Gordon Clark: The Continuing Attack (The Southern Presbyterian Journal)

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?