Alexander M'Caul D.D.
1904 140 Objections do not destroy the historic character of the Pentateuch. But it is well to remember, that, independently of all solutions of difficulties, there is testimony sufficient to prove its genuineness and Divine origin. That testimony is found in the books of the Old and New Testament. It is possible to trace the existence of the Pentateuch in every age, from Malachi to Joshua: that is sufficient to prove its genuineness. It has the sanction of the Saviour and His Apostles, and that will prove its Divine origin. The question may, however, occur to some minds, How do we know that the Pentateuch, which we now possess, is that referred to by our Lord, and cited by Hebrew writers?
To this the answer is, We have most satisfactory proof of the identity. The Pentateuch has descended to us in at least four independent channels. The whole people of the Jews, Rabbinists and Karaites; the Greek, Syrian, and Roman churches, all possess a Pentateuch. It stands at the beginning of their Sacred Scriptures. And those different copies, the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Syriac, and Latin, all so wonderfully agree, as to leave no doubt of identity. The present Jews have received their Hebrew copies, and the Chaldee translations, from those who dwelt not only in Jerusalem, but in Babylon. The Pentateuch of Eastern, and Western, Indian, African, and Chinese Jews is the same. The translation possessed by the Greeks is that received at the time of their conversion, and has come down in a perfectly distinct channel from the Hebrew. There was no love between Jews and Greeks, so as to induce the latter to conform their Scriptures to those of the former, and yet the Greek Pentateuch is manifestly a translation of the Hebrew possessed by the Jews. The Syriac version agrees still more minutely with the Hebrew; and yet the intercourse of Syrian Christians with Jews was as little as that of the Greeks.
With regard to the Latin, there is the same agreement, and the same independence of transmission. Between Jews and Christians there was a wall of separation which entirely prevented either from borrowing of the other. Amongst Christians themselves there were differences, both in language and theology, sufficient to prevent collusion. The Greek translation was not made from the Syriac; nor the Syriac from the Greek. They are entirely independent one of the other; and yet all present to us, with a few unimportant differences, the same Pentateuch. The Hebrew is that which the Jews received from their fathers. The Greek existed before the Incarnation of the Saviour. The Syriac version was made, as is generally supposed, early in the second century, probably before that time. We have, therefore, four independent witnesses to prove the identity of the Pentateuch which we possess, with that which was known to our Lord. And to these might be added the testimonies of Philo and Josephus, in whose writings sufficient portions of the Pentateuch are found to prove the identity of their copies with ours, and their belief that Moses was the author.
But, from the days of our Lord to the time of the last canonical Hebrew writer, there is a long interval. How can it be known, therefore, that the Pentateuch as then existing was that received from Malachi and his contemporaries? Here again there is a chain of sufficient testimonies. About one hundred and thirty years before Christ, the grandson of Jesus, the son of Sirach, translated the book of Ecclesiasticus into Greek.* That book is acknowledged to be genuine, and has so many references to the Law as to prove the identity of the book so called. The first book of Maccabees, also received as authentic by modern critics, carries us nearly fifty years farther back. The mad efforts of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy the book of the Law; and the zeal, not only of the priests, but of the common people, ready to die rather than disobey it, attest the existence of the book, and the popular belief that it was from God. That our Pentateuch existed, and was received as the law of Moses, one hundred years earlier, that is about two hundred and eighty years before Christ, is attested by the fact that it was then translated into Greek by Alexandrian Jews. Their version, commonly known as Septuagint, is that quoted by Evangelists and Apostles, and handed down to us by the Greek Fathers; and of whose agreement with the Hebrew we have already spoken.
{*See Hody, De bibliorum textibus originalibus, pp. 192, 193; Jahn's Introduction, Part 2:249; De Wette, Einleitung; Bleek, etc.}
Nor is this by any means all. The Providence of God has preserved a still more ancient testimony, in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Its existence was known to the Christian Fathers; but for a thousand years it lay concealed, and at last came forth as from the grave, to assure us of the identity of the Pentateuch. Suppose that in that long interval some doubter had said, The Samaritans were a distinct and rival sect, hated by the Jews, and hating in return. Josephus, and the Fathers of the Church, and the Rabbis, all bear witness that they had a copy of the Pentateuch: bring it forth and let us compare it with the Hebrew and Christian copies, and see whether they agree. How would he have triumphed had the Samaritan copy been produced, and found to differ altogether from those of Jews and Christians! But what is the fact? The Samaritan copy has been produced, written in a character equally unknown to Jews and Christians.
A little remnant of the people still exist to present it to the world. And lo! with the exception of a very few passages, it is the same in narrative and legislative enactment as that known to the Synagogue and the Church. This testimony carries us back to the erection of the Temple on Mount Gerizim, to the days of Sanballat, that is, to the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 13:28), and the close of the canon of the Old Testament; and assures us not only that it existed, but that it was not and could not be a compilation of those times. Manasseh, of the family of the high priest, being excluded from the priesthood because he refused to dismiss his heathen wife as the Law required, does not protest against this Law as ungenuine, and therefore unworthy of obedience but, when he leaves the Jewish people, imposes its yoke upon his Samaritan friends. Such conduct can only be explained by Manasseh's firm conviction that its origin was divine. Its acceptance by the Samaritans testifies a similar conviction on their part, produced by what they had already learned. At all events, the Pentateuch then existed, was ever afterwards preserved by the Samaritans. and their copy now shows the identity of their Pentateuch with our own.*
{*I have here followed Prideaux (vol. 1. p. 396, etc.) in his view of the history of Sanballat, and the Samaritan adoption of the Pentateuch. Since then a similar view has been defended by Hengstenberg, "Authentic des Pentateuches," vol. 1. pp. 1-48; also by Bleek, Einleitung, pp. 332-337. Dr. S. Davidson, in his "Treatise on Biblical Criticism," vol. 1. pp. 97, 98, thinks that the Samaritans received the Law in the time of Josiah, which is, of course, more favourable to the present argument. Indeed, on page 95, he asserts, "That it [the Pentateuch] was in the kingdom of the ten tribes and obtained legal authority, must be taken as certain."}
Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Later Prophets.
1904 159 Thus, without having recourse to the sacred records, we have traced the existence of the Pentateuch to the time of the return from Babylon. From this time on we have the testimony of Hebrew writers. Of these, during the rebuilding of the temple and city of Jerusalem, and the restoration of the Hebrew commonwealth, there are no less than five, Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, Nehemiah, and Ezra. With the two last-named writers modern criticism has dealt unceremoniously. But the unsparingness of the criticism has done more good than harm. The most sceptical admit enough to be genuine, proving that the Law existed, and was received as the Law of God given by Moses. These books describe the endeavour of the leaders of the Jews to restore the temple and the worship, as they had been before the captivity; and the Law of Moses is the norm according to which all was to be done. Ezra (7:21) speaks of "the law of the God of heaven." Nehemiah (1:7) confesses the transgression "of the commandments, statutes, and judgments, which God commanded Moses." Malachi (4:4) commands Israel "to remember the law of Moses given in Horeb, with the statutes, and judgments." Haggai says, "Ask now the priests concerning the law." Zechariah testifies against Israel, that "they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law."
Now the Law which is here spoken of must be that known to Manasseh and the Samaritans, and therefore identical with that which we now possess. It was evidently not written or compiled at the time. The tithes and sacrifices were burdensome under the circumstances of the returned Jews; the laws with respect to marriage more burdensome still. Nothing but faith in the Law, as received from their fathers, could have led the people to submit, or the leaders to persevere in the trying and ungrateful task of restoring the ancient worship and discipline. Indeed, it is admitted on all hands that the Law spoken of, or alluded to, in these books, is the Pentateuch in all its completeness as we now possess it. The Jews must therefore have possessed it in their exile, and brought it back with them on their return.
Ezekiel.
The correctness of this statement is abundantly proved by the writings of Ezekiel, who was himself a captive. He had been carried away eleven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, began to prophesy in the fifth year of the captivity, and continued to prophesy at least until the sixteenth year after the city had been destroyed. (Ezek. 1:1-2, and Ezek. 29:17.) Concerning the genuineness of these writings modern criticism raises no doubts. Its estimate of Ezekiel's style and genius is not very flattering, but it pronounces that the prominent and unequivocal peculiarities of the man are stamped on every page from the beginning to the end that the book was written, and its parts arranged in their present order by Ezekiel himself.* If, therefore, he was acquainted with the Pentateuch, or Law, it must be that which Ezra and his companions brought with them from their exile, even if we had no details to prove their identity. That he was thus acquainted with a law, judgments, and statutes, acknowledged by the people as divine, to which therefore he could refer in order to convince them of sin, and on which, as upon an infallible authority, he could found his reproofs, is certain beyond the shadow of a doubt.
{*See De Wette, Einleitung, 221-224. Gesenius, Geschichte, p. 35. Bleek, Einleitung, p. 515. Ullman, Comm. p. 7. Compare Carpzov, Introd. part 3. p. 205. And John Henry Michaelis' Preface to Ezekiel, sect, 14.}
In Ezekiel 22:26 says, "Her priests have done violence to my law." That in this passage the Prophet does not use the word "law," generally, of any religious doctrine given by God, but of "The Law," is evident from the detail which precedes and follows the words quoted. In verses 7-12 we read, "In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow. Thou hast despised my holy things, and hast profaned my sabbaths. In thee are men that carry tales to shed blood, and in thee they eat upon the mountains: in the midst of thee they commit lewdness. In thee have they discovered their fathers' nakedness: in thee have they humbled her that was set apart for pollution. And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour's wife and another hath lewdly-defiled his daughter-in-law, and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter. In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood: thou hast taken usury and increase." In these few verses there are at least twenty-nine references to, or rather quotations from, the Pentateuch, from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, perceptible in the English version, but the very Hebrew words used in the original of those books.* In the twenty-sixth verse, first referred to, we read, "Her priests have done violence to my law, and have profaned my holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them." In this one verse are at least four more references, to Lev. 10:10, Lev. 11:45, Lev. 20:25, and Ex. 31:13. Besides which, it is to be remarked that the word translated profane occurs only in the Pentateuch, in 1 Sam. 21:5-6, and in Ezekiel. Let the reader also examine chapters 18. and 20, where he will find references and quotations without end. The latter chapter is also worthy of attention as a recapitulation of the history of what happened in the wilderness.
{*Let the reader turn up the marginal references in any ordinary edition of the Bible.}
1904 171 Indeed the, whole book of Ezekiel is impregnated with the language of the Pentateuch, as has been proved long ago. It is especially remarkable for the use of the figures and language peculiar to the Pentateuch. Thus, the phrase, "Pine away in their iniquity," Ezek. 4:17, Ezek. 24:23, Ezek. 33:10, occurs only here and Lev. 26:39. Again, a favourite expression of Ezekiel's, "Mine eyes shall not spare," Ezek. 5:11, Ezek. 7:4, 9, Ezek. 8:18, Ezek. 9:5, 10, occurs in the Pentateuch, once in Gen. 45:20 (margin), five times in Deuteronomy, and only once besides in the whole Bible, Isa. 13:18. Another phrase peculiar to Ezekiel and the Pentateuch is, "I will draw out a sword after them." Compare Ex. 15:9, Lev. 26:33, with Ezek. 5:2, 12, Ezek. 12:14, and observe in Lev. 26:33, and Ezek. 12:14 that the threat of drawing the sword is in both cases accompanied with "the threat of dispersion," expressed in the original in the very same words. Again, the phrase "Staff of bread," occurring in our Prophet, Ezek. 4:16, Ezek. 5:16, Ezek. 14:12, is found only in the Pentateuch, Lev. 26:26. In like manner, the expression "I will set my face," employed several times by Ezekiel, is (excepting two passages in Jeremiah) found only in the Pentateuch.
There are many other similar points of agreement; but these are sufficient to identify the Law of which Ezekiel speaks with the Pentateuch which we now possess. And it is particularly to be observed, that his references to the Law necessarily imply that the priests, the prophets, and the people all knew the law to which he referred, and received it as an undoubtedly Divine authority, to which they were amenable, by which they were to be judged, and from which there was no appeal. We have therefore unexceptionable testimony that the Pentateuch existed in the captivity, and seven years before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Jeremiah.
The testimony of Ezekiel is overlapped by that of Jeremiah, who was partly his contemporary and partly his predecessor, whose writings also, with a few exceptions to which it is not necessary now to refer, have stood the test of modern criticism. If Jeremiah knew a Divine law, it must be that known to Ezekiel, and therefore that known to us. That such a law was known to him is certain. He mentions it expressly, and often quotes it. Thus in Jer. 9:13 (12) the Lord says, "They have forsaken my law which I set before them;" and, Jer. 16:11, "They have not kept my law;" and, Jer. 6:19, "They have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but have rejected it;" and again, Jer. 32:22, the prophet says, "They have not obeyed thy voice, neither walked in thy law." But some will perhaps say, as some have said, that of course the law was known to Jeremiah, as in his days the Book of the Law is said to have been found in the Temple; but that, before this book was found, it was unknown, and therefore fabricated by Hilkiah and his fellow-priests, and imposed upon Josiah. The reasoning upon which former sceptics arrived at this conclusion is absurd.
They argue thus: A book was found, or pretended to be found, by the priest, who said, "I have found the Book of the Law," which never existed, and of course was unknown to the king and the people. And yet, though utterly unknown, it was instantly received by the king and all the people without suspicion or inquiry, and all submitted to the extirpation of the idolatries then practised, and to the burdens which it imposed; and, according to this unknown book, reformed Church and State. And although they had never before heard of its enactments, they believed that it had been observed by their fathers from the days of Moses. This is plainly impossible. That the king and the court, and many of the people, might have been, and probably were, ignorant of the contents of the Law, is highly probable.
The two preceding reigns had been decidedly hostile to true religion. Manasseh was both a seducer and a persecutor. "He seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel." He reared up altars for Baal and Asherah, and worshipped all the host of heaven in the courts of the Lord's house, and filled Jerusalem with innocent blood.
Amon, his successor, walked in all the ways that his father walked in, and served the idols that his father served; and these kings were followed by priests, prophets, and people, as we find Jeremiah complaining, "The priests said not, Where is the Lord? … The pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal The house of Israel is ashamed: they, their kings, their princes, their prophets, saying to a stock, Thou art my father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth" (Jer. 2:8, 26). Even of Jerusalem itself he says, "There is not one that seeketh the truth" (v. 1).
No wonder, then, that they who are so described permitted the Temple to go to ruin, and the copy of the Law, belonging to it perhaps the very autograph of Moses — to be lost. No wonder if Josiah, with such a father and grandfather, such priests, and such a court, had been ignorant of the denunciations of the Law. Hilkiah, on the contrary, was not astonished. He says, "I have found the Book of the Law." He knew, therefore, that there was such a book, and says, "I have found it:" as Thenius, who is certainly no believer in inspiration, says in his commentary, "The expression, the Book of the Law, shows plainly that the question here is not about something that came to light for the first time, but something that was already known.*"
{*Comment on 2 Kings 22:8.}
It is true that this commentator does not believe that the book found was our present Pentateuch, but he believes that what was found was not something new, or something never heard of before, but a written law, previously known. He believes that such a written law had existed; just as Hitzig asserts, in his commentary on Jeremiah (p. 60), that a written law had always existed in Judah. But as the Law known to Ezekiel was our present Pentateuch, that known to Jeremiah, partly his contemporary, cannot be different. That it was known to Jeremiah before the finding of the book can be proved by his prophecies delivered at the beginning of his ministry. He began to prophesy in the thirteenth year of Josiah. The Book of the Law was not found until the eighteenth year of that king. Now even Hitzig admits that Jer. 2:1 — 8:17 were written before the eighteenth year, and the second chapter probably in the thirteenth year of Josiah, that is, the first of Jeremiah's ministry.*
{*See Hitzig, in loc. Compare also Bleek, Einleitung, p. 472.}
Both testify the existence of the Law. In Jer. 2:8 it is said, "They that handle the law know me not" and in Jer. 8:8, "How say ye, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us?" Before the finding of the book, therefore, "The Law" existed and was called "The Law of the Lord." These chapters also contain references and quotations which serve to identify it with the present Pentateuch. Thus, Jer. 2:6: "Neither said they, Where is the Lord that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, that led us through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits, through a land of drought and of the shadow of death, through a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt? And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof but when ye entered, ye defiled my land and made mine heritage an abomination." Here are allusions, either in sense or word, or both, to Deut. 8:15; Num. 14:7-8 Lev. 18:25-28; Num. 35:33-34. In ver. 28 the prophet says, "Where are thy gods, that thou hast made thee? let them arise if they can save thee in the time of trouble," evidently a quotation of Deut. 32:37-38. Jeremiah 3:1 is an undoubted reference to Deut. 24:3-4. Jeremiah 3:16 refers to a number of places in the Pentateuch, and the chief features in the Mosaic worship: "In those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord; neither shall it come to mind, neither shall they remember it, neither shall they visit it, neither shall that be done any more."
This tells us that there was a covenant, Ex. 24:7-8; Deut. 5:2-3, that there was an "ark of the covenant of the Lord" — the very words found in Num. 10:33, and Deut. 31:26, that the Israelites used to visit it words to be explained only by the commands, to go up three times in the year, Ex. 23:17; Deut. 16:16. In the days of Jeremiah, before the finding of the book therefore, the whole history of the covenant (that is in fact, of the giving of the Law, all the directions about the ark, the three great feasts) is presupposed, and without the existence of the Pentateuch would be unintelligible. Jer. 4:4, "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord," is a quotation from Deut. 10:16, and an allusion to Deut. 30:6, and contains a figure found in no other sacred writer. Jer. 5:15, "Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord God … a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say," is a quotation from Deut. 28:49; and Jer. 5:17, "they shall eat up their harvest," etc., from Lev. 26:16, and Deut. 28:31. Again, in Jer. 7:6, "Oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: then will I cause you to dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers," are unmistakable allusions to Ex. 22:21; Deut. 19:10, Deut. 6:14-15, Deut. 4:10; Gen. 15:18, Gen. 17:8, Gen. 26:3 etc.
The prophecies written subsequently to the finding of the book also contain numerous undoubted allusions to, or quotations from, the Pentateuch. But those written before that time prove abundantly that Jeremiah, like Ezekiel, was well acquainted with the letter and the spirit of that law, which we now know as the Pentateuch. There can therefore be no doubt, that "The Law" of which he speaks as the Law of the Lord, existing at the same time as that known to Ezekiel, must be identical with it, and also with "The Book of the Law" found in the Temple. And thus the existence of the Pentateuch from the days of our Lord to the thirteenth year of Josiah is firmly established. But it was not then invented nor written for the first time; it was not anything new. Jeremiah had known it from his youth, for he was called at an early age. The people knew of it as well as the prophet; and therefore it could not have been invented any very short time preceding that in which Jeremiah began to prophesy. Neither could it have been invented in the days of Amon or Manasseh. Theirs were not days for trying to introduce a new religious system of laws, of which the great object was to extirpate idolatry. And therefore we must pursue our inquiry to the time of Hezekiah.
Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Hosea.
As "the Book of the Law" existed at the beginning of Josiah's reign, and could not have been forged in the days of Amon or Manasseh, it must have existed in the time of Hezekiah. But it is not necessary to depend on inference in this matter. There are four unimpeachable witnesses of the fact, the prophets Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Hosea, who bring us back beyond the days of Hezekiah to those of Uzziah and Jeroboam the Second. Three of these expressly mention "The Law of the Lord." Two testify that it was written in a book. All cite the contents of that book sufficiently to identify it with that which we possess. Thus, in Isaiah 5:24 we read, "They have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts;" and again, Isaiah 30:9 "Children that will not hear the law of the Lord." Amos says (Amos 2:4), "They have despised the law of the Lord"; Hosea 4:6, "Seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God I will also forget thy children;" and again, Hosea 8:1, "They have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law."
These passages assuredly prove without just doubt that there was a law well known to the people, acknowledged as the Law of God, which it was a sin to transgress; and, as appears from the last passage, obligatory in the nature of a covenant. The title, also, appears to have been in these days, "The Law of the Lord," as in Jeremiah 8:8. That it was written is testified by Hosea 8:12, "I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing." And therefore Isaiah speaks of it as "The Book," just as we speak of the Bible. In Isa. 29:18, it is said, "In that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book," which even Gesenius interprets of the Law. His commentary on this verse is worth transcribing. "The deaf and the blind are the hardened and blinded free-thinkers (mentioned verse 9), who shall then leave the darkness in which they had been sitting, and turn to the light of the Law (comp. Isa. 2:5). Sepher, The Book, by pre-eminence, is the Book of the Law, like 'the roll of the Book,' Ps. 40:8, and 'Books,' Dan. 9:2, the Holy Scriptures. The Arabs also use the expression, 'The Book,' pre-eminently of the Koran, though sometimes of the Holy Scripture of the Jews and Christians."
Only one Book of the Law could have been called "The Book;" and, therefore, this Book, mentioned by Isaiah as so well known as to require no further description, must be identical with "the Book of the Law" found in the time of Josiah. But, as we have shown that this Book was our present Pentateuch, it follows that the Pentateuch existed in the days of Hezekiah; indeed, the words of Hosea 8:12 show that it was known in the days of Uzziah and Jeroboam the Second. Even if these prophets had quoted nothing from "The Book," the identity stands fast; but they have references amply sufficient to satisfy all impartial minds, that they were well acquainted with the Pentateuch as known to us.
In the first place, it is plain that they are acquainted with the history. They know of the sin of Adam. "Like Adam,* they have transgressed the covenant" (Hosea 6:7): they know of the sentence on the serpent,** "They shall lick the dust like the serpent, they shall move out of their holes like creeping things of the earth," Micah 7:17. But we have here, not only a reference to Gen. 3:14, but a quotation of certain words found Deut. 32:24. The Hebrew word for "creeping things" occurs only here, in Deut. and in Job 32:6. The references to Sodom and Gomorrah are frequent, Isa. 1:9-10; Isa. 3:9, Amos 4:11, and Hosea 11:8. The promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are also referred to, Micah 7:20. Hosea refers to the history of Jacob. "He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God; yea, he had power over the angel and prevailed, he wept and made suplication unto him. He found him in Bethel." Here are three allusions, to Gen. 25:26; Gen. 32:24; and Gen. 28:11.
{*"Not, 'like men,' but 'like Adam,' as in Job 31:33. Adam actually did both things imputed to him in these passages." Hitzig, Comment. in loc.
**Here also Hitzig acknowledges the reference to Gen. 3:14.}
The bringing up out of Egypt, and the wandering in the wilderness, are spoken of in the very language of the Pentateuch; as Micah 6:4,"I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam." Comp. 7:15. Hosea (2:15) says, "She shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of Egypt," referring both to Exodus, and to the song of Moses and Miriam; then again 11:1, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt:" alluding particularly to the language of Ex. 4 , 22, 23, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me." Amos (2:10) says, "Also I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and led you forty years through the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite." Besides the Exodus, and the sojourn in the wilderness there is also a reference to Gen. 15:16. Compare also Amos 3:1, and 5:25. Micah (6:5) refers to the history of Balaam.
1904 187 These prophets also show an accurate acquaintance with particular precepts. Thus, when Isaiah says (Isa. 1), "I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats;" in the original, the names of the animals are all masculine, because, according to the Mosaic Law, the males alone were lawful for burnt-offerings. In the next verse, "When ye come to appear before me," he uses the language of Ex. 34:24, respecting the three great feasts. In the thirteenth verse, "Bring no more vain meat-offerings: incense is an abomination to me: the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with. It is iniquity, even the solemn day of assembly." Isaiah not only refers to several Mosaic precepts, but shows the same exact knowledge. Thus, he puts meat-offering together with incense, because for the former the latter was required. See Lev. 2:1, 16, and Lev. 6:14-15. And, next to new moons and sabbaths, he mentions calling of assemblies or holy convocations, because these convocations were held at those times, as well as on the great Feasts: see the whole of the 23rd chapter of Leviticus.
Along with these holy convocations, he speaks of what is translated "solemn assembly;" but means particularly the seventh day of the feast of the Passover, and the eighth of that of Tabernacles. See Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35; Deut. 16:8. Again, in Isaiah 2:7, he complains, "Their land is full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots:" and in Isa. 31:1 he pronounces a woe against them "that go down to Egypt for help, and stay on horses, and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are strong." Without the Pentateuch it would be difficult to explain the sin of having horses and chariots. Deut. 17:16 tells us, that to have them, or to send down to fetch them, was forbidden by Jehovah. Isa. 3:14, "Ye have eaten up the vineyard," is an allusion to Ex. 22:5, "If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten and shall put in his own beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of his own vineyard shall he make restitution." The Hebrew word for "eat" is peculiar, and the same in both places, so as to leave no doubt of the allusion.
The prophet says (v. 26), "He will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss to them from the end of the earth, and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly." This is a citation from Deut. 28:49, where it is said, "The Lord shall lift up a nation against thee from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth." At the same time Isaiah shows that he is the later writer by the alteration of the words, "He shall lift up a nation," into "He shall lift up an ensign." The latter part of the verse in Deuteronomy, "A nation, whose language thou shalt not understand," is here omitted by the prophet, but it is referred to elsewhere in Isa. 28:11, and 33:19. Again in Isa. 30:16-17, there is a verbal citation of two passages of the law: "But ye said, No; but we will flee upon horses; therefore shall ye flee: and we will ride upon the swift; therefore shall they be swift that pursue you. One thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one; at the rebuke of five shall ye flee." Exact parallels are found in Lev. 26:8, "Five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; and in the threat, verse 17, "Ye shall flee when none pursueth you." Compare also Deut. 32:30. The reader will easily find many more.
But we must hasten on to the other and the so-called lesser prophets. Hosea, in Hosea 9:3, etc., refers to a number of the Mosaic commandments. "They shall eat unclean things in Assyria. They shall not offer wine [offerings] unto the Lord, neither shall they be pleasing to Him: their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourners: all that eat thereof shall be polluted; for their bread for their soul shall not come into the house of the Lord. What will ye do in the day of the appointed assembly, and in the day of the feast of the Lord?" And again, Hosea12:9 (10), "I will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the appointed feast," not "feasts" as in some English Bibles.
In like manner Amos says (Amos 8:10), "I will turn your periodical feasts into mourning." The Hebrew word is used especially of the Passover, Ex. 34:25; and of the feast of Tabernacles, Lev. 23:34. He uses the same word, Amos 5:1, and couples with it that peculiar word which we have translated above, "day of the solemn assembly."
The new moons and sabbaths are also mentioned, Hosea 2:11 (13), and Amos 8:5. In Amos 4:4-5, there is one short passage which shows an intimate acquaintance with many of the Levitic laws. It is this, "Come to Bethel and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression: and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years, and offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven, and proclaim and publish the freewill-offerings." Now here is, in the first place, an allusion to the continual burnt-offering, Num. 28; in the second place, to the tithe to be laid up at the end of three years, Deut. 14:28, and 26:13; in the third place, to the thank-offering, in which sacrifice alone leavened bread is permitted. In Lev. 2:11 it is expressly said, "No meat-offering which ye shall bring unto the Lord shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey in the offering of the Lord made by fire." But with regard to the thanksgiving offering an exception is made. First, it is said, Lev. 7:12, "If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then shall he offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers." But then it is added, "Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread, with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace-offerings." In the fourth place, the prophet speaks of the freewill-offering, mentioned in Lev. 22:18-21, and Deut. 12:6; so that the accuracy of agreement in this one passage goes far towards proving that the law of which Amos speaks is identical with that which we now possess.
In Amos 2:11-12, he speaks of the Nazarites in conformity with the command in Numbers 6. In 3:14 he mentions "the horns of the altar," commanded to be made, Ex. 27:2. Amos threatens, "The horns of the altar shall be cut off and fall to the ground." But how is this a threat? what damage was likely to ensue because the ornaments of the altar were removed? To understand this it is necessary to remember, that, according to the Mosaic law, in order to effect an atonement for individuals or for the nation, it was necessary that the blood of the sacrifice should be put on the horns of the altar, as we find in Lev. 4:7, "The priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation:" and again, in Ex. 30:10, "Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once a year, with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement. Once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations." This one threat presupposes, that the people threatened were well acquainted with these ordinances, and valued them so highly as to think deprivation a punishment.
These references may suffice to convince us that as these prophets are acquainted with the Law of the Lord, a written law, called "The Book," and at the same time refer to the history and ordinances — to the periodic Feasts generally, and the feast of Tabernacles specially — to the new moons and sabbaths, to the accurate distinction of the sacrifices into burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and thank-offerings — the nature of the animals required the — tithes the distinction of clean and unclean food — the Nazarites — the construction of the altar, the mode of atonement, etc. etc.; and all this in the language of our present Pentateuch, the law of which they speak is the same as that known to us, even if there were no other records in the world but the Pentateuch and the writings of these prophets. But when we remember that the Pentateuch has been traced up to the days of Hezekiah, when these prophets exercised their ministry; and that besides there are historic books recording such a state of things as the Pentateuch must necessarily have produced, we can entertain no doubt as to the existence of that book in the days of these prophets, that is, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and Jeroboam, king of Israel*.
{*The Book of Joel would bring us to the days of Joash, king of Judah. But as there is much difference of opinion as to the time in which he prophesied, and as the four prophets bring us to the times of the kingdom of Israel, it is unnecessary to adduce his evidence.}
A book received in the days of those kings and by such men as these four prophets, so intimately acquainted with the history of their people, so bold in contending against error and sin, and so zealous for the truth, could not have been a forgery of their own days, nor of those immediately preceding. It must have been received of old as the law of the Lord. Indeed, the fact that in their days, and long before, there were two rival kingdoms, two rival priesthoods, and two different systems of worship, makes it impossible that any new system of law could have been imposed by either of the kingdoms on the other. The priests in Bethel were not likely to receive a new law branding themselves as impostors, and their worship as idolatry; nor were the kings of Israel more inclined to acknowledge a law, which, if firmly believed, must put an end to their royalty. As, therefore, the Pentateuch existed in the days of Uzziah and Jeroboam 2 , and could not have arisen during any period of the schism, it must also have existed in the days of Rehoboam and Solomon. And this conclusion is confirmed by the historical books.* A state of things is there described, just such as would have arisen from the knowledge of the Pentateuch, and allusions are made to certain portions of that book.
{*Though German critics reject all that is supernatural in the historical books, and deny the authenticity of some passages of the narrative, they do not deny their general credibility. Thus Thenius says, concerning the Books of Kings, "The sections in the preceding paragraph under the rubric A. II. as belonging to an extract from the history of the Kings, possess the fullest claim to credibility. Those referred to in A. I., have a very slight tincture of the legendary … But by far the greatest portion of the contents admits no doubts as to their historic character. Even those sections enumerated under B. I. and II. are certainly not devoid of an historic basis, and we have no reason whatever to doubt the truth of that which is remarked by the Redactor himself." introduction to his Commentary to the Book of Kings, p. 8.}
Book of Kings.
In the kingdom of Judah, to which the whole body of the Levites gave in their adhesion, distinct traces of the Pentateuch may be found. In 2 Kings 14:6 it is related that Amaziah slew the murderers of his father, but the children of the murderers he slew not. The historian adds, "according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children for the fathers." But if the historian had omitted this reference, and only stated the fact, every attentive reader would have thought of Deut. 24:16, especially as Amaziah was a pious king, "who did that which was right in the sight of the Lord." In the reign of Joash there are several obvious allusions to the Pentateuch. Thus 2 Kings 12:16, "the trespass-money and sin-money was not brought into the house of the Lord: it was the priests'," is in conformity with the laws in Lev. 5:15-16, Lev. 7:7; Num. 5:18. Again, in ver. 4 we read, "And Joash said to the priests, All the money of the dedicated things that is brought into the house of the Lord, even the money of every one that passeth the account, the soul-money of his valuation, all the money that cometh into any man's heart to bring into the house of the Lord, let the priests take it unto them." Here are three sorts of money reckoned; first, "that of him who passeth" — our translators have put in "the account."
The language is that of Ex. 30:13, "Every one that passeth among them that are numbered:" the money is the half-shekel. As here for the Temple, so in Exodus this money was destined for the tabernacle of the congregation. Secondly, the money at which the persons, or souls, were valued, Lev. 27:2-8, "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons [Heb. souls] shall be for the Lord by thy estimation;" and thirdly, the freewill-money. Without the Pentateuch this verse would be unintelligible. Again, in describing the elevation of Joash to his kingdom, it is said, "And he brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon him, and the testimony." The word testimony here means "the Law," as Thenius says "The Law, a book in which the Mosaic ordinances were written. After the king had been adorned with the diadem, this was held over his head in a symbolical manner." In this sense the word testimony occurs Ps. 19:7 (8), where it is parallel to Torah, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;" on which words Hupfeld thus comments: "Testimony, common expression in the Pentateuch for the Mosaic Law, properly a testimony, inasmuch as it testifies the will of God especially against sin."
Thus a Book of the Law existed in the time of Joash; and as it also existed in the days of Uzziah, as we have already proved, it must be identical with it, that is, it must be identical with our present Pentateuch. About thirty years before, we find this book also mentioned. In 2 Chron. 17:7-9, we are told that Jehoshaphat sent five princes, nine Levites, and two priests to perambulate the cities of Judah, and teach the people; and they had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them. We have just seen that Thenius admits that there was such a book. Bertheau makes a similar admission here. He says, in his Commentary on the place, "The Book of the Law of the Lord was probably, in the opinion of the historian, our present Pentateuch. But if this book did not exist in the time of Jehoshaphat in its present form, there did certainly exist a collection of Mosaic laws; and it is possible that to make them known to the people was the task to be executed by those whom Jehoshaphat sent forth."* But, as there was a collection of Mosaic laws in the days of Joash, only thirty years distant from this time, it is highly improbable that it was different from that which had been taught to the people by the command of Jehoshaphat. That book which existed in the days of Jehoshaphat must have existed before. It could not have been new. It could not have been fabricated in the days of Ahaziah or Jehoram, and must therefore have existed in the days of Asa; and accordingly we read, 2 Chron. 15:12-13, that in the reign of Asa, Judah and Benjamin, and many out of the other tribes, "entered into the covenant, to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul, that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death." Now the idea of the nation entering into covenant with God is plainly taken from the Pentateuch. But here it is said, not merely that they entered into a covenant, but, as the Hebrew has it, into the covenant; and the great features of the covenant are described, "to seek to the Lord God of Israel," and "to put to death those who would not."
{*Comment. in loc.}
A known covenant must, therefore, have existed between God and the people. That covenant is described in Exodus 24. and Deut. 29, and the substance of the covenant thus described is the same as that here recorded. The beginning of the words of the covenant, in Exodus is G the first commandment, requiring Israel to worship God and none else. And amongst the words of the covenant, Ex. 22:20, is found the same sanction, "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." That described in Deut. 29 is precisely similar. They entered into covenant to have the Lord for their God, and to renounce all other gods, verses 12-21. In the description of Asa's zeal, the historian describes in some places in the very words of the Pentateuch that which the Pentateuch requires: "to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandment."
The Kings, and the Prophets.
1905 206 Asa brings us to the time of Jeroboam, the setter-up of the new kingdom and the new worship that existed in Israel from the days of the separation to the times of Hosea and Amos; and in all its institutions Jeroboam paid an involuntary homage to the Peutateuch. The object of worship was the golden calf, which the Pentateuch tells us was loved by the Israelites in the wilderness. The worship itself was inaugurated by the king in the very words used by Aaron on a similar occasion: — "Behold thy gods, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." The chief place of worship, "the king's sanctuary," was at Bethel, consecrated as "the house of God," by Jacob's vision and his vow. The Priests were of the lowest of the people; as the Levites, living amongst the ten tribes, remained faithful to the ancient worship of the law. The great feast was an imitation of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the reason for its appointment, lest the people should go up to Jerusalem, as the law required; so that every circumstance of the new religion of Jeroboam is a reference to the Pentateuch. Even the king's residences at Shechem and Penuel have their reminiscences of the law.
Thus, in all his arrangements he appears to have had the history and ordinances of the Pentateuch before his eyes. Jeroboam brings us to the time of Solomon, and Solomon to that of David; and here the allusions to the Pentateuch are so many that a small selection must suffice. In 1 Kings 2:28 it is related that Joab fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord, and caught hold on the horns of the altar; an unmistakable allusion to the construction of the altar, as commanded in the Law. On the horns also the blood was put, in order to procure forgiveness of God. Joab hoped, therefore, that his hold on these might procure him pardon from man. But the law, Ex. 21:14, commanded that the murderer should be taken even from the altar and slain; and, therefore, he was not pardoned. The expression, "Tabernacle of the Lord," is also remarkable, and shows the great reverence for that which was Mosaic. The Tabernacle at Jerusalem was that which David had erected as the receptacle for the ark of the covenant when he brought it up to Zion. It is, therefore, not called "The Tabernacle of the congregation," which was elsewhere. Though erected by a great and pious king, it did not obtain the title belonging to the original Tabernacle. In 1 Kings 3:4 we read that Solomon went to Gibeon to sacrifice; and, verse 15, that he sacrificed at Jerusalem. But even this apparent irregularity shows a reverence for that which was Mosaic. The Tabernacle of the Congregation, and the altar of burnt sacrifice, were at Gibeon (1 Chron. 16:1 37; 2 Chron. 1:3-5). The ark of the covenant was in the new Tabernacle on Zion. Therefore sacrifice was offered in both places. In the description of the Temple of Solomon we find all conformable to the original commands respecting the construction of the Tabernacle: the Holy of Holies, and the Holy place, and the court, and the altars, and the golden candlesticks, and showbread, and the Priests, and the Levites, at their respective duties. All was evidently arranged with the precepts of the Pentateuch before the eyes of the king and the priests; so that it is impossible to compare the two accounts in the Book of Kings and in the Pentateuch without coming to the conviction that the precepts of the latter were the same for the construction of the Temple.
But Solomon was an author; and some of his writings have been preserved; and in those universally received as genuine there are plain references to our Pentateuch. Thus, in Prov. 13:13, "Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed, but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded." Here" the word is parallel to "the commandment," and proves that Solomon knew of a divinely-revealed law, sanctioned by reward and punishment. Ewald translates somewhat differently, but acknowledges that "word" and "commandment mean revelation, saying in his note, "Who despiseth the word, that is, revelation and its doctrine, loses his true liberty." And again Prov. 19:16 "He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul: but he that despiseth his ways shall die." Here, again, "commandment" is used in the same sense and in the singular number, just as it is repeatedly in the Pentateuch to express the whole of revelation. Thus in Deut. 8:1, "the whole commandment [not "commandments" as in our English version] which I command thee this day ye shall observe to do." And again, Deut. 7:11, "Thou shalt keep the commandment, both the statutes and the judgments." The commandment includes both the statutes and the judgments.* The promise also, that the obedient shall live, and the transgressor die, is an allusion to the words of Moses, especially to Deut. 30:15: "I have set before thee life and good, death and evil." Bertheau, preferring the other reading (the K'thib), "He that despiseth his ways shall be put to death," finds another reference "to the common expression of the Mosaic law when it threatens capital punishment."** This reference to life and death is frequent, as in Prov. 11:4, 12 10:16; 18:21. The words in Prov. 10:27, "The fear of the Lord prolongeth days," are a direct reference to Deut. 6:2.
{*See also 11:8, 22; Deut. 15:5; Deut. 19:9; Deut. 27:1; Deut. 30:11.
**Comment. in loc.}
But besides these general references to the great sanctions of the Mosaic law, there are particular allusions to different places of the Pentateuch as, for instance, to Gen. 2. Thus Prov. 13:12, "When the desire cometh, it is a tree of life;" Prov. 15:4, "A wholesome tongue is a tree of life." Again, Prov. 10:18, "He that uttereth slander is a fool," uses the peculiar phraseology of the Pentateuch. The expression occurs only here and in Num. 13:32; Num. 14:36-37. In like manner, Prov. 10:23, "It is sport to a fool to commit impurity," can only be understood by reference to Lev. 18:17; Lev. 19:29. In Solomon's declaration, that "a false balance is an abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight" (Prov. 11:1) and again, "divers weights and divers measures, both of them are an abomination to the Lord" (Prov. 20:10, 23), the very words are taken from Lev. 19:36, and Deut. 25:13. The expression, "abomination to the Lord," is particularly to be observed. It occurs again Prov. 15:8, 26, and is taken from the Pentateuch, Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13; Deut. 7:26, Deut. 12:31, etc.
Again, the words, "He that walketh a talebearer revealeth secrets" (Prov. 11:13, Prov. 20:19), are taken from Lev. 19:16, "Thou shalt not walk a talebearer among thy people," and do not occur elsewhere, except Jer. 6:28, and Jer. 9:3. Again, in Prov. 11:26 we have the verb Shabar used in the sense "to sell corn." In this sense it occurs in no book written before Proverbs, except in the Pentateuch, and there it is found frequently, both in Genesis and Deuteronomy. But here in Proverbs the words, "Blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth," contain a beautiful allusion to the blessing of Joseph, that great seller of corn, Gen. 49:26. Again, 17:15, "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord," is the very language of the Pentateuch, Ex. 23:7, and Deut. 25:1. Again, Prov. 20:20 "He that curseth father or mother" are the very words of Ex. 21:17. Again, Prov. 20:25, "It is a snare to a man who devoureth that which is holy, and after vows to make inquiry" is a plain reference to Deut. 23:21, "When thou vowest vow, thou shalt not be slow to pay it," and to the numerous laws (Lev. 27:9-10, 14, 21) which forbid the alienation of any thing consecrated to the Lord.
These specimens (and more might be furnished) are sufficient to prove that both the contents and the language of the Pentateuch, as we possess it, were familiar to Solomon. And as from the history it is certain that a written Book of the Law existed in his days, this agreement in substance and diction proves beyond a doubt that our Pentateuch was extant in the days of the wise king; and if in the days of Solomon, then undoubtedly in the days of David and Samuel. Let us, then, see if there be traces in the books of Samuel and the Psalms of David.* But here the references are so many, that we can only select a few. In the first place, there are several references to the coming up out of Egypt. In 1 Sam. 15:2, we find in Samuel's address to Saul, "Thus saith the Lord, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way when he came out of Egypt;" and again, in the message of Saul to the Kenites (1 Sam. 15:6), "Go, depart you, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them; for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt," the exodus is distinctly mentioned; and the command to Saul, and Saul's message to the Kenites, are necessary parts of the narrative. The extirpation of the Amalekites is accounted for by the history of their ancient enmity and cruelty; and the preservation of the Kenites by their former kindness. Both are connected with the coming up out of Egypt, and the historic narrative of the Pentateuch.
{*In these days, when young gentlemen without study or learning set up for Biblical critics, and reject the Bible history, it may be well to quote the opinion of a veteran critic and rationalist, as to the Books of Samuel. In De Wette's Introduction, p. 263, 2:178, he says: — "The narrative with a few exceptions bears a genuine historic impress, and is derived, in part at least, if not from contemporaneous records, certainly from a lively and credible oral tradition (though occasionally obscure and confused), resting, it is true, in some places upon monuments, proverbs, and significant names … It is so rich in living traits of character and descriptions, that it rivals in this respect the best historical writing, and sometimes becomes biographic. The natural connection of events is also very satisfactory, though not always made sufficiently prominent." [Yet De Wette was still a rationalist. — Ed. B.T.].}
A second feature [and easily overlooked] in this history deserving of notice is, that Israel is described as having a public worship dependent upon a tabernacle and an ark of the covenant. The manner in which the ark is spoken of shows that it was well known. It is called "The ark of God" (1 Sam. 3:3); "The ark" (1 Sam. 6:13); "The ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts;" "The ark of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubim" (1 Sam. 4:3-4). At the same time, these descriptions of the ark can only be understood by remembering what is told us in the Pentateuch, that there was a covenant between God and Israel; that the Ten Commandments are called the words of the covenant; and that stone tables of the covenant were deposited in the ark. The mention of the Cherubim, without any explanation, also refers the reader back to Ex. 25:18, Ex. 37:7 and Num. 7:89; and without these references we cannot tell who or what the Cherubim were. Then, as to the Tabernacle, we find that there were priests to minister and Levites to serve, and that the place of its location was visited annually by Israelites from a distance, as in the case of Elkanah and his family: a circumstance easily explained if we remember the commands in the Pentateuch, and inexplicable without them.
There were sacrifices also, and the various observances relating to them agree minutely with the ordinances of the Pentateuch. In describing the wickedness of Eli's sons, the historian incidentally mentions the rites and ceremonies which they violated; and on considering them with attention, they agree exactly with what Moses had ordained. Thus, in 1 Sam. 2:12 and following verses, it is said, "Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial: they knew not the Lord. And the priest's custom with the people was, that when any man offered sacrifice, the priest's servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a flesh-hook of three teeth in his hand, and he struck it into the pan or kettle or pot: all that the flesh-hook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh with all the Israelites that came thither. Also, before they burned the fat, the priest's servant came and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest: for he will not have sodden flesh of thee but raw. And if any man said, Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth, then he would answer him, Nay, but thou shalt give it me now, and if not, I will take it by force."
1905 249 Now here are three transgressions described: first, that they took meat to which they had no right; secondly, that they took it in a wrong manner and, thirdly, that they took it at a wrong time. It is therefore evidently presupposed that the order to be observed had been fixed and was well known. In the Pentateuch that order is described, and perfectly agrees with what is here related. First of all, a certain portion was appointed for the priest, and it was not to be taken by himself but given by the sacrificer. See Deut. 18:3, and Lev. 7:29. With this compare also the account of the peace-offerings contained in chap. 3, from which it appears that the burning of the fat was an essential part of the sacrifice, as it is said, Lev. 3:3, "And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace-offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD, the fat that covereth the inwards … and Aaron's sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt-sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD." The anxiety therefore of a sacrificer, as described in the book of Samuel, that they "should not fail to burn the fat presently," as well as the sin of Eli's sons, is explained by the ordinances of the Pentateuch. And yet it is quite evident that the mention of all these particulars is incidental, though a natural and necessary part of the narrative.
But as yet there is no mention of the Levites, not even when it is related that the ark of the covenant was conveyed to the camp of Israel to help them against the Philistines. This appears an omission, but it is no contradiction; for in chap. 6:15, where is related the return of the ark to Bethshemesh, they who are not alluded to before or after in the book, are described as being at their proper work. "The Levites took down the ark of the LORD." No explanation is given, who they are, or why they should do it? To understand the circumstance related, the command (Num. 1:50-51) is absolutely necessary.
In the account given in this book of the use to which the Ephod was applied is contained one of the most convincing proofs of the existence and knowledge of the ordinances of the Pentateuch, and one of the best specimens of Dr. Hengstenberg's skill and diligence in investigating Scripture. In 1 Sam. 14:37, it is related that "Saul asked counsel of God." But how this was done we are not told; only we learn from 1 Sam. 14: 36, that the priest said, "Let us draw nigh hither unto God;" and from 1 Sam. 14:3, that Ahiah, the son of Ahitub, was the LORD'S priest in Shiloh "wearing an ephod." In 1 Sam. 22:10 Doeg tells Saul, that Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, had inquired of the LORD; and from chap. 23. we know that he did so by means of an ephod. In 1 Sam. 23:2-3, we are told that David twice inquired of the LORD; and in the following verses this is explained: "It came to pass, when Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand." And at 1 Sam. 23:9 we are told, that when David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him, he said to Abiather, "Bring hither the ephod." Then it is said, that David inquired and the LORD answered him; and again in 1 Sam. 30:7-8, David said to Abiathar, "I pray thee, bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought hither the ephod to David, and David inquired at the LORD."
Now here is a use of the ephod not mentioned in the Pentateuch, in any of the passages where the making and the purpose of the ephod are described. Num. 27:21 helps to solve the difficulty and explain the mystery. There, speaking of Joshua as Moses' successor, it is said, "And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the LORD." Here, the mode of asking counsel, namely, by the Urim, is made known, but there is no mention of the ephod. Ex. 28:30 informs us that the Urim and Thummim were in the priest's breastplate: and ver. 28, that this breastplate was inseparable from the ephod. "They shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof unto the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, that it may be above the curious girdle of the ephod, and that the breastplate be not loosed from the ephod." When therefore Abiathar brought the ephod, he brought also the breastplate of judgment, and therefore the Urim and Thummim by means of which the answer was given.
Thus the incidental mention of the ephod requires and presupposes an intimate knowledge of the ordinances of the Pentateuch, not found together, but scattered about in various places of that book. At the same time it is to be observed that the historian, though he does not mention the Urim and Thummim here, does mention them expressly in 1 Sam. 28:6, where he says, that "when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets." There are allusions to many other ordinances of the Pentateuch, as 1 Sam. 21:3-4; to the difference between the common bread and the showbread, Lev. 24:5, etc; Ex. 25:30. In 1 Sam. 14:32, to the prohibition to eat blood, Lev. 7:26, Lev. 17:10. In 1 Sam. 20:5, 18, 27, to the feast of the new moon; in ver. 26 also, to Deut. 23:11, and Lev. 7:20, and Lev. 15:5, 8-11. In 1 Sam. 28:3, to the Pentateuchal prohibition against consulting those who had familiar spirits, Deut. 18:10-11, and Lev. 20:27, etc.
In fact, in this book none can deny that we find all these ordinances of the Pentateuch: the tabernacle of the congregation, the ark of the covenant, the yearly visitation, the rejoicing with the whole household, the duties of the priests and Levites, the altar, the incense and the ephod, the Urim and Thummim, the priests' dues, and the manner in which they were to be received, the inquiring of the LORD by the priests, the new moon, the laws concerning ceremonial uncleanness, wizards and possessors of familiar spirits; and many of those described in the exact and peculiar language of the Pentateuch. And when to this we add, that the Pentateuch existed in the days of Solomon, to what other conclusion can we come than that it existed in the days of David also?
But, side by side with these historic records, there was from the time of David a series of hymns used in the public worship of Israel's God, and in the private devotions of His worshippers; and the total impression left by their perusal is, that the sweet singers of Israel were thoroughly imbued with the sentiments and the language of the Pentateuch. Many of them sing praises of the Law of the LORD, and many more refer to the history and great principles of the Pentateuch, so that if judged after the manner of human writings, one would say that the Pentateuch is the source and parent of that devotional literature which stands alone in the history of the ancient world. This grand impression no microscopic criticism can remove. The devotions of Israel all testify to the existence and power of the Pentateuch.
At the same time, a similar testimony may be elicited from the Psalms which confessedly belong to the times of David and Solomon. Thus, the eighth Psalm is an echo in the very words of Genesis 1. Ps. 29:10, "The LORD sat at the deluge (Mabbul), and sitteth a king for ever," is an unmistakable reference to the narrative of Genesis. The word Mabbul, deluge, is used only in these two places of the Bible. Ps. 11:6, "Upon the wicked he raineth snares (coals), fire, and brimstone," is an obvious reference to the history and language of Gen. 19; Ps. 110:4, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," to Gen. 14. Melchisedec is nowhere else mentioned in the Old Testament. The epithets of God in the Psalms also show knowledge of the Pentateuch. Thus in Ps. 132:1, "The mighty one of Jacob," occurs only in the Pentateuch (Gen. 49:24) before the time of David. "The God of Jacob," Ps. 20:1, and "The God of Israel," refer to the history of Jacob, and the change of his name. The sixty-eighth Psalm describes the majesty of God by a reference to the wonders of Egypt, the wilderness, and the giving of the Law at Sinai; and begins with the very words of Num. 10:35. Ps. 132:8-9 contains references to the ark, the holy garments of the priests (Ex. 40:13), and the joyful shout of the people (Lev. 9:24). Verse 12 refers to the covenant and the testimony, that is, the law. Ps. I. refers to "the statutes" as well as to the covenant by sacrifice. To enter into a discussion as to the authorship of other Psalms, which testify still more strongly as to the existence of the Book of the Law, is not possible here, nor is it necessary. Enough has been said to show, that in the days of David, Samuel, and Eli, the Pentateuch was known; and if so, it must have existed in the days of the Judges, and of its existence there are plain traces in the
Books of Ruth and Judges.
The nature of these documents forbids us to expect a detailed narrative of the progress of religion, or of rites and observance of public worship. The book of Ruth is a family record, a sketch from private life. The book of Judges is a collection of memoirs of the remarkable persons, whom the LORD raised up to defend or to deliver the invaded provinces of Israel, not even an outline of the history of the whole nation. Allusion therefore to priests or religious laws or even to those parts of the land not similarly exposed, must be few and incidental. Those that do occur are the more satisfactory and convincing.
The first thing to be observed with regard to these books is that the fundamental principle of the Pentateuch, the dependence of blessing or cursing on obedience or disobedience, is the hinge on which every particular history turns. This is the binding principle that holds all these separate narratives together. The prosperity of a poor Moabitish widow and the success of armies are made to depend upon the fear of the true God and, the practice of the true religion. National calamity is the consequence of disobedience. God is the God of Israel, and rewards or punishes: the LORD who revealed himself on Sinai, as Deborah tells us in that wonderful song which Ewald and others admit to be the genuine work of the prophetess. (Judges 5:4.)
In the next place, we find such a state of things as would naturally have arisen from the knowledge of the Pentateuch. There was a congregation, also a tabernacle of the congregation, here called the house of God, as in Samuel, Judges 20:18; and an ark of the covenant of God, ver. 27; and the practice of inquiring of the LORD, vers. 18 and 28, and a priest to make the inquiry, ver. 28; and Levites consecrated to the service of God, Judges 17:13, Judges 19:1; and an ephod, Judges 17:4 (Heb.) and burnt offerings and peace-offerings, Judges 20:26, and Nazarites, Judges 13:5, 7, and a yearly feast, Judges 21:19, where the words refer to the passover; and the duty of marrying a brother's widow, and the punishment of him who refused, Ruth 4; and the obligation to redeem, 4:3-5; and the prohibition to marry the heathen (Judges 14:3); and to eat that which is unclean, which caused Samson to conceal from his father and mother whence he got the honey, Judges 14:9; and the belief in the inalienability of that which was solemnly devoted to the Lord (Judges 11:35), and the duty of overthrowing idol-altars, (Judges 6:28). Now all these things mentioned in the language of the Pentateuch testify to its existence in the days of Judges, and bring us back to the time of Phinehas the son of Eleazar, who was himself an eyewitness of the giving of the Law, and the LORD'S dealings in the wilderness.*
{*Concerning these latter chapters Bleek says — "The liveliness of the representation and unmistakable accuracy of the narratives show that they are based upon trustworthy tradition, and make it probable that they were committed to writing at no very late period."}
The book of Joshua also gives the same evidence. But as without it we have traced the existence of the Pentateuch to a contemporary of Joshua and Moses, and as the controversies respecting the Book of Joshua would require much discussion, it is necessary to stop here for the present. The Pentateuch which we possess has been traced from the present time to the days when it was written; it must therefore be genuine. No apparent difficulties are sufficient to shake the testimony of the prophets and the historic books. In a book so ancient there may be many difficulties arising from the brevity of the narrative, from our ignorance of all the circumstances, from the errors of transcribers, etc., and some of them may be beyond the power of solution in the present day. But they who urge them as objections against the genuineness or authenticity are bound to account for the existence of the testimonies to which we have referred, and satisfactorily to set them aside before they ask us to reject what rests upon such an accumulation of evidence. The testimonies adduced can be examined by every reader of the English Bible. An attentive reader may find many more; and sure I am that he, who will take the trouble of patiently studying the Scriptures from Malachi to Joshua in reference to this subject, will arrive at the firm conviction that there never was a time in Israel from the days of Moses on, when the Pentateuch was unknown.
The New Testament.
But the Christian has still stronger reasons for believing in the genuineness and divine origin of the Pentateuch. He has the testimony of the Son of God and His inspired apostles. And here it is to be observed, in the first place, that our Lord and His apostles speak of the Pentateuch in the language common to the Jews in all times, as "The Law." Sometimes this expression was used of the Old Testament. But when spoken of in connexion with the other portions as, "The Law and the Prophets,"(Matt. 5:17-18; Matt. 7:12; Matt. 11:13; Matt. 22:40; Luke 16:16) or, "The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,"(Luke 24:44) it means the five books attributed to Moses. In the next place it is to be noted, that our Lord, the evangelists, and the apostles regard the Law as a divine revelation, and therefore possessing a divine authority. By St. Luke (2:23-24, 39), it is called "The law of the Lord." St. Paul (Romans 7:22) calls it "The law of God," He also teaches that obedience to the law gives life, transgression entails death (Rom. 7:7-11: compare Gal. 3:10). Again, when St. Paul cites the words of the Pentateuch, he ascribes them to God; for example, "God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk in them," (2 Cor. 6:16, compared with Lev. 26:11-12).
The whole system of New Testament doctrine concerning salvation, the guilt of man, the curse of the law, and redemption by the blood of Christ, rests upon the supposition that the Law is a divine revelation. In like manner the whole argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning Christ's priesthood, the nature of His atonement, the typification of the gospel in Levitical ordinances, necessarily presupposes the divine origin of the Law (Heb. 8:5; Heb. 10:1, etc.). Our Lord also ascribes divine authority to the Law. He refers to it as the highest authority (Matt. 12:5, and Luke 10:25-26), and speaks of its precepts as "The commandments of God" (Matt. 15:3). According to our Lord's teaching, the Law is so entirely divine, that "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one jot or tittle of the law to fail" (Luke 16:16-17), and therefore is to be violated by none (Matt. 5:19), "Whosoever shall break (or, weaken the authority, luo) of one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." To assert the divine authority of the Law more strongly, is impossible.
In the third place, it is to be observed, that our Lord and His apostles taught that the Pentateuch was given by Moses, that he was the penman and wrote the laws as given him by God. Thus the word "Moses" is frequently put instead of "the Law." So St. Luke says (24:27), "Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Again, our Lord says (Luke 16:29), "They have Moses and the prophets — if they hear not Moses and the prophets." In these places the name of Moses is put for what Moses wrote, as "the prophets" for their writings. Still stronger is what the Lord says (John 7:19), "Did not Moses give you the law?" In Luke 2:22, and Acts 15:5, it is called "The Law of Moses." Our Lord Himself says, "All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses" (compare Acts 28:23, and Acts 13:39).
No doubt it may, however, be said that the Pentateuch is called Moses and the Law of Moses, because it contains the history and some commands of Moses, on which was based the subsequent legislation; but that these expressions do not necessarily imply that Moses wrote the books. But the New Testament goes farther, and states distinctly that the books were written by Moses. In Matt. 22:24 the Jews said to our Lord, "Moses said;" in John 8:5, "Moses in the law commanded us;" again in Mark 12:19, and in Luke 20:28, "Moses wrote unto us." The Lord, in His reply, confirms this opinion as to the authorship of the law, saying, "Have ye not read in the book of Moses?" (Mark 12:26). In the parallel passage (Luke 20:37), our Lord says, "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called Jehovah the God of Abraham," etc. Moses can only be said to call God by that title by being the historian of what God had called Himself. The historian calls God the God of Abraham.
Moses therefore was the historian; and therefore our Lord says to the Jews (Mark 7:10), "Moses said, Honour thy father and mother," and again, when speaking of divorce (Mark 10:5), "For the hardness of your heart, he wrote you this precept;" and, in like manner (John 5:46-47), "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (Compare John 1:45-46; Acts 3:22). St. James says in like manner, "Moses is read in the synagogue every Sabbath day" (Acts 15:21), St. Paul says (Rom. 10:5), "Moses writeth (graphei) the righteousness of the law," referring to Lev. 18:5. It is evident therefore that our Lord and His apostles regarded the Pentateuch as the law of Moses, the book of Moses as the writings of Moses.
Fourthly, it appears also that they received the history which that book contains as true and authentic, the miraculous and supernatural as well as that which is according to the common course of nature. Thus in Mark 10:9 the Lord refers to the creation of Adam and Eve as historically true, and on the words of Adam founds His own command" What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." In Matt. 24:37 He refers to the deluge, the destruction of the world, and the preservation of Noah; in Luke 17:32, to the fire and brimstone which destroyed Sodom and the cities of the plain, and the transformation of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. So He refers to the appearance of God in the burning bush; the miraculous effect of looking at the brazen serpent; and the miraculous supply of manna, as typical of Himself, where the comparison necessarily implies the truth of the fact (John 3:14; John 6:49-51). Stephen repeats almost word for word the history of Abraham's miraculous call, the birth of Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve Patriarchs, the miraculous circumstances of the Exodus, and the giving of the Law (Acts 7).
Furthermore St. Paul compares the first and last Adam, and refers to the creation of the former from the dust of the earth (1 Cor. 15:21, 47, etc.), and to the creation of the woman (1 Cor. 11:7-9). He also refers to the temptation by the serpent, and the transgression of the woman, as real history (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13-14); and in Rom. 5:12 he founds an argument upon the fact that death entered by sin. In Rom. 4:19 he refers to the miraculous conception and birth of Isaac, and in Rom. 9:10-13, to the election of Jacob and the rejection of Esau, as true history. He makes the Passover the ground of an exhortation to holiness (1 Cor. 5:7-8) and presses upon the attention of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:1-3) the passage through the Red Sea, the guidance of the pillar and cloud, as well as the miraculous supply of water and upon that most miraculous trait in the history of the manna, that he that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had gathered little had no lack, he founds directions respecting the exercise of charity (2 Cor. 8:15). In 1 Cor. 10:8 he refers to Baal Peor; and in 2 Cor. 3:13, to the miraculous glory in the countenance of Moses. He evidently receives the whole as inspired, authentic, and authoritative; holy, just, and good; a schoolmaster unto Christ; when the one object of his life, to preach justification by faith without the law, would naturally have led him to depreciate its authority, if he had not been instructed by the Spirit to receive it as a divine revelation.
Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 11, reference is plainly made to the Mosaic history from Cain and Abel to the passage of the Red Sea, as well as to the circumstances of awe and majesty under which the Law was given (Heb. 12:18-21); to the wanderings and death of the rebellious Israelites (Heb. 3:7-19), and the early institution of the Sabbath.
St. James, it is clear, refers to the offering of Isaac (James 2:21); and St. Peter points to the example of Sarah (1 Peter 3:6), to the deliverance of Noah (2 Peter 2:5, 9, 15); the destruction of Sodom; and the dumb ass rebuking the madness of the prophet.
These direct references, not now to speak of the numberless allusions to the Pentateuch in all the writings of the New Testament, prove that Christ, and the apostles to whom He gave the Spirit to guide them into all truth, did not accommodate themselves to the popular belief of the Jews; but knew, and heartily believed in, the truth, the divine origin and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Christ's omniscience and the working of the Spirit of Truth in the apostles are sufficient warrant for the faith of every Christian man. Whether he can solve difficulties or not, he has the infallible testimony of Christ and His inspired apostles, and that is an answer to all objectors. He feels that he cannot reject the Pentateuch without renouncing his faith in his Saviour. Christ Himself has stated the indissoluble connexion between faith in the Pentateuch and faith in Himself. "If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
Bishop Colenso has proved in his own person the truth of the Saviour's appeal. He first rejects the Pentateuch; he then robs Christ of His Deity, by denying His Omniscience. According to him, Christ's knowledge as to "the authorship and age of the different portions of the Pentateuch "did not surpass that of the most pious and learned of His nation."" In perfect consistency with these sentiments, when he rejects Moses and the Pentateuch, he does not ask us in order to fill up the aching void, to fall back upon Christ and the Gospels, but upon the theology of the Sikh Gurus, and other heathen, "who had no Pentateuch or Bible to teach" them. And this is in fact the drift of the new theology, to bring us back to scientific heathenism. Bishop Colenso has spoken out what others have been mumbling in dark sentences. But whilst it is possible to contrast the condition of Christendom with that of the Hindus, the Chinese of the present day, or the great nations of classical antiquity, — the republic of Moses with the republic of Plato — the power of Christ's doctrine with the effects of the teaching of Socrates, — we think it more agreeable to reason, as well as to piety, to refuse the new heathenizing theories; to abide by the old catholic doctrine, and hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints. [We are indebted to the late pious and learned Alexander M'Caul, D.D. for this masterly refutation of these shallow attacks borrowed from German sources by deluded Englishmen, as apposite today as more than forty years ago in his Examination of Bp. Colenso's Difficulties (London, Rivingtons, Waterloo Place). — Ed. B.T.]