2 Chron. 23:18 compared with Numb. 28:2, seq.; 2 Chron. 24:6 compared with Exod. 30:12, seq.; Ezra 3:2-5 compared with Numb. 28:2, seq., and 29:12, seq.; Neh. 8:15 compared with Lev. 23:40.
10. The relation of the book of Deuteronomy to the earlier portions of the law deserves a careful consideration. And, first, in regard totime. All that portion of the law which precedes the sixteenth chapter of the book of Numbers was given in the first and second years after the exodus; consequently thirty-eight years before the composition of the book of Deuteronomy. The four chapters of Numbers that follow, chaps. 16-19, are generally dated about twenty years later—that is, about eighteen years before the composition of Deuteronomy.Only the last seventeen chapters of Numbers, which are mostly occupied with historical notices, were written in the preceding year.
Then, as it respects generaldesign. At Horeb the entire constitution of the theocracy was to be established. This part of the law is, therefore, more formal and circumstantial. It gives minute directions for the celebration of the passover; for the construction of the tabernacle and its furniture; for the dress, consecration, duties, and perquisites of the priesthood and Levitical order; for the entire system of sacrifices; for the distinction between clean and unclean animals; for all those duties that were especially of a priestly character, as judgment in the case of leprosy, and purification from ceremonial uncleanness; for the order of journeying and encamping in the wilderness, etc. In a word, it gives more prominence to the forms of the law, and the duties of those to whom its administration was committed. Not so on the plains of Moab. The theocracy had then been long in operation. The details of its service were well understood, and there was no need of formal and circumstantial repetition. The work of Moses now was not to give a new law, but to enforce the law of Horeb, with such subordinate modifications and additions as were required by the new circumstances of the people, now about to take possession of the promised land and change their wandering life for fixed abodes. He had to do, therefore, more prominently not with the administrators of law, but with the people; and accordingly his precepts assume a hortatory character, and his style becomes more diffuse and flowing.
Thepersonal relationof Moses to the people was also greatly changed. At Horeb he had the great work of his life before him, but now it is behind him. He is about to leave his beloved Israel, whom he has borne on his heart and guided by his counsels for forty years. Hence the inimitable tenderness and pathos that pervade the book of Deuteronomy.
When now we take into account all these altered circumstances, we have a full explanation of the peculiarities whichmark the book of Deuteronomy as compared with the preceding books. Were these peculiarities wanting, we should miss a main proof of its genuineness. Nevertheless the book is thoroughly Mosaic in its style, and the scholar who reads it in the original Hebrew can detect peculiar forms of expression belonging only to the Pentateuch. As to alleged disagreements between some of its statements and those of the earlier books, it is sufficient to remark that upon a candid examination they mostly disappear; and even where we cannot fully explain them, this furnishes no valid ground for denying the genuineness of either portion of the law. Such seeming discrepancies are not uncommon when a writer of acknowledged credibility repeats what he has before written. Compare, for example, the three narratives of the apostle Paul's conversion which are recorded in the book of Acts.
The question as to the extent of meaning which should be given in Deuteronomy to the expressions, "a copy of this law," "the words of this law," "this book of the law," is one upon which expositors are not agreed, nor is it essential; since, as we have seen, the Mosaic authorship of the former part of the law rests upon broader grounds.
In Deut. 27:3, 8, it seems necessary to understand the expression, "all the words of this law," which were to be written upon tables of stone set up on mount Ebal, of the blessings and curses—ver. 12, 13—contained in this and the following chapter. But elsewhere, chs. 17:18; 31:9, 24-26, we must certainly include at least the whole of Deuteronomy. If we suppose that it was Moses' custom to write out the precepts of the law with the historical notices pertaining to them in a continuous roll, which was enlarged from time to time, and that he added to this roll the book of Deuteronomy, then the words in question must be understood of the entire body of precepts from the beginning. But if, as seems to be intimated in Deut. 31:24, he wrote Deuteronomy in a separate book, ("in a book," without the article,) the words naturally refer to Deuteronomy alone. This work, as containing a summary of the law—a second law, as the wordDeuteronomysignifies—might well be spoken of as "this law," without any denial of an earlier law; just as the covenant made with the people at this time is called "this covenant," ch. 29:14, without any denial of an earlier covenant. The reverent scholar will be careful not to be wise above whatis written. It might gratify our curiosity to know exactly in what outward form Moses left the Law with the historical notices woven into it; whether in one continuous roll, or in several rolls which were afterwards arranged by some prophet, perhaps with connecting and explanatory clauses; but it could add nothing to our knowledge of the way of salvation. In either case it would be alike the law of Moses and the law which Moses wrote, invested with full divine authority.
In Deut. 27:3, 8, it seems necessary to understand the expression, "all the words of this law," which were to be written upon tables of stone set up on mount Ebal, of the blessings and curses—ver. 12, 13—contained in this and the following chapter. But elsewhere, chs. 17:18; 31:9, 24-26, we must certainly include at least the whole of Deuteronomy. If we suppose that it was Moses' custom to write out the precepts of the law with the historical notices pertaining to them in a continuous roll, which was enlarged from time to time, and that he added to this roll the book of Deuteronomy, then the words in question must be understood of the entire body of precepts from the beginning. But if, as seems to be intimated in Deut. 31:24, he wrote Deuteronomy in a separate book, ("in a book," without the article,) the words naturally refer to Deuteronomy alone. This work, as containing a summary of the law—a second law, as the wordDeuteronomysignifies—might well be spoken of as "this law," without any denial of an earlier law; just as the covenant made with the people at this time is called "this covenant," ch. 29:14, without any denial of an earlier covenant. The reverent scholar will be careful not to be wise above whatis written. It might gratify our curiosity to know exactly in what outward form Moses left the Law with the historical notices woven into it; whether in one continuous roll, or in several rolls which were afterwards arranged by some prophet, perhaps with connecting and explanatory clauses; but it could add nothing to our knowledge of the way of salvation. In either case it would be alike the law of Moses and the law which Moses wrote, invested with full divine authority.
11. It being established that Moses wrote the whole law with the historical notices appertaining to it, we naturally infer that he must have written the book of Genesis also, which is introductory to the law. For this work he had every qualification, and we know of no other man that had the like qualifications. On this ground alone the Mosaic authorship of the book might be reasonably assumed, unless decided proofs to the contrary could be adduced. But we find, upon examination, that the book of Genesis is soconnected with the following booksthat without the knowledge of its contents they cannot be rightly understood. The very first appearance of God to Moses is introduced by the remark that he "remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob." In addressing Moses he calls the children of Israel "my people," Exod. 3:6-10; and sends Moses to Pharaoh with the message, "Let my people go." All this implies a knowledge of the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed after him, by virtue of which the Israelites became his peculiar people. It is not simply as an oppressed people that God undertakes to deliver them and give them possession of the land of Canaan, but ashispeople. Again and again does Moses describe the promised land as "the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them." With the book of Genesis these declarations are plain; but without it they are unintelligible. The Abrahamic covenant, which is recorded in the book of Genesis, is not a subordinate, but an essential part of the history of the Israelites. It underlies the whole plan of redemption, and upon it the Mosaic economy, as a part of that plan, is erected.Why should any one suppose that Moses, who recorded the establishment of this economy with all its details, omitted to record the great transactions with the patriarchs which lie at its foundation? There are other references to the book of Genesis in the law of Moses. The institution of the Sabbath is expressly based on the order of creation recorded in the first two chapters; and when the people leave Egypt they carry with them the bones of Joseph, in accordance with the oath which he had exacted of them. Gen. 50:25, compared with Exod. 13:19.
To the Mosaic authorship of Genesis it has been objected, that it contains marks of alater age. But these marks, so far as they have any real existence, belong not to the substance of the book. They are restricted to a few explanatory notices, which may well have been added by Ezra or some prophetical man before him, in setting forth a revised copy of the law. See No. 3, above. The passages which can, with any show of probability, be referred to a later age, are, taken all together, very inconsiderable, and they refer only to incidental matters, while the book, as a whole, bears all the marks of high antiquity.
To the Mosaic authorship of this book it has been objected again, that it contains the writings ofdifferent authors. This is especially argued from the diversity of usage in respect to the divine name, some passages employing the wordElohim,God, others the wordJehovah, or a combination of the two terms. Whatever force there may be in this argument, the validity of which is denied by many who think that the inspired writer designedly varied his usage between the general termGodand the special covenant nameJehovah, it goes only to show that Moses may have made use of previously existing documents; a supposition which we need not hesitate to admit, provided we have cogent reasons for so doing. Whatever may have been the origin of these documents, they received through Moses the seal of God's authority, and thus became a part of his inspired word.
Several writers have attempted to distinguish throughout the book of Genesis the parts which they would assign to different authors; but beyond the first chapters they are not able to agree among themselves. All attempts to carry the distinction of different authors into the later books rest on fanciful grounds.
Several writers have attempted to distinguish throughout the book of Genesis the parts which they would assign to different authors; but beyond the first chapters they are not able to agree among themselves. All attempts to carry the distinction of different authors into the later books rest on fanciful grounds.
12. That the Pentateuch, as a whole, proceeded from a single author, is shown by the unity of plan that pervades the whole work. The book of Genesis constitutes, as has been shown, a general introduction to the account which follows of the establishment of the theocracy; and it is indispensable to the true understanding of it. In the first part of the book of Exodus we have a special introduction to the giving of the law; for it records the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage in Egypt, and their journey to Sinai. The Mosaic institutions presuppose a sanctuary as their visible material centre. The last part of Exodus, after the promulgation of the ten commandments and the precepts connected with them, is accordingly occupied with the construction of the tabernacle and its furniture, and the dress and consecration of the priests who ministered there. In Leviticus, the central book of the Pentateuch, we have the central institution of the Mosaic economy, namely, the system of sacrifices belonging to the priesthood, and also, in general, the body of ordinances intrusted to their administration. The theocracy having been founded at Sinai, it was necessary that arrangements should be made for the orderly march of the people to the land of Canaan. With these the book of Numbers opens, and then proceeds to narrate the various incidents that befell the people in the wilderness, with a record of their encampments, and also the addition from time to time of new ordinances. The book of Deuteronomy contains the grand farewell address of Moses to the Israelites, into which is woven a summary of the precepts already given which concerned particularly the people at large, with various modifications and additions suited to their new circumstances and the new duties about to be devolved upon them. We see then that the Pentateuch constitutes a consistent whole. Unity ofdesign, harmony of parts, continual progress from beginning to end—these are its grand characteristics; and they prove that it is not a heterogeneous collection of writings put together without order, but the work of a single master-spirit, writing under God's immediate direction, according to the uniform testimony of the New Testament.
1. The historic truth of the Pentateuch is everywhere assumed by the writers of the New Testament in the most absolute and unqualified manner. They do not simply allude to it and make quotations from it, as one might do in the case of Homer's poems, but they build upon the facts which it records arguments of the weightiest character, and pertaining to the essential doctrines and duties of religion. This is alike true of the Mosaiclawsand of thenarrativesthat precede them or are interwoven with them. In truth, the writers of the New Testament know no distinction, as it respects divine authority, between one part of the Pentateuch and another. They receive the whole as an authentic and inspired record of God's dealings with men. A few examples, taken mostly from the book of Genesis, will set this in a clear light.
In reasoning with the Pharisees on the question of divorce, our Lord appeals to the primitive record: "Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." And when, upon this, the Pharisees ask, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" Deut. 24:1, he answers in such a way as to recognize both the authority of the Mosaic legislation and the validity of the ante-Mosaic record: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." He then proceeds toenforce the marriage covenant as it was "from the beginning." Matt. 19:3-9, compared with Gen. 2:23, 24. In like manner the apostle Paul establishes the headship of the man over the woman: "He is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." 1 Cor. 11:7-9, compared with Gen. 2:18-22. And again: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tim. 2:12-14, compared with Gen. 2:18-22; 3:l-6, 13. So also he argues from the primitive record that, as by one man sin and death came upon the whole human race, so by Christ Jesus life and immortality are procured for all. Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22, compared with Gen. 2:17; 3:19, 22. The story of Cain and Abel, Gen. 4:3-12, is repeatedly referred to by the Saviour and his apostles as a historic truth: Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51; Heb. 11:4; 12:24; 1 John 3:12; Jude 11. So also the narrative of the deluge: Gen. chs. 6-8, compared with Matt. 14:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27; Heb. 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; and of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen. ch. 19, compared with Luke 17:28, 29; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7. It is useless to adduce further quotations. No man can read the New Testament without the profound conviction that the authenticity and credibility of the Pentateuch are attested in every conceivable way by the Saviour and his apostles. To reject the authority of the former is to deny that of the latter also.
2. For the authenticity and credibility of the Pentateuch we have an independent argument in the fact that it lay at the foundation of the whole Jewish polity, civil, religious, and social. From the time of Moses and onward, the Israelitish nation unanimously acknowledged its divine authority, even when, through the force of sinful passion, they disobeyed its commands. The whole life of the people was moulded andshaped by its institutions; so that they became, in a good sense, a peculiar people, with "laws diverse from all people." They alone, of all the nations of the earth, held the doctrine of God's unity and personality, in opposition to all forms of polytheism and pantheism; and thus they alone were prepared to receive and propagate the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. Chap. 8, No. 2. If now we admit the truth of the Mosaic record, all this becomes perfectly plain and intelligible; but if we deny it, we involve ourselves at once in the grossest absurdities. How could the Jewish people have been induced to accept with undoubting faith such a body of laws as that contained in the Pentateuch—so burdensome in their multiplicity, so opposed to all the beliefs and practices of the surrounding nations, and imposing such severe restraints upon their corrupt passions—except upon the clearest evidence of their divine authority? Such evidence they had in the stupendous miracles connected with their deliverance from Egypt and the giving of the law on Sinai. The fact that Moses constantly appeals to these miracles, as well known to the whole body of the people, is irrefragable proof of their reality. None but a madman would thus appeal to miracles which had no existence; and if he did, his appeal would be met only by derision. Mohammed needed not the help of miracles, for his appeal was to the sword and to the corrupt passions of the human heart; and he never attempted to rest his pretended divine mission on the evidence of miracles. He knew that to do so would be to overthrow at once his authority as the prophet of God. But the Mosaic economy needed and received the seal of miracles, to which Moses continually appeals as to undeniable realities. But if the miracles recorded in the Pentateuch are real, then it contains a revelation from God, and is entitled to our unwavering faith. Then too we can explain how, in the providence of God, the Mosaic institutions prepared the way for the advent of "Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write." Thus we connect the old dispensation with the new, and see both together as one whole.