1959. The Continuing Attack. The Southern Presbyterian Journal. 13–15. Jan 7
The Continuing Attack
By Gordon H. Clark, Ph. D.
It is no news for Bible believing Christians that the colleges
and universities of our land contain men who take great pleasure in attacking
the Bible. Many good people, however, particularly those who are not in daily contact
with academic realities, tend to forget that the attack continues year in and year
out. For example, World Civilizations, by Burns and Ralph, is a textbook used in
history courses in several universities. In Vol. I, pages 96 - 100, we read:
"During the time of Moses... Yehweh... possessed a physical
body . . as capable of evil and wrathful judgments as he was a good… Omnipotence
was scarcely an attribute that Yehweh could claim, for his power was limited to
the territory occupied by the Hebrews themselves... The religion of this stage was
neither primarily ethical nor profoundly spiritual... Old Testament scholars...
doubt that the Ten Commandments in the form in which they are preserved in the book
of Exodus go back any farther than the seventh century... By the ninth century the
worship of Yehweh was scarcely distinguishable from the worship of the Phoenicans
and Canaanite Ba'als... the fanatical preacher Elijah... The really important work
of reform however, was accomplished by the great prophets — Amos, Hosea, Isaiah,
and Micah... They did not demand a return to some age of simplicity in the past
but taught that the religion should be infused with a new philosophy... Yehweh is
not really omnipotent... Yehweh cares nothing for ritual sacrifices... In these
doctrines was contained a definite repudation of nearly everything that the older
religion had stood for... The finest example of Jewish law was the Deuteronomic
code... Despite its claims to ancient origin, it was probably an outgrowth of the
phophetic revolution."
Though a thorough examination of these passages is not possible
here, something can be briefly said about the final remark on Deuteronomy.
Underlying the reconstruction of Hebrew history which these quotations give are
two main points that have to do with the last book of the Pentateuch. First, Moses
did not write Deuteronomy. It was written in the reign of Josiah 641 - 610 B. C.
Second, the religion of Deuteronomy is an invention of the later prophets:
Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Since most college students, even those who
have been raised in Christian homes, know next to nothing about the Old Testament,
a few elementary facts will not suffer by emphasis.
Did Moses write Deuteronomy? The negative answer has been supported
by the insistence that no such claim is made in the book. Now, of course, there
is no verse that reads, I Moses, wrote this book. But neither do Caesar's Gallic
Wars contain the sentence, I, Caesar, wrote this book. Very few books have such
a sentence. But the claim that Moses wrote Deuteronomy is plainer than any evidence
of Caesar's authorship in the Gallic Wars.
Deut. 1:1 reads: "These be the words that Moses spake..."
Now, even if this refers only to the speeches in the book, and not to the connective
narrative, still Moses would be author of nine-tenths of the material, for the speeches
are the bulk of the book. An even clearer claim to Mosaic authorship is found in
Deut. 31:24: "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the
words of this law in a
book..."
It is sometimes said that Moses could not have written Deuteronomy
because the last chapter describes his death. This is a rather disingenuous
argument. Obviously it was quite possible for Joshua to add a chapter in order to
conclude the story of Moses' life. Why should not an editor or publisher add a final
statement to an autobiography? The argument is hardly honest because the main question
is whether or not the laws of the book are of Mosaic origin; and the laws constitute
the main part of the book. Does Deuteronomy picture the religion of Moses' day,
or is it an invention of the later prophets? An added chapter on Moses' death is
beside the point.
The verses quoted above plus other indications should be sufficient
to prove that the book claims to be Mosaic. If, in spite of this, the book is not
Mosaic, it must be a fraud; and if it is a fraud, it is inconsistent with the righteousness
it insists upon. The prophetic forgers, then, who so strongly protested against
dishonesty, must have been dishonest men.
Now, the destructive critics indeed call it a fraud. They say
that it was written in the reign of Josiah 641 - 610 B. C.
II Kings 22:8 and IT Chron. 34:14 say, "And Hilkiah, the
high priest, said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the
house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan and he read it."
What II Kings actually says is easily understood: the people
of Israel, led by sinful Kings, had so neglected the Law that even the books were
forgotten. Then the good King Josiah instituted a reform, and in cleaning out the
temple the old book was discovered.
But the critics say: Josiah wished to strengthen Jerusalem; one
of his plans was to centralize all worship there; and since this had never been
done before, he had a book written and claimed it was a discovery. This book was
Deuteronomy because Deut. 12: — requires worship to be centralized in one place.
In opposition to this destructive view, a view which makes the
exponents of righteousness dis- honest forgers, note that Hezekiah, nearly one hundred
years before Josiah, had attempted a reform and had insisted on a central sanctuary.
II Kings 18:22, II Chron. 32;12, and Isa. 36:7 give the words
of Rabshakeh, the general of Sennacherib, who came to threaten Hezekiah. He sent
this message: "If ye say unto me, We trust in the Lord our God: is that not
he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away and hath said to
Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem."
Rabshakeh, the Assyrian general, knew that Hezekiah had destroyed
the idolatrous groves and had restored the sacrifices to Jerusalem. Therefore Josiah
could not have been the first, and there was no need for him to write a forgery.
For that matter, we can go back to Solomon, who built the temple
in Jerusalem. The dedication was an important event, and I Kings describes it at
length. In Solomon's prayer of dedication (I Kings 8:22-5.3) , there are echoes
of the wording of Deuteronomy. He speaks, as Deuteronomy does, of God's choosing
the city and putting his name there. Hence there is no reason to say that Josiah
forged a book and invented the idea of centralized worship.
On the contrary, this was Moses' idea (received from God by revelation)
and is found in Deut. 12. The fulfillment did not come in Joshua's day, or even
in Samuel's. This delay may at first seem strange. But in Deut. 12:10 it says that
God will centralize the worship after the Israelites have defeated their enemies,
so that they dwell in safety, and the land in peace. This did not occur until David
defeated the Philistines.
The second point the critics try to make — and of course the
two points go together — is that the religion of Deuteronomy is a late development,
and invention of Amos and Isaiah. These critics assert that the religion of Moses'
time was as vile as that of the Canaanites. One of them speaks of the early Yehweh
as a jealous demon who belched fire from the crater of a volcano. Comparisons are
sometimes made with Moloch. Now, it is to be admitted that after the time of Joshua
and also in the time of Ahab, the main body of Jews became idolators. This is precisely
what Deuteronomy prophesies in 31:29: "I know that after my death, ye will
Utterly corrupt yourselves and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you."
But the message of the Judges and the Prophets was always to
return to the God of their fathers and to the Law of Moses. There is no hint of
the invention of a new religion. This point should be emphasized somewhat.
The critical claim is that the God of the Hebrews was an original
tribal deity, fierce and vile like those of the surrounding nations. The later prophetic
religion is the invention of Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah — these are the great religious
geniuses who first thought of a new sort of God and turned the old vile religion
into ethical monotheism.
Now, what do the prophets themselves say? Were they conscious
of inventing a new religion? Did thev claim to be religious geniuses? Did they believe
that the old religion Avas like that of Chemosh and Moloch? These questions are
in fact pointedly answered by Jeremiah.
Jer. 2:5 ff. says, "Thus saith Jehovah, What iniquity have
your fathers found in me?" This question is a pertinent one. For, if the God
proclaimed by the prophets was so utterly different from the one whom past generations
of Israelites had known — if the old God had been like Moloch — the people might
have answered Jeremiah by saying: that old god, the god of our fathers, was full
of iniquity, and the God you preach is so different that you have no right to call
him the god of our fathers: you ought to use a totally different name. But is this
the answer to Jeremiah's question? The true answer is given in Jer. 2:11: "Hath
a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their
glory for that which doth not profit." Thus Jeremiah, far from inventing a
new religion, accuses the people of having taken on a new religion, a vile religion;
and he here calls them back to the God of their fathers whom they had forsaken.
Yes, the Israelites had become idolators, but they had descended into idolatry from
the pure worship of the time of David, of Samuel, and of Moses.
The later prophets never think of themselves as innovators. They
recognize the preeminence of Moses. Isa. 10:26 in predicting the defeat of the Assyrians
compares the Lord's work with the rod of Moses. Isa. 6.8:11 speaks of punishing
the disobedient Israelites; but after a time the Lord will bring the punishment
to an end because He will remember the days of old, Moses, and his people. |er.
23:6-8 notes that up to his time the exodus from Egypt has been the great event
for which God should be praised; but there is coming a future day when the Lord
shall do something greater. Since Jeremiah puts this greater event in the future,
it is clear that up to his time, including his own ministry, the events of Moses'
life have been the most important. These and other verses show that the prophets
regard Moses as their superior. They do not put his work on a level with their own,
far less do they put it on a lower level; quite the contrary they compare the work
of Moses with God's great eschatological deliverance of Israel in the latter days.
Since Isaiah and Jeremiah gave no hint of inventing a new religion
and do not claim to be greater than Moses, and in fact place themselves lower than
Moses, one may wonder why the unbelieving critics make the claims they make. The
reason is not hard to find. It is that they are unbelieving critics. Deuteronomy
contains predictive prophecy. It predicts a centralized worship. Now, these critics
do not believe that the Bible is revelation. They take it as ordinary literature.
They do not believe that God has spoken.
Rut if God has not spoken, then Deuteronomy cannot contain predictive
prophecy. It is beyond the power of ordinary men to predict events that will happen
hundreds of years in the future. Hence the passages that contain a mention of centralized
worship and which speak of an Assyrian captivity must have been written either after
or immediately before these events took place. Therefore the critics conclude that
Deuteronomy was written between 640 and 610 B. C.
Now, some people tire of a discussion like this. They say, it
all happened so long ago that it makes no difference to us. Whether Moses believed
in a vile god or not — what difference does it make? Somebody got the idea of ethical
monotheism and it is the idea that is important; historical credit may be a matter
for historians, but for us it is the idea.
True enough, this all happened long ago. But the dates and the
persons are still of great importance even to the least academic Christian. For,
in the first place, it makes a great difference whether God has spoken. If God could
not have spoken through Moses, why should anyone believe that God spoke through
the prophets? And if God has not spoken through prophets, why should we pay very
much attention to their newly invented religion? But in the second place there is
much more important reasons why these matters are of vital concern to every Christian
today. It makes a great difference to us whether Christ knew what he was talking
about. When Christ was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, on each of the occasions
he quoted Deuteronomy. Was he justified in quoting Deuteronomy to Satan? Suppose
Satan had replied, Oh, you are quoting from a later forgery! Then in Jn. 5:46 Jesus
said, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me."
Did Moses really write of Christ? If Christ was completely mistaken
in saying so, and if Moses never wrote these things, if the prophetic religion and
the book of Deuteronomy is all a forgery, if, I say, Christ was so completely wrong,
could we have any assurance that it would be wise to trust him further? If God did
not speak by Moses, did He in these last days speak to us by his Son?
No comments:
Post a Comment