Its Nature
IT is perhaps needless to say that the Bible was not actually written by the physical hand of God.
On two occasions—and on two only (excluding the writing on Belshazzar’s wall)—we read of the Deity writing: once in the Old Testament and once in the New; but on each occasion the writing was twofold. In the one case it was in connection with the giving of the law; in the other, in connection with an act of special grace on the part of the Lord Jesus: e.g. the Ten Commandments on the tables of stone given to Moses were, we are told, “written with the finger of God” (Ex. 31:1818And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God. (Exodus 31:18) and 32:16.—see also Ex. 34:11And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest. (Exodus 34:1)); and in John 8:66This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. (John 8:6) and 8 we read how twice over “Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.”
But such is the heart of man that both those writings were quickly obliterated. The tables of stone were dashed in pieces at the feet of idolatrous Israel; while the record on the Temple floor—whatever it may have been—was soon trampled upon by Pharisees and Scribes.
And although there may be a far deeper significance in these two remarkable facts than we yet see, it is possible that they may have been recorded as a solemn prophetic testimony against the treatment which the Word of God—both Old and New Testaments—was likely to receive at the hands of man, who, as the history has shown, breaks God’s laws and tramples upon the gospel of His grace.
It pleased God, however, that His messages of law and grace, instead of being actually written by His own hand, should be communicated to man through the intermediary of His servants, whom He specially fitted for the sacred task. This fitting of the writers of the Bible is what is known as Inspiration.
As to the divine method of inspiration—i.e. the manner in which God communicated His thoughts and words to the writers of the Scriptures—there is really very little indeed to help us.
Let it, however, at once be said we do not believe that it partook of the nature of mechanical dictation, nor have we ever met anyone who viewed inspiration in that light. Such a theory is absolutely impossible, for it is perfectly clear that the writers of whom anything at all is known not only maintained but strikingly betrayed their own undoubted individuality. The stern character of Moses, the poetic nature of David, and the love of John are clearly stamped upon their particular writings. So that, instead of these men being turned into mere machines, as the critics unwarrantably charge us with suggesting, their several individualities were evidently made use of by God the Holy Spirit in inspiring them to write His Book, which was intended to be read by “all sorts and conditions of men.”
What then have the writers themselves to say on this subject of inspiration? Here are a few specimens:
In the case of Moses, we are told that “God spake these words” (Ex. 20:11And God spake all these words, saying, (Exodus 20:1)); “And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord” (Ex. 24:44And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. (Exodus 24:4)); and in repeating them to the children of Israel he was able to say, “These are the words which the Lord hath commanded” (Ex. 35:11And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them. (Exodus 35:1)).
Isaiah said, “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord has spoken” (Isa. 1:22Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. (Isaiah 1:2)).
Now it will be observed that, although prophets and apostles have made it perfectly clear that their messages were absolutely and wholly from God—i.e. they were written under inspiration—yet none of the writers tell us just how the operation took place.
Indeed, the probability is that they did not always know themselves; when Jeremiah was first inspired he seemed for the moment quite unconscious of the fact, so that God had actually to tell him “Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth” (Jer. 1:99Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. (Jeremiah 1:9)). The fact is, this is one of those “secret things which belong unto the Lord our God” (Deut. 29:2929The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)); and hence any attempt to define the exact nature or method of inspiration can only engender fruitless discussions, which must end in confusion. What we are told is that “holy men spake as they were moved [carried or borne along] by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:2121For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)).
Inspiration—Verbal
So much has been written and said against verbal inspiration that it is no wonder that those who have not looked carefully into the subject should have their faith somewhat shaken. Let us, therefore, now test this subject. It will bear examination, and the mere study of it will, I hope, prove both instructive and profitable.
Now, I have noticed that all, or nearly all, of those who deny verbal inspiration argue that it is a matter of little or no importance. One writer, referring to dates and figures which he assumes to be contradictory, because he has apparently not studied then with sufficient care, actually dares to say, “The Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible knew that these little details of genealogies and battles, and such like, in the history of Israel, were not a whit more important to us than similar details in the history of England!”
Quite apart from the irreverence of such a gratuitous assertion as to what the Holy Spirit knew, anyone who has studied the works of God in nature knows that if there is one thing that appeals to mind and heart more than another, it is the marvelous care bestowed by the Almighty upon the minutest details; and the closer the examination the more this is apparent. For instance, while the point of the finest steel needle ever made by man, looked at under a microscope, appears as coarse as a rusty poker, the sting of a common wasp—God’s handiwork—is so marvelously constructed that when examined under the strongest glass, it is impossible to detect the slightest roughness or irregularity in it. Truly “His work is perfect” (Deut. 32:44He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deuteronomy 32:4)).
If, therefore, perfection is carried into such amazing detail in a short-lived insect, surely we should shrink from so blasphemous a thought that the same Almighty Creator has been careless and indifferent about the details of His Word, which He has magnified above all His name (Psa. 138:22I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:2)), which is to endure forever (1 Peter 1:2525But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. (1 Peter 1:25)), and upon which the hope of myriads of souls is based.
But what will my reader think when I tell him that the same writer, quoted above, says on the very next page, referring to these supposed discrepancies, “Perhaps they could be reconciled if we knew all the facts”? Then why does he go out of his way to shake men’s faith in the Bible, by attributing inaccuracy to its records, when he acknowledges that he does not know all the facts and is, therefore, not competent to sit in judgment upon the Book whose Divine Author did know all the facts?
On the other hand, however, those who hold that the Bible is verbally inspired reverently recognize that this question lies at the very foundation of our faith. And “if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psa. 11:33If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)).
In this connection the following testimonies are worth recording:
Clement of Rome, who lived about A.D. 90, said “the Scriptures are the true words of the Holy Ghost.”
Augustine also contended for the infallible accuracy of every word of Scripture.
Professor Gaussen says, “The Scriptures are given and guaranteed by God even in their very language.”
Dr. Lee’s Inspiration, page 14, says, “Matters of science and geographical details, mentioned in the Bible, are stated with infallible accuracy.”
The Dean of Westminster, in an address delivered in Westminster Abbey on December 3rd, 1904, said, “If the Bible was inspired by a Divine Spirit, how could it record what did not actually take place? If an element of human misconception and mistake was to be recognized in the Bible, how could we regard it any longer as an inspired Book, or use it as an infallible guide of life?” And then, after speaking of some of the Bible difficulties, he said, “Behind and beneath the Bible, above and beyond the Bible, was the God of the Bible.” Herein lies the true and only explanation of the mystery of inspiration.
Even the Roman Catholic Church—in spite of its inconsistent attitude towards the Bible—declared at the Vatican Council of 1870 that the Scriptures “contain a revelation without error. Having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their Author.” Similar language was also used at the Council of Trent.
Now, I am quite aware that the foregoing testimonies, although of great weight, are really, after all, but the expression of human opinions.
I hope, however, before closing this chapter, to be able to produce such real and tangible evidence as, with the blessing of God, will not leave my reader in any doubt.
For the moment, however, the argument stands thus. If the Bible is verbally inspired there should be—there can be—no errors in it; for God could not make a mistake. If, on the other hand, it is not fully and verbally inspired, then the assumption is that some parts are from God, while other parts are purely human; in these latter parts we should naturally expect to find errors.
In regard to the first proposition, it should never be forgotten that, in spite of all the critics have said, no error or contradiction of any kind has ever been proved to have existed in the Scriptures as originally given by God.
And as to the second proposition, we naturally ask, how much of the Bible is inspired, and how much uninspired? How are we to know? Who will come forward and draw the line between the divine and the human? Surely the thoughtful mind will recognize here the hand of the Evil One; for, while this would encourage some to play fast and loose with the Book by striking out unpalatable passages as uninspired, it would also tend to draw others towards Rome, whose priests are all too ready to act as interpreters to bewildered souls.
Now, quite apart from the direct claims which the Scriptures make to verbal inspiration, and to which we shall refer later, it is remarkable how the Holy Spirit in the New Testament gives indirect, but unanswerable, testimony to the verbal inspiration of the Bible by laying stress not only upon the word that was used in the Old Testament, but even upon the tense and a mere letter.
The following passages will illustrate this fact without any further quotations:
1. Hebrews 12:2727And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. (Hebrews 12:27). The writer of this epistle, quoting from Haggai 2:66For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; (Haggai 2:6), elaborates an important argument concerning the future judgment from the simple words, “Yet once more.”
2. Luke 20:3737Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. (Luke 20:37). Here the Lord Jesus proves to the Sadducees the doctrine of the Resurrection by reminding them of the tense used by God when He spoke to Moses, centuries after the patriarch had been dead—viz. that He did not say “I was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” but “I am.”
3. Galatians 3:1616Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16). Here the Holy Spirit, writing by the apostle Paul, proves the necessity of simple faith in Christ apart from the works of the Law, by calling attention to a single letter “s” in the Old Testament— viz. “He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy Seed, which is Christ.”
Moreover, it should be remembered that the Holy Spirit has distinctly stated, in 2 Timothy 3:1616All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16), that Scripture is given, not only for reproof, but also for “correction.” Now let me ask the reader, how could an incorrect book be expected to correct us? and yet this is only one of many such problems raised by those who deny verbal inspiration.
Words Inspired, Not Thoughts Merely
Then, again, there are those who tell us that it was the thoughts that God inspired, not the words— leaving the writers of Scripture free to clothe those divine thoughts in their own words; so that it is, alas! not uncommon to be told from our pulpits that the Bible contains the Word of God, but is not such in its essence.
Now the remarkable thing about this is that it is exactly the reverse of the truth. If the testimony of Scripture is to be believed, God always gave the words, but He did not always give the thoughts! This is made perfectly clear by the following passages, viz.—
1 Peter 1:10, 1110Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (1 Peter 1:10‑11). “Of which salvation the prophets have inquired, and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.”
Again, Daniel 12:88And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? (Daniel 12:8) and 9: “I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And He said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”
Here we find Daniel writing words given him by divine inspiration which he could not understand!
Moreover, what could the psalmist have understood about the parting of the garments (Psa. 22:1818They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. (Psalm 22:18)), or the piercing of the hands and feet (Psa. 22:1616For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (Psalm 22:16))? Now, consider the remarkable detail of these predictions, and then imagine the awful blunders that must have occurred had the wording of such mysterious prophecies been left to the writer’s choice—especially when we remember that death by crucifixion was not a Jewish practice at all, but Roman, and in its earliest form was not accomplished by piercing the hands and feet, but by tying with ropes.
There are no less than 333 prophecies in the Old Testament which center in the person of the Messiah —every one of which, relating to His earthly life, has been fulfilled to the letter. But what a shameful exhibition of human ignorance would have been revealed had any one of these prophecies not been compassed by verbal inspiration!
Or take the account of the Creation. If Moses had been left to write those early chapters of Genesis in his own words, instead of the existing account—marvelous alike for its brevity, comprehensiveness, and scientific accuracy—what a mass of hopeless confusion must have been the result! as witness the Chaldean Legends for example.
Or, again, if John had been left to write in his own words the account of the things which must be hereafter, who could profitably have studied those mysterious visions?
Everyone knows that, according to the forecasts of some uninspired prophets, the late King Edward ought to have died in 1902; and the world should have come to an end about half a dozen times during the last thirty years!
There was one man—Balaam—who, while under inspiration, made repeated attempts to speak his own words for the sake of reward (Jude 11Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: (Jude 1)), but found it an absolute impossibility (Josh. 24:1010But I would not hearken unto Balaam; therefore he blessed you still: so I delivered you out of his hand. (Joshua 24:10)), and had to make this remarkable confession: “Have I now any power at all to say anything? The word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak” (Num. 22:3838And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak. (Numbers 22:38)).
Three Witnesses to Inspiration
Notwithstanding all that has been said, we readily admit that there are passages in the Bible that we can neither understand nor explain. In other words, there are depths in God’s Book that the mind of man cannot fathom. In Isaiah 7:1414Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14) we read, “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” It is needless to point out that upon no physical or scientific grounds whatever can such a statement be understood. Mere human wisdom would inevitably write it down as a palpable mistake. Indeed, it must have staggered the most reverent students of prophecy for seven hundred years. And yet in God’s own time it was verified to the letter (Luke 1:26-3126And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (Luke 1:26‑31)).
Or, again, how could the Second Person in the Trinity (who, as God, was unapproachable by death) die—the essential value of His death being His divinity?
Are we to sit in judgment upon such passages and put them down to mistakes due to the ignorance or carelessness of the writers? or reverently to remember that “whatsoever things were written aforetime [whether we can understand them or not] were written for our learning” (Rom. 15:44For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (Romans 15:4)), not for our criticism?
Surely these unfathomable depths—far from being signs of weakness or failure—are signs and seals of the divine origin of the Book; for if any mere man could thoroughly master the Bible from beginning to end, might we not be justified in questioning its divine origin?
In this connection we need to lay to heart the words of Ecclesiastes 11:55As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all. (Ecclesiastes 11:5) “As thou knowest not what is the way of the Spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”
But now let us call our witnesses. We will take:
1. The testimony of the spade.
2. The testimony of the Scriptures themselves.
3. The testimony of Christ.
Then we will deal with some of the more important of the supposed errors and contradictions.
1. The testimony of the spade—that is, the discoveries which have been made in recent years in Bible lands.
Now it is a fact, which the critics cannot deny, that all the recent discoveries in Egypt and other Bible lands, which have any relation to Scripture, speak with one united voice, testifying to the accuracy of the statements of the Bible.
For instance, the treasure city of Pithom, built for Rameses II. by the Hebrews during the time of their hard bondage in Egypt (Ex. 1:22Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, (Exodus 1:2)), has recently been unearthed near Tel-el-Kebir; and the walls of the houses were found to be made of sunbaked bricks, some with straw and some without straw, exactly in accordance with Exodus 5:77Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves. (Exodus 5:7), written 3,500 years ago: “Ye shall no more give the people straw to make bricks, as heretofore.”
Again, for many years there were great questionings as to the accuracy of 2 Kings 18:1414And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. (2 Kings 18:14), where the Holy Spirit records that the King of Assyria made Hezekiah, King of Judah, pay a tribute of “three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.” When the Assyrian records of this transaction were discovered—the accuracy of which no one questioned, being Sennacherib’s own account—the amount of the tribute was there stated as eight hundred talents of silver, not three hundred as in 2 Kings 18:1414And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. (2 Kings 18:14); while the number of talents of gold was the same as the Scripture record, thirty. For some time it was felt that there was no way of reconciling the different figures, and therefore one or other of them must be wrong; and of course, as usual, the inspired record was condemned. Nothing but a little patience was, however, needed, for we now know by more recent discoveries that the difference in those figures, far from proving the existence of a mistake in either record, constitutes a most remarkable testimony to the accuracy of both; for while the standard for calculating talents of gold was the same in Judea and Assyria, that for the talent of silver was quite different. In fact, it took exactly eight hundred Assyrian talents of silver to equal three hundred Hebrew talents—just as it takes twenty shillings to make an English pound, while a Turkish pound only represents about eighteen shillings. And thus, in what was supposed to be a mistake, the minute accuracy of the Word of God was once more demonstrated.
Another case, perhaps even more remarkable, is that of the mention in the book of Daniel of Belshazzar as King of the Chaldeans. Until quite recently there was no such name to be found in all Chaldean or other ancient history—nor indeed in all literature—although there existed an apparently complete list of the Babylonian kings, leaving no gap for the insertion of any other. And, to make matters worse, this list gave the name of the king—Nabonidus—who was actually reigning at the very time when the Bible account claimed that Belshazzar was king. Here was a case for the critics, supported by every known record, against the Bible, which stood absolutely alone.
But here again time and the spade did their work well. In 1854 Sir Henry Rawlinson discovered in “Ur of the Chaldees” some terra-cotta cylinders containing an inscription by the above-named Nabonidus, in which he makes mention of “Belshazzar, my eldest son.” This was a step in the right direction, as it proved two things— (1) that there was a man named Belshazzar, and (2) that, being the son of Nabonidus, he lived in Babylon at the very time Daniel said he did. But there still remained this difficulty—how could he be King of the Chaldeans, while every ancient record showed that his father Nabonidus was the last reigning monarch?
A little more time, and a little more spade, and the seeming contradiction was all cleared up, confirming to the letter this lonely Scripture record.
In 1876 Sir Henry Rawlinson made one of the most remarkable discoveries ever known up to that time. His workmen were excavating an ancient part of Babylon when they came upon some jars filled with more than two thousand cuneiform tablets—i.e. tablets bearing inscriptions in the wedge-shaped characters of ancient Babylonia and Persia. One of these was found to contain an official account, by no less a personage than Cyrus, King of Persia, of the invasion of Babylon, in which, after stating that Nabonidus first fled and then was taken prisoner, he adds that on a certain “night ... the king died.” Now, seeing that Nabonidus, who was taken prisoner, lived for a considerable time after the fall of Babylon, this “king” could have been none other than Belshazzar, of whom the old discredited Bible recorded long ago that “in that night was Belshazzar, King of the Chaldeans, slain” (Dan. 5:3030In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. (Daniel 5:30)).
It is now evident that Belshazzar was acting as regent during his father’s absence—indeed, he is actually referred to as King in another ancient inscription of a legal document, which is dated in the third year of King Belshazzar, only the name is spelled in a slightly different way.
Moreover, the fact which has thus come to light, that Nabonidus and Belshazzar his son were both reigning at the same time, explains, as nothing else could, Belshazzar’s offer to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom (Dan. 5:1616And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom. (Daniel 5:16))—Nabonidus being the first, and Belshazzar, the Regent, the second; otherwise Daniel would doubtless have been made second ruler, as Pharaoh made Joseph.
This is another case in which two apparently contradictory accounts were both equally correct. The Chaldean historian was correct in saying that Nabonidus was king, while the old Bible was equally accurate in saying that Belshazzar was king.
But further evidences accumulate even while I write. The question has often arisen in many minds as to how the Israelites became possessed of so much gold and silver, as was required for the furniture and appointments of the Tabernacle (see Ex. 25). Was it likely that the Egyptians either could, or would, allow the Hebrews to carry away the immense quantity of treasure which was required for such purposes?—to say nothing of the immorality on the part of the Hebrews in “borrowing” that which they never intended to repay!
As to this latter question the Revised Version shows that the word is not “borrow” at all, but simply “ask.”
“And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses, and they asked of the Egyptians jewels of silver and jewels of gold and raiment ... so that they [not “lent” them, but] let them have what they asked” (Ex. 12:3535And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: (Exodus 12:35) and 36).
So that there was no immorality at all; it was a perfectly straightforward transaction.
As to their willingness to part with such wealth, we must remember that there were those even amongst the servants of Pharaoh who “feared the word of the Lord” (Ex. 9:2020He that feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses: (Exodus 9:20)). It is, therefore, most natural to assume that many of them would sympathize with the Hebrews in the merciless treatment to which they had so long been subjected at the hands of the Egyptian authorities. Indeed, we are distinctly told twice over that “the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians” (Ex. 11:33And the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people. (Exodus 11:3) and 12:36); while many more, after the terrible experiences of the plagues which had devastated their land and darkened their homes, would be only too anxious to offer some substantial gifts in the superstitious hope that the God of the Hebrews might be thereby propitiated, His wrath appeased, and their land saved from further plagues.
All this, however, seems reasonable enough to an impartial mind; but there still remains the far more practical question, was gold and silver really so plentiful at that time in Egypt as to make such a thing probable or even possible? For it must be acknowledged that the quantities of these precious metals carried away by the Hebrews must have been enormous. The gold used in the construction of the candlestick alone (Ex. 25:3131And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same. (Exodus 25:31), etc.) represented in our money over 45,000.
This difficult question has, however, at length been answered, in the providence of God, in a way which leaves no possible room for doubt, by a discovery made by Mr. Theodore M. Davis as recently as February 1905, which The Times describes as “the most important discovery ever made in Egypt!”
On Sunday, February 12Th, Mr. Davis, in his excavations, came upon a royal tomb of the 18th Dynasty—the time of the Exodus—which, when entered, was found to be full of treasures of priceless value. The contents were examined in the presence of the Duke of Connaught and Professor Maspero, the chief feature of which was the lavish quantity of gold and silver— “gilded masks,” “a chariot broad enough to hold two persons... encrusted with gold,” plaster heads coated with gold, “a box stool resplendent with gold and blue enamel,” “gilded handle of a mirror,” a figure of a female slave offering a princess a golden collar; while an inscription tells us that the gold had been brought from “lands of the south.”
The Times article then goes on to say that this discovery “has revealed one striking fact—the ostentatious, not to say vulgar, display of wealth which distinguished Egyptian society in the later days of the 18th Dynasty. We had learned from the Tel-el-Amarna tablets that Egypt was at that time the California of the civilized world—a land where, as the correspondents of Pharaoh reiterate, ‘gold is as plentiful as dust,’ and in the profusion with which the precious metal has been lavished on the contents of the newly discovered tomb their words receive a striking illustration. There was nothing, however mean or insignificant, which was not literally plated with the gold of the desert mines.”
In the light of this new discovery, how easy it is to understand the Egyptians giving to the Hebrews great quantities of gold, etc., at a time when that precious metal was “as plentiful” in their land “as dust!”
2. The testimony of Scripture. Having considered the testimony of the spade, we now come to the testimony of Scripture.
If language means anything, the following two passages—even apart from others we quote later—ought to settle this question of inspiration forever. The first is:
How marvelously, in this one verse, the Holy Ghost had anticipated, and, we should have thought, finally disposed of, the two great points on which this whole controversy hangs! For notice, first, we are told how the Bible did not come. Now, the critics say that parts of it came by the will of man—and hence the mistakes; but here we see that the Holy Spirit corrected this notion 1,900 years ago, and declares that it came not at any time by the will of man. Then we are also told how it did come. Again, the critics deny that the Holy Ghost is the Author of the whole of the Bible; but before there were any critics He recorded His own testimony that holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But note, if there is one word which is purely and solely human (and the critics say there are many), then so far it follows that (1) it did come at some time by the will of man, and (2) holy men were not always moved by the Holy Ghost when they wrote it. And if this be so, then this plain and solemn declaration of Scripture is absolutely incorrect and unreliable. There is no other possible conclusion. Personally, I prefer to “let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:44God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. (Romans 3:4)).
Why the revisers should have rendered this passage differently, it is impossible to say; for, as Dr. Bullinger points out, there are several other passages in the New Testament of exactly the same Greek construction, all of which are consistently translated on the principle of the authorized translation of this text, while they make an exception in this case, which they inconsistently render, “Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable.”
The translation thus rendered is most unprofitable. Indeed, it is one of the most unhappy renderings to be found in the Revised Version; and in view of its inconsistency with other similar passages—quite apart from other considerations—cannot possibly be upheld.
It almost makes one tremble to think that there are men who, in the face of such a passage as this, dare to say that all Scripture is not given by inspiration of God; and yet this is what the critics teach.
Here is what one very moderate writer says: “They find, for example, clear traces in the histories that the writers, instead of having the words dictated to them by God, had to use their own brains, and search old annals and traditions and court archives for materials; they find, with all their search, there are often discrepancies in their accounts; they find the evangelists, while fully agreeing in the substance of their narratives, are by no means careful about literal words—as, for example, their record of the inscription on the Cross, where no two of them exactly agree.... They find words spoken in the imprecatory psalms which would be very unfit for the lips of our Lord.”
On page 137 I have dealt specially with the inscription on the Cross, and on page 103 with the imprecatory psalms.
Let us now look at a few other passages out of very many—all of which speak in unmistakable language as to the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, showing that the very words used by the writers were the words of God.
Such passages might easily be multiplied, testifying, as the Scriptures do throughout, that the writing was the writing of God. And hence it is that we so often meet with the expression, “That the Scriptures might be fulfilled” (John 19:2424They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. (John 19:24) and 36), or “For thus it is written by the prophets” (Matt. 2:55And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet, (Matthew 2:5)).
3. The testimony of Christ.
Is it not very remarkable that the Lord Jesus spent the whole of His public earthly ministry in expounding the Old Testament Scriptures, and never once—even by the slightest hint—warned any one about the existence of these supposed errors? Is it not very unlike our Lord, when we remember in what scathing language He showed up and denounced the errors of His day (Matt. 23), and how quick He was to detect and to correct errors or faults even in His own people (Luke 9:5555But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. (Luke 9:55)), that He should have known—as He must have known—of these errors, and yet that He should have remained absolutely silent about them? Had any such errors really existed, would He not as “the faithful and true witness” (Rev. 3:1414And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; (Revelation 3:14)), have sounded a warning note, making it clear that certain passages had somehow got into the Old Testament Scriptures which were not inspired by His Spirit and were therefore not trustworthy; knowing—as none else could know—how many myriads of souls would be staking their eternal wellbeing upon some of the very words of Scripture?
But instead of this, what do we find? Why, we find His unfailing testimony to be exactly the opposite. Whenever our Lord referred to the Scriptures, He invariably did so in terms calculated to inspire the most absolute confidence in every word. And the whole record of His life fails to furnish one single exception to this rule.
Here are His words:
“Verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:88Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (Matthew 5:8)).
Now seeing that “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” was the expression used by the Jews to represent the whole of the Old Testament, how could such words have been used by our Lord if any parts of those Scriptures were uninspired and incorrect?
But more than this, not only did our Lord Jesus again and again give His direct testimony to the inspiration of the Scriptures; not only did He never utter one word which could possibly lead His hearers to expect any flaw in those Scriptures, but, in addition to this, it is recorded for our instruction that He solemnly charged His disciples with folly and slowness of heart because—like the critics of the present day—they did not believe all that the Prophets had spoken: “O, foolish ones and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:2525Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: (Luke 24:25)). Evidently, they believed some of the things, but others which they could not understand, they apparently questioned. The prophecies concerning a Messiah who was to suffer and yet to enter into His glory (Luke 24:2626Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? (Luke 24:26)) may have been very perplexin, and difficult to reconcile, but they were nonetheless true, as our Lord reminded His disciples when He said, “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day” (Luke 24:4646And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (Luke 24:46)). And when, in the light of eternity, we no longer see through a glass darkly, we shall be able to say concerning every difficult and dark passage, “Thus it is written, and thus it has come to pass.”
There is, however, abroad among the critics a blasphemous suggestion that our Lord’s testimony on this subject is invalidated, because, they dare to say, He partook of the ignorance and shared in the prejudices of His day! To support their theory, they would probably refer to Mark 13:3232But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32), where Christ, speaking of His own return (Mark 13:2626And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. (Mark 13:26)), says, according to the authorized translation, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”
It ought, however, to be more widely known that the Greek translated “but” consists of two words, the simple English of which is “if not”—thus, ei= if and me= not, or it might be equally well rendered “but as.” Archbishop Trench, when lecturing to a London college, called attention to this nearly fifty years ago; and it can be seen by any one on reference to a good Greek lexicon. So that the clause should read, “Neither the Son if not (or, but as) the Father,” Christ thereby asserting not His ignorance, but His divinity; for if He were not actually and really one with the Father, even He would not have known.
This is undoubtedly the correct reading of this much-misunderstood passage, in which there seems to be a distinct reference to the Messiah’s title as given in Isa. 9:66For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6), “the Everlasting Father” And hence the literal truth of Christ’s words to Philip, “he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (John 14:99Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? (John 14:9)).
So that the actual words used by our Lord, instead of being a confession that His knowledge was limited, are in reality a declaration of His omniscience—since He claimed in this very passage to be One with the Father, and as such knew all things.
Thus we see how very definitely the doctrine of the full inspiration of the Bible is attested (1) by recent discoveries, (2) by the Scriptures themselves, and (3) by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Difficult Passages
But I can now imagine I hear my reader saying, “all this sounds very well as an argument; but after all, theory and fact are often two very different things. For, while on the one hand the case for verbal inspiration seems clear enough theoretically, nevertheless, on the other hand, there are passages sometimes brought before one which seem incapable of reconciliation with other parts of Scripture, and therefore appear to make such a theory altogether false.”
This is perfectly sound reasoning. We will therefore look at some of the principal difficulties, which are held up to us in proof that the Bible is not verbally inspired, and see for ourselves what there is in this argument.
Jonah and the Whale
This story furnishes one of the most popular objections to the inspiration of the Bible.
It is strange, however, that those who take exception to this story invariably argue from the weakest possible standpoint—viz. that it is incredible that a whale should swallow a man, inasmuch as “science will not hear of a whale with a gullet capable of admitting anything larger than a man’s fist”; so said a popular M.P. recently; whereas, as a matter of fact, events far more miraculous than that are related in the book of Jonah, which the critic and the unbeliever appear to entirely overlook. The only reason that can be assigned for this extraordinary fact is that, generally speaking, this, like most other objections to the Bible, is second-hand—from hearsay—and is not a genuine heart or intellectual difficulty which has been personally encountered in an honest search after truth.
For example, if we are to eliminate the miraculous from the book of Jonah, I want to know:
1. How the word of the Lord came to Jonah (chap. 1:1)?
2. If God is everywhere, how could Jonah flee from the presence of the Lord (1:3)?
3. How did Jonah know that it was the Lord who had sent out a great wind into the sea (1:4)?
4. How did it come about that the sea did “cease from her raging” (1:15) when Jonah was thrown into it?
But one might multiply such questions.
Now, the remarkable thing is that the Bible nowhere really states that Jonah was swallowed by a whale! This may sound strange, but it is nevertheless true. The word translated “whale” in Matthew 12:4040For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40) really means a great fish, and should be so translated. If the objectors would only carefully read the book of Jonah for themselves (instead of reading books by unbelievers about it), they would find it very clearly stated that “the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah” (1:17) —just as in chap. 4:6 “the Lord God prepared a gourd,” and in the following verse “God prepared a worm,” and in the next verse, again, “God prepared a vehement east wind.” Therefore, the same Almighty Creator who prepared the gourd, the worm, and the east wind for the special purpose of teaching Jonah a lesson, could as easily prepare a great fish—not only to swallow His servant, but also to keep him alive in his belly for three days and three nights (chap. 1:77).
But the Hebrew word translated “prepared” does not necessarily mean that God made a specially big fish for the purpose; it may equally well mean that God so ordered things that the fish was there on the spot when Jonah was thrown into the sea, just as on another occasion the Lord ordained that a certain fish with a coin in its mouth, should be there ready when Peter cast an hook into the sea (Matt. 17:2727Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. (Matthew 17:27)).
At the same time, the strong probability is that this fish was, after all, nothing more nor less than a whale.
Anyone who has read Frank Bullen’s Cruise of the Cachalot will have some idea of the size and habits of that mighty sea monster, the sperm whale. Mr. Bullen is an experienced whaler and speaks of what he has actually seen. He tells in more places than one how they caught whales of “such gigantic proportions” as “over seventy feet long, with a breadth of bulk quite in proportion to such a vast length,” the head of which alone “the skipper himself estimated to weigh fifteen tons!”
And the idea of a whale’s gullet being incapable of admitting any large substance, Mr. Bullen characterizes as “a piece of crass ignorance.” He tells how on one occasion “a shark fifteen feet in length has been found in the stomach of a sperm whale,” and adds this remarkable piece of evidence, “that when dying the sperm whale always ejected the contents of its stomach.” He tells of one full-grown whale which was caught and killed, “the ejected food from whose stomach was in masses of enormous size, larger than any we had yet seen on the voyage, some of them being estimated to be of the size of our hatch-house—viz. eight feet by six feet by six feet” And yet we are asked to believe that a whale could not swallow a man!
He further describes these monsters, which are capable of swallowing substances of such enormous sizes, “swimming about with the lower jaw hanging down in its normal position, and its huge gullet gaping like some submarine cavern,” into which Jonah could have slipped so easily that the whale would scarcely have known it.
With such facts before us from a trustworthy eyewitness, we see that both the swallowing and the vomiting up of Jonah by a sperm whale are perfectly natural incidents.
One other word. It so happens that in the providence of God this particular incident, which for so long has been looked upon in many quarters as incredible, has thus been unquestionably verified to the letter, and largely on perfectly natural grounds. But let us not be misunderstood; the true believer in the Word of God has a more sure testimony than that of a human eyewitness. He is satisfied with the bare word of the Lord Jesus, who declared that “Jonah was three days and three nights in the great fish’s belly” (Matt. 12:4040For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)), and I prefer to take the word of the Lord Jesus before all the scientific men who ever lived.
Moreover, by that extraordinary occurrence Jonah became one of the most remarkable types of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus to be found anywhere in the Old Testament Scriptures (Matt. 12:4040For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)). For “as Jonah was three days and three nights in the great fish’s belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Therefore, the one is as much a fact of history as the other.
The “Imprecatory Psalms”
We will now take a few specimens of what are called the Imprecatory Psalms, in which we are told we shall “find words spoken which would be very unfit for the lips of our Lord”; in which we may “detect traces of human prejudice and passion”; or where “the psalmist indignantly cries out against HIS oppressors,” etc.
I quote these objections from a popular writer; and in order to test the question fairly, I select three of the most conspicuous instances which he himself cites in proof of his arguments.
Before, however, dealing with them in particular, there are two facts which should always be borne in mind in connection with these psalms.
1. In most cases, if not in all, while the tense in our English translation is in the imperative, making the language look like an imprecation pure and simple, the tense in the Hebrew is in the future— e.g. “it shall be,” not “let it be,” etc.—thus indicating that the words contain prophetic warnings of the various kinds of judgment that would certainly one day fall upon the wicked—whether individuals or nations—unless, indeed, they repented. The whole tone of these psalms runs in that direction.
2. One has only to study the life of David in order to be convinced that, so far as he personally was concerned, his spirit was certainly not a vindictive one—as witness his noble treatment of Saul (1 Sam. 24:4-154And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the Lord said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe privily. 5And it came to pass afterward, that David's heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul's skirt. 6And he said unto his men, The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord's anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord. 7So David stayed his servants with these words, and suffered them not to rise against Saul. But Saul rose up out of the cave, and went on his way. 8David also arose afterward, and went out of the cave, and cried after Saul, saying, My lord the king. And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself. 9And David said to Saul, Wherefore hearest thou men's words, saying, Behold, David seeketh thy hurt? 10Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the Lord's anointed. 11Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it. 12The Lord judge between me and thee, and the Lord avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee. 13As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: but mine hand shall not be upon thee. 14After whom is the king of Israel come out? after whom dost thou pursue? after a dead dog, after a flea. 15The Lord therefore be judge, and judge between me and thee, and see, and plead my cause, and deliver me out of thine hand. (1 Samuel 24:4‑15)), who was deliberately seeking David’s life, and his compassionate feeling towards Absalom (2 Sam. 18:55And the king commanded Joab and Abishai and Ittai, saying, Deal gently for my sake with the young man, even with Absalom. And all the people heard when the king gave all the captains charge concerning Absalom. (2 Samuel 18:5)), by whose conspiracy David had actually been dethroned. No, no, David was not a vindictive man.
However, we will briefly consider the three passages specially objected to.
This, it is urged, exhibits so much vindictive passion that it is impossible to believe it could have been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But if, instead of picking out one isolated verse, as the objector has done, we read the whole psalm carefully through, we shall see that this was no mere outburst of human passion, but a divinely inspired forecast of the righteous judgment of God—not upon David’s personal enemies merely or chiefly, but upon those who “in heart work wickedness” (ver. 2), who “speak lies” (ver. 3), who deliberately stop their ear to every entreaty (ver. 4), so that they “will not hearken” (ver. 5). It is of these that the inspired psalmist writes, “Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth” (ver. 6), and thus render them incapable of further cruelty. Language which, on the face of it, is figurative, and is borrowed from the lion’s habit of tearing its prey with its great eyeteeth.
The underlying truth, however, is confirmed by Psalm 3:77Arise, O Lord; save me, O my God: for thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly. (Psalm 3:7), where we are told that it is the ungodly whose teeth are broken, whether they be found amongst David’s enemies or not. And surely this is but a faint forecast of more awful words that fell from the lips of David’s Lord, when He said that the end of those who offend and do iniquity would be “wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:4242And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:42)).
Moreover, by comparing the first and last verses of this 58th Psalm, we find what seems to be the real point of the whole psalm—viz. that while there is no upright judgment among the sons of men (ver. 1), which frequently allows the ungodly to prosper in the world (Psa. 73:1212Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. (Psalm 73:12)), God’s dealings with men, however mysterious they may seem to be now, will one day be acknowledged to be so just that all men shall say, “Verily there is a reward for the righteous, verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth” (ver. 11)—this, again, being a kind of dim foreshadowing of the great Hallelujah chorus which shall break forth from the lips of the Redeemed when earth shall have been forever delivered from man’s unrighteous rule: “True and righteous are His judgments; for He hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of His servants at her hand ... Hallelujah, for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth” (Rev. 19:2-62For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. 3And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. 4And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. 5And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. 6And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. (Revelation 19:2‑6)). Then all will acknowledge that “the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things” (Rom. 2:22But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. (Romans 2:2)).
Here, again, the very idea of the Holy Spirit having inspired such bitter sentiments against David’s personal enemies is, we are told, altogether out of the question. But let us test this argument, and we shall see how shallow it is. For, whatever personal or local circumstances may or may not have been referred to, the following three points are commended to the reader’s careful consideration.
(a) There can be no doubt whatever that this psalm was prophetically written concerning Judas, for Acts 1:2020For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. (Acts 1:20) says so, where Peter quotes a part of verse 8 in connection with the traitor.
(b) What if the children of Judas were wicked like their father? Was it not just that they should suffer also?
(c) I should like to know what the critics, who tell us that these are merely words of “human prejudice and passion,” have to say of Acts 1:1616Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. (Acts 1:16), where we read that it was “the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas”?
Surely we should hesitate before handling these solemn prophecies with such loose, careless, and irreverent hands!
3. Psalm 137:88O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. (Psalm 137:8) and 9: “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us; happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
In the first place, in citing this as an argument against inspiration, as being impossible to be the “words of the loving God,” I notice the writer above referred to only quotes parts of this passage, as follows: “O daughter of Babylon, happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones”; omitting the most important words, which largely explain why so dreadful a doom is pronounced against Babylon,—viz. because of the way they had served God’s people— “As thou hast served us”—in which we notice an unmistakable reference to the old warning, “Cursed is he that curseth thee” (Gen. 27:2929Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee. (Genesis 27:29); Num. 24:99He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion: who shall stir him up? Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee. (Numbers 24:9)), and which is in perfect keeping with the inexorable law of God, which surely applies to nations as well as to men, “Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:77Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (Galatians 6:7)).
It should, however, be remembered that Babylon and Jerusalem seem to stand in the word of God as typical of two great forces unalterably and eternally opposed to each other—one being the embodiment of evil doomed to destruction and the other of good destined to enjoy the light of God’s presence forever (see Rev. 18 and 21).
Moreover, from other parts of Scripture it is quite clear that this is no mere vindictive cry, but is a divine and literal, though awful, forecast of the doom of that city whose “sins had reached unto heaven” (Rev. 18:55For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. (Revelation 18:5)) and whose judgment is also foretold in almost identical language with that of Psalm 137:99Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalm 137:9), but with even more appalling detail, in Isaiah 13:1616Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. (Isaiah 13:16) and 18: “Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes, their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished ... . Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces, and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.”
Again, in Revelation 18 (which deals solely with Babylon’s doom) we find an almost exact repetition of the passage complained of in Psalm 137:88O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. (Psalm 137:8), and Revelation 18:66Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. (Revelation 18:6) reads, “Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works”; while the words, “Happy shall he be,” etc., which are so objected to, find their counterpart in Revelation 18:2020Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. (Revelation 18:20): “Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.”
Surely as we read all these passages together we must acknowledge that, whatever may have been in the minds of the writers, there was One behind them all who, seeing the end from the beginning, inspired them to write these dark and dreadful prophecies—many of which are already fulfilled, for the literal Babylon has long since been destroyed.
Nor are these isolated cases, for God’s instructions to King Saul in 1 Samuel 15:33Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3) are very similar: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” And for failing to carry out this awful command in every detail, Saul was rejected, dethroned, became a ruined man (1 Sam. 15:2626And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel. (1 Samuel 15:26)), and very nearly ruined his people. For in the days of Ahasuerus—the Xerxes of history—the whole Jewish race was threatened with extermination by a descendant of one of the survivors of those very Amalekites— “Haman the Agagite” (Esther 3:1010And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews' enemy. (Esther 3:10)) Might we not in the very words of Psalm 137, say, Happy had Saul been if he had “slayed utterly” as God commanded him.
There are yet other passages which show beyond all question that, however much some expressions in the Psalms may seem to our short-sighted vision to be limited in their application to some local event or personal consideration, the real truth is that David was a prophet, and as such he wrote.
Acts 2:25-3225For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:25‑32) tells how Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost—and therefore not likely to make a mistake—quotes from Psalm 16:1010For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (Psalm 16:10), where David says, “Thou wilt not leave MY soul in hell.” Surely that looks like a purely personal reference, if anything does; and yet Peter tells us distinctly that he was not speaking of himself at all, but, being a prophet, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell.
Therefore, in reading the most difficult passages in the Psalms, the true import of which we may be unable perhaps fully to comprehend, let us quiet any doubts which may arise in the mind by saying to ourselves, “He being a prophet.”
Here, David himself contemplating all the psalms that he had written and apparently anticipating with prophetic vision that objection would be taken to some of them, solemnly declared with his last words—which are worth more than all the arguments of the critics—that neither the spirit nor the words of his writings were his own, but that both were the Lord’s: “These be the last [inspired] words of David.... The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue.”
But this passage contains an even more remarkable testimony still, which, however, is unfortunately obscured in our translation, for the literal reading of 2 Samuel 23:11Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, (2 Samuel 23:1), as Bishop Wordsworth shows, is: “These be the last [inspired] words of David”—not “the sweet psalmist of Israel,” but— “who is acceptable [to God] in the psalms of Israel.” If, therefore, these psalms are acceptable to God, what is man that he should raise any objection?
If, however, in spite of the foregoing any should still harbor the irreverent thought that in any of these cases Almighty God has shown Himself less merciful than mortal men, let me remind such that they are face to face with the following solemn challenges, which demand definite and categorical answers; viz.—
Moreover, the following three points are commended for serious consideration:
1. In cases where adults were ordered to be slain, judgment was no doubt largely mingled with much mercy; for the probability is that the Babylonians, for instance, like the Canaanites, were so hopelessly wicked that had they been spared longer they would doubtless have sinned yet more, and so would ultimately have incurred an even more terrible doom; see Ecclesiastes 8:1111Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. (Ecclesiastes 8:11), “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”
Their destruction was merciful also toward society in general in thus being delivered from such wicked persons; even as we should feel justly relieved on hearing that a band of murderers which had long infested our district had been caught and punished.
2. In cases where little ones were slain, the mercy of God is even more conspicuous. The strong probability is that, in many cases, these poor little children, having the blood of their wicked parents in their veins, would, had they been allowed to live, have developed their parents’ sins; but their early death saved them from so dreadful a future, just as, in the last great plague that shook Egypt to its foundations, doubtless many of the firstborn were very young children and had so far no share in Egypt’s rebellion against Israel’s God. How many a mother, whose husband has been a drunkard or a gambler, has said, “I would rather follow my child to the grave than see him grow up like his father!” And who dare say that all these infants, thus mercifully cut off before they had reached the age of responsibility, were not taken to the bosom of Him who “gathers the lambs with His arm, and carries them in His bosom” (Isa. 40:1111He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young. (Isaiah 40:11))?
3. But the most important thing of all to remember is, as we have already seen, that in nearly every case, the words constitute not a command at all, but a most merciful prophetic warning, from Him who has “no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 33:1111Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11)), of the judgments which sinners were most certainly heaping up against themselves (Rom. 2:3-53And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; (Romans 2:3‑5)). For there can be no doubt whatever that had these gracious warnings been heeded, the predicted judgments might have been averted: as in the case of Nineveh, when “God saw their works that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that He had said that He would do unto them, and He did it not” (Jonah 3:1010And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (Jonah 3:10)). Indeed, the Almighty has laid it down most clearly that this is the principle upon which He deals with men: “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right... he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him” (Ezek. 33:14-1614Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; 15If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. 16None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live. (Ezekiel 33:14‑16)). And I should like to ask those who say, “The way of the Lord is not equal.” (Ezek. 33:1717Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. (Ezekiel 33:17)), whether it is not infinitely more merciful thus to warn sinners clearly and plainly concerning the inevitable consequences of sin than it would be to allow them to rush blindly on to their doom unwarned and unchecked?
Thus we see how Jehovah’s great proclamation concerning Himself is fully justified even in His judgments: “The Lord, the Lord God merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness and truth” (Ex. 34:66And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, (Exodus 34:6)).
Apparent Contradictions
“The Bible is full of mistakes and contradictions!” These were the words of a tall, handsome medical officer, about five years ago, in the saloon of a passenger steamer as we were gliding silently through the beautiful waters of the Mediterranean, returning home from a voyage to the East. I asked him, as there were so many mistakes in the Bible, would he kindly show me a few of them? But the only reply I could get from him was, “It’s full of them, it’s full of them.” I then placed my open Bible in front of him, and, in presence of another passenger, said, “If you can show me one mistake or contradiction in that Book I will give up the whole thing.” Of course, as in nearly all such cases, he knew absolutely nothing of the Bible itself, but had been reading what German critics had said about it; and so his knowledge of what the Bible was supposed to contain was all secondhand! He neither knew its supposed errors, nor its precious truths.
At the same time it is undeniable that there are some passages which, when compared with corresponding passages, do appear at first sight to be contradictory; but it may be safely said that in all such cases the difficulty may be traced to one of two causes; viz.—
1. Either the passages in question have not been studied with the individual and personal care and prayer which this Book demands. This carelessness lies at the root of nearly all the supposed difficulties that we hear about. Or,
2. As it does happen in a few cases, a mistake has been made by an early copyist in writing out the ancient documents now in our possession. One instance of this has already been given, which will suffice.
We now select a few of the more striking cases of supposed contradiction as specimens; viz.—
David Numbering the People
Chronicles giving the numbers as—
Israel 1,100,000
Judah 470,000
Total = 1,570,000
While Samuel gives—
Israel 800,000
Judah 500,000
Total = 1,300,000
Or, a difference of 270,000
Now it must be acknowledged that this is a very serious difference, and if these two sets of figures referred, as most careless readers assume, to one and the same thing, there would indeed be a mistake so palpable that it could not be explained. But the key is in the door. If the two verses are read carefully, it will be found that the numbers given refer to particular classes, which are specified with great distinctness; for example—
What Samuel tells us is that the valiant men that drew the sword were 800,000; while Chronicles is equally explicit in saying all Israel were 1,100,000. In other words, we learn that there were 300,000 others, including non-combatants who either “drew not the sword” or were not “valiant men.” The original makes this even clearer still. But without the two sets of figures as given in these two accounts we should never have known that detail.
And as regards Judah similar details are given, for while Samuel states that the men of Judah were 500,000, Chronicles merely gives the men that drew the sword as 470,000, so that in this case the non-combatants were 30,000.
Stephen’s Mistake (so-called)
This is in connection with Abraham’s sepulcher. And here, again, it will be seen that all the trouble arises from comparing two passages which do not refer to the same thing.
Genesis 23:1717And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure (Genesis 23:17) states that Abraham bought “the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field and the cave which was therein”; while in Acts 7:1616And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. (Acts 7:16) Stephen spoke of “the sepulcher that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor of Sychem.”
An eminent doctor of divinity, writing in a weekly paper some years ago upon this subject while trying to prove that the Bible was not verbally inspired, actually committed himself to the following statement: “According to Luke’s report, Stephen says Abraham bought the sepulcher of the sons of Hamor in Shechem (Acts 7:1616And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. (Acts 7:16)); but Genesis 23:17-1817And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure 18Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city. (Genesis 23:17‑18) says Abraham bought it of Ephron the Hittite, and Genesis 33:1919And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money. (Genesis 33:19) says Jacob bought it of the sons of Hamor.” Then he added: “John Calvin says Stephen evidently made a mistake. Dr. Hackett admits that Stephen appears to have confounded the two transactions... but what do those say about it ... who maintain the absolute inerrancy of the Bible?”
Now this was a very fair challenge, and as I had been upholding through the medium of that same paper the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, I wrote a reply, and this instance being typical of what the critics call the contradictions or mistakes of Scripture, I give the following extract of the reply I made:
“The doctor’s letter exposes not a mistake or contradiction in the Scriptures, but a most flagrant error on the part of the doctor himself.
“He assumes that the three passages he quotes refer to one and the same transaction, and because the accounts differ from one another he concludes that they cannot all be correct; whereas by carefully reading the verses named (together with one other in Joshua which he has not quoted), it will be readily seen that three distinct transactions are alluded to.
“I will take them in the order in which he gives them.
“Stephen, in his address, says that Abraham bought a sepulcher of the sons of Emmor of Sychem (Acts 7:1616And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. (Acts 7:16)), and I challenge Dr.— to find a single word in the sacred records which contradicts that statement.
“But when the doctor states that Genesis 23:17, 1817And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure 18Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city. (Genesis 23:17‑18), says Abraham bought it of Ephron the Hittite, he makes a sad mistake, and wants to make the Bible say what it does not.
“The true explanation is simple in the extreme—viz. that, if we are to believe God’s word, Abraham bought two sepulchers,—one referred to in Genesis 23, purchased from Ephron the Hittite, in which he buried Sarah, his wife (ver. 19)—this transaction is not mentioned in Acts 7:1616And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. (Acts 7:16), nor is it referred to at all by Stephen; and the other, which Stephen does speak of, in which Jacob’s sons were buried (Acts 7:15,1615So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, 16And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. (Acts 7:15‑16))—this transaction is not mentioned in Genesis. This latter sepulcher was in Shechem, and what could be more natural than that Abraham should lay out some money in a place of such hallowed associations? For, according to Genesis 12:6, 76And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. 7And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him. (Genesis 12:6‑7), it was here that the Lord appeared unto him, and that he built an altar. Why should it be assumed that a rich and great man like Abraham had only one sepulcher? A personal friend of mine, at the present time, has no less than three family vaults.
“But this is not all. Dr.—, by misquoting the Scriptures, falls into another mistake.
“Now if he will read that passage again he will find it says nothing of the kind. What it does say is that he (Jacob) bought a parcel of a field of the children of Hamor (no reference whatever being made to a sepulcher), and Joshua 24:33And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac. (Joshua 24:3)2 Confirms this to the letter, where we read that ‘the bones of Joseph were buried in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor’”
“According to Genesis 33:1919And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money. (Genesis 33:19), Jacob, years afterward, bought ‘a parcel of a field’ (or ‘parcel of ground,’ Josh. 24:3232And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for an hundred pieces of silver: and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph. (Joshua 24:32)), which in all probability was the very field in which Abraham’s second sepulcher stood; for it appears that this field and Abraham’s second sepulcher formerly belonged to the same owners.
“These three statements are clear and definite, and do not in any way clash with one another.
“Therefore, in answer to Dr.—’s question, I would humbly but emphatically state that if John Calvin, Dr. Hackett, or anyone else said that Stephen made a mistake, it is they who were wrong, and not Stephen, Luke, nor any other divinely inspired historian.
“But, further, I would draw Dr.—’s attention to the impossibility of such a palpable mistake as he attributes to Stephen being allowed to pass unnoticed by his hearers. He was standing in the presence of the Council, composed of men who were thirsting for his blood, and knew most of the Old Testament Scriptures by heart (even to the counting of the very letters), and would at once have detected the least slip in his words; but those Bible students could apparently detect no such error as Dr.—thinks he has discovered. It is, however, distinctly recorded in Acts 6:1010And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. (Acts 6:10) that, in Stephen’s discussions with the people, ‘They were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.’”
Matthew’s Supposed Mistake (Chap. 27:9)
Here Matthew is charged with making a mistake by attributing to Jeremiah words that cannot be found in the whole prophecy of Jeremiah. “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the Prophet saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver,” etc.
On this subject Calvin is reported to have said “How the name of Jeremiah crept in I confess I do not know, nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly shows the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake instead of Zechariah, for in Jeremiah we find nothing of this sort, nor anything that even approaches it.”
The Dean of Westminster in a lecture delivered in Westminster Abbey on December 17th, 1904, also quoted this passage to prove that the Gospel narratives are not necessarily “historical accounts of what actually occurred.”
No less an authority, however, than Mrs. Lewis, of Cambridge, has pointed out that some of the earliest and best manuscripts omit the word “Jeremiah,” making the verse read “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet”; so that the strong probability is that the word “Jeremiah” was not written at all by Matthew, but has been inserted by an early copyist, and the change has been perpetuated to the present day.
We cannot help feeling, therefore, that it was neither wise nor right of one in the influential position occupied by the Dean of Westminster to quote this passage as an argument against the minute historical accuracy of certain parts of the Bible, when as an eminent scholar he should have known that there was, to say the least, an element of uncertainty as to the accuracy of our English version.
But we may carry the matter further, for even if it could be proved from existing documents that the name was so written originally, there would still be no inaccuracy, as Matthew does not say it was written by Jeremiah, but, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah.” And who dare say that Jeremiah did not speak it, if the Holy Ghost through Matthew said he did? It is not an uncommon thing for the inspired writers of the New Testament to give in writing for the first time verbal utterances of some of the Old Testament saints; for example, in Jude 1414And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 14) we read that Enoch prophesied saying, “The Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints,” and yet there is no record in the whole of the Old Testament of this prophecy of Enoch’s; although there is a very similar prophecy in Zechariah 14:55And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. (Zechariah 14:5), which might easily be confounded with it. Again, in 2 Peter 2:88(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) (2 Peter 2:8) we are told that Lot’s righteous soul was vexed from day to day with the unlawful deeds of the Sodomites. Yet the detailed account given in Genesis 19 is not only quite silent on that point, but rather gives the other side of Lot’s character, which Peter omits. Will the critics tell us that Peter has therefore made a mistake? Surely the Holy Spirit is free to give a revelation for the first time in the New Testament concerning something which took place in Old Testament days.
And as to the suggestion that “Zechariah” should have been written instead of “Jeremiah,” it is true that there is a similar prophecy in Zechariah 11:12,1312And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 13And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord. (Zechariah 11:12‑13), but in this connection it is a remarkable fact that the Jews used to say, “The spirit of Jeremiah was upon Zechariah”; and seeing that Zechariah did actually recall some of Jeremiah’s prophecies (compare Zech. 1:44Be ye not as your fathers, unto whom the former prophets have cried, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Turn ye now from your evil ways, and from your evil doings: but they did not hear, nor hearken unto me, saith the Lord. (Zechariah 1:4) with Jer. 16:1111Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the Lord, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law; (Jeremiah 16:11), etc.), many Bible students are not unnaturally of opinion that Zechariah in this case put in writing that which was before spoken by Jeremiah.
It is also worthy of note that Zechariah, in chap. 7:7, wrote these significant words, “Should ye not hear the words, which the Lord hath cried by the former prophets?” as if his mission—at least in part—was to recall some of their sayings.
Let me, however, draw the attention of the critics to the fact that the wording of Zechariah 11:12, 1312And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 13And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord. (Zechariah 11:12‑13), though similar to that of Matthew 27:99Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; (Matthew 27:9), is not exactly the same; so that, if Matthew had told us that the prophecy he quoted was from Zechariah, we should have been immediately met with the objection that the evangelist had misquoted the prophet’s words and that here indeed was a mistake. But, as it is, the very word in the passage that men cavil at is the key which unlocks the mystery and reveals the truth and the truthfulness of God.
How few of these difficulties would remain if men would only note more carefully and reverently the exact words used by the Holy Spirit.
Purchase of Oman’s Threshing Floor
We are told that according to Samuel, David gave fifty shekels of silver (£5 14s. od.) for this, while in Chronicles we read David bought it for six hundred shekels of gold (£1,095). Moreover, the figures are so distinctly stated, and the disparity between the two is so great, that it is quite impossible to explain them. But I invite once more only the ordinary care of any devout reader, when it will at once be seen that two separate transactions are referred to.
Now the expression “the place” in Scripture generally refers to a considerable area, a district—a city, for instance, as in Genesis 18:2424Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? (Genesis 18:24), where it refers to the whole city of Sodom—while the threshing floor covered, of course, but a very small area; so that, with the two accounts before us, we learn that David, after that memorable and awful experience related in those chapters, first acquired the temporary use (the original bears this rendering) of the threshing floor for the purposes of his sacrifice, for fifty shekels of silver; and subsequently purchased the freehold of the whole place, which was Mount Moriah, the site of Abraham’s memorable sacrifice (Gen. 22), covering several acres, for six hundred shekels of gold, on which to build the Temple as a permanent memorial to God.
This view seems to be strikingly confirmed by the fact that no mention whatever is made of the Temple in Samuel’s account, while the opening words of 1 Chronicles 22, which properly belong to chapter 21, read: “THEN David said, this is the place for the House of the Lord God, and this shall be the Altar of the Burnt Offering for Israel.”
Paul’s Alleged Mistake
Another case of apparent contradiction is found in comparing the number of those who died of the plague in connection with Israel’s sin in joining themselves to Baalpeor, with the number mentioned by Paul in writing to the Corinthians. The two passages read thus:
Now there is no doubt whatever that both of these passages refer to one and the same thing.
But is there here any real difficulty? Certainly there is no contradiction; for while Moses in Numbers 25:99And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. (Numbers 25:9) gives us the total number of those who died of the plague, without mentioning whether they all died in one day or not, Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives us the added detail that so terrible was the plague that twenty-three thousand of them died in one day.
The Different Accounts of the Four Evangelists
There is no denying the fact that there are very striking differences in the Gospel records, as given by the four evangelists.
What is the cause, and what is the meaning of these differences? They must be due to one of two causes—either to the fault of the evangelists in not producing a faithful record, which would indicate human weakness; or to a definite design on the part of the Holy Spirit who inspired them, which would indicate divine wisdom.
Now it seems quite clear that this cannot have been due to any fault—that is, carelessness or forgetfulness—on the part of the evangelists themselves, for two evident reasons—viz. first, all the differences put together do not furnish one single case of real contradiction or error; and secondly, these very differences, when carefully studied, are found to constitute an added beauty to the Gospel narratives.
We are, therefore, compelled to recognize here, as elsewhere in the Scriptures, a definite design on the part of the Holy Spirit.
Of course, had it so pleased God, the Holy Spirit might have inspired one evangelist only to record all that was necessary to be known of the life, teaching, and death of the Lord Jesus. But the very fact that God chose to have four separate accounts of the Gospel written, in itself indicates to the reverent mind that there must be a special purpose in each separate account; while it is evident that such purpose could not possibly have been carried out without such differences—i.e. if all had recorded the same words and deeds in similar phraseology.
But if four mere uninspired men had written their own separate and independent accounts, we should probably then have seen, not a number of differences which are perfectly compatible with historical fact, but as many real contradictions and inaccuracies as are found, for example, in the various published accounts of the late South African War. While again, if four uninspired accounts had been written in collusion, every attempt would doubtless have been made to avoid all such differences as we now see in the gospels, in order to make them appear genuine. And how simple would have been the process, for Luke would merely have had to check his gospel with that of Matthew, which was written first; Mark, who wrote a little later, might have compared his with those of Matthew and Luke; while John, who wrote last of all, would have had the three previous ones to compare his with. And so they might have all agreed—on the surface. But, oh! what we should have lost. And how we should now thank God that these things were not left to the will of man.
Under the Mosaic Law there were four great offerings to set forth, in the Old Testament, the sacrificial work of Christ; and although each offering prefigured, by divine arrangement, that One Blessed Person, nevertheless no two of them are found to set forth the same aspect of the Redeemer; and hence of necessity in many respects each one of them differs from the others; viz.—
The Sin and Trespass Offerings set forth what Christ is to man as a sinner.
The Peace Offering sets forth what Christ is to the newborn soul.
The Meat Offering sets forth Christ’s earthly life as our example.
The Burnt Offering sets forth what Christ is to God.
And it was the particular view of Christ that each offering was intended to set forth that constituted the differences between them, and furnished both the Jews and us with a four-fold view of our Lord which one offering alone was quite incapable of doing.
So in the New Testament we have four gospels, each setting forth some special aspect of that matchless life, thus:
Matthew sets forth Christ as Israel’s King.
Mark sets forth Christ as the Servant of Jehovah.
Luke sets forth Christ as the true Man.
John sets forth Christ as God.
And the marvel of it is this—that although, generally speaking, the writers may have heard the same words from the Master’s lips, and seen the same mighty deeds performed; nevertheless, when they came to record those words and deeds, each gives an account of what he saw and heard (and sometimes of what he neither saw nor heard—see our Lord’s prayer in Gethsemane, when the only three disciples who were with Him were asleep) which, while being absolutely correct, is in many respects quite unlike that of all the others. Nor is it possible that this is accidental, for a close study of the four gospels reveals this striking fact—that each of them is found to follow a particular line of thought throughout, as indicated above; and from beginning to end each maintains its own distinctive features and sets forth the Savior from its own particular point of view, whether relating a conversation with the Pharisees, reporting a sermon, or recording a miracle.
This has been beautifully put into verse by a personal friend of mine, thus:
Matthew, Messiah, Israel’s King sets forth, by Israel slain.
But God decreed that Israel’s loss should be the Gentile’s gain.
Mark tells us how, in patient love, this earth has once been trod
By One who, in a servant’s form, was yet the Son of God.
Luke, the physician, tells of a more skilled Physician still,
Who gave His life as Son of Man, to heal us from all ill.
John, the beloved of Jesus, sees in Him the Father’s Son;
The Everlasting Word made flesh, yet with the Father One.
Anything, therefore, in the nature of a so-called “harmony” of the gospels is very misleading, and completely destroys this beautiful principle on which the gospels are based.
Take as an example the first gospel—that of Matthew. That gospel will be searched in vain for any clear and full statement of the doctrine of salvation by grace; although we know, from the Gospel of John, for instance, that Christ did speak very plainly about the new birth and salvation through faith in Himself. Why, then, does Matthew’s Gospel not mention that important subject? Because in that gospel the Holy Spirit is giving us a view of Christ, not as the sinner’s Savior, but as Israel’s King, and consequently Matthew was led to record only that part of the Savior’s teaching and works which related to the principles and laws of “the Kingdom of Heaven” —an expression met with again and again in Matthew’s Gospel, and nowhere else.
Here it is we read that Christ was “born King of the Jews” (Matt. 2:22Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. (Matthew 2:2)). Here also we have recorded all those wonderful parables in chap. 13 which are intended to teach us what “the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto”; while the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), which of course has its spiritual application to the present dispensation, will never be rightly and fully understood until it is seen to contain teaching which relates primarily to the Kingdom.
Our Lord is now rejected,
And by the world disowned.
and consequently Christ’s Kingdom is in abeyance during the present dispensation; for there can be no kingdom without a king. But in the millennial age, when Christ, earth’s rightful King, shall reign upon the holy hill of Zion (Psa. 2:66Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. (Psalm 2:6)), then, and not till then, will the laws of that Kingdom, as contained in Matthew’s Gospel and especially in the Sermon on the Mount, be in full and fruitful operation.
This particular line of teaching is not found in any of the other gospels—at least, it is not the prominent thought there. While the line of teaching most prominent in those other gospels is subordinated here.
This explains, as nothing else could, Christ’s words to His disciples as recorded by Matthew (words which would be quite out of place in the Gospel of John, for instance): “Go not into the way of the Gentiles and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5, 65These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5‑6)).
Or again, on another occasion, still speaking as Israel’s King, Matthew tells us He said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:2424But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)).
The Gospel of John, having been written from a different point of view, furnishes an equally striking example. It is impossible not to notice how in this gospel we have recorded Christ’s repeated claim to His oneness with the Father; also His very frequent use of the great name of God, “I am,” in such expressions as, “I am the Way,” “I am the Good Shepherd,” “I am the Door,” “I am the Bread of Life,” and others; while special attention is also called here to His omniscience, which so astonished Nathanael (John 1:4848Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. (John 1:48)). See also John 2:2525And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. (John 2:25), “He needed not that any should testify of man: for He knew what was in man.”
Moreover, this was the only gospel which was written after the conception of the Church of God had been revealed through the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12:2-42I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) 4How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (2 Corinthians 12:2‑4); Eph. 3:33How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, (Ephesians 3:3))—viz. that He who was from all eternity God (John 1:11In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)) was yet “made flesh” (John 1:1414And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)) in order that He might purchase for Himself a people, which should embrace sinners of every name and tribe, all of whom should be accepted on the ground of free grace the moment they “believed on His name” (John 1:1212But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12)). And hence, while the deity of Christ is John’s great theme, the doctrines of grace are more fully stated there than in any other gospel.
Indeed, special attention seems to be called to this fact in John 1:1111He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (John 1:11), where the evangelist reminds us that “His own” people, the Jews, to and for whom He primarily came, “received Him not”; and hence in this Gospel the door of grace is immediately thrown open to all. No longer is the invitation confined to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But as many (whether Jew or Gentile) as receive Him become sons of God, (John 1:1212But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12)). Here also we read, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin [not of the Jews merely, but] of the world” (John 1:2929The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)); and again, “God so loved [not His people, the Jews, only,] but the world” (John 3:1616For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)), and so on right through this gospel.
In the same way each gospel narrative, if carefully studied, will be found to bear distinctive features throughout.
The Genealogies of Our Lord
How many Bible students have been puzzled over this simple but striking example of the same beautiful fact! Here we find two of the evangelists giving the genealogy, each differing from the other, while the other two omit the genealogy altogether. Now at first sight it certainly does look as if we have here a clear trace of human weakness; but, like all other similar difficulties, it is found on careful examination to contain the most distinct evidence of the Holy Spirit’s controlling power. Thus:
Matthew, as we have seen, sets forth Christ as Israel’s King. And so the two outstanding features in his list are (1) that he carefully traces the genealogy on Joseph’s side, Joseph being “of the house and lineage of David” (Luke 2:44And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) (Luke 2:4))—this is to show that Christ was the legal heir to the throne of Israel, as indicated in the opening words of Matthew’s gospel: “The book of the generations of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham;” (2) this genealogy only goes back to Abraham, because this gospel deals principally with the Messiah’s relation to Israel, and Abraham was the head of the Israelitish race.
Mark, on the other hand, says nothing at all about our Lord’s genealogy, nor even His birth; but completely passes over the first thirty years of His earthly life and introduces Christ suddenly to us with the Spirit resting upon Him (Mark 1:1010And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: (Mark 1:10)) at the commencement of His public work, anointed for service. Why is this? Because Mark is setting forth Christ as the true Servant of Jehovah; and therefore, any account of His genealogy, birth, or early years before He entered upon His public ministry would be quite out of place here. Note, moreover, in this gospel, the repeated use of the words “straightway,” “immediately,” “anon”—indicating prompt and willing service.
Luke, like Matthew, gives us the genealogy again; but, when we compare the names with those given in Matthew, we find many of them are quite different; while this list goes right back to Adam. Why? Because Luke is writing of Christ as Son of Man, and therefore we notice here these two special characteristics: (1) the genealogy is given on Mary’s side—His human mother—through Heli, who was her father [Joseph was the actual son of Jacob, Matthew 1:1616And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16); but became son (in-law) to Heli on his marriage with Mary], thus emphasizing Christ’s true humanity; (2) the genealogy is not given to Abraham merely as in Matthew, because this gospel does not deal particularly with Christ’s relation to Israel, but it is carried right back to the first parents of mankind, to show Him as the promised seed of the woman (Gen. 3:1515And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)).
John, like Mark, gives no genealogy, but for a different reason. He is writing of the deity of Christ, and so an earthly genealogy could have no place here; but, instead, he tells us in his very first verse of Christ’s divine origin before there were any earthly genealogies: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God!”
We may often see in our shop windows two photographs of King Edward VII., one arrayed in his royal robes, the other in private dress as an ordinary man. The differences between the two are most marked: in the one we see the kingly crown, the ermine robe, and the royal scepter; while in the other we see the ordinary attire of a private gentleman. But are these contradictory? The very suggestion is absurd. The two photographs are representations of one and the same august person; but the double picture reminds us that he who rules over us as King is also a man like ourselves.
Or, to use another illustration, every parent knows the joy and pride of having several photographs of his firstborn child taken in different positions—some full-faced, showing the child’s beautiful expression; others side-faced, showing the profile, etc. Are they different from one another? Yes, indeed; that was the father’s great object in having more than one taken—so that what to him is the most beautiful child ever born may be seen and admired from every point of view. And it would be as foolish to complain that there must be something wrong in those photographs, because, for example, two eyes were seen in the full-faced photograph and only one in the side-faced, as it is to object to the differences found in the four gospels.
Christ is God’s firstborn, His only begotten; and in the four gospels, God, by His Holy Spirit, has so displayed the glories and beauties of His well-beloved Son that in studying these divinely given records the solemn and majestic truth is borne in upon us that the four gospels are faithful records of the life, teaching, and death of one and the same blessed Person; and that their very differences enable us to see, as nothing else could, a four-fold view of the Savior as King, Servant, Man, and God.
Studied in this light the gospels will have a new meaning for us. Matthew may record the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), while Luke, omitting that sermon altogether, may record another similar sermon preached on the plain (Luke 6:17-4917And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases; 18And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed. 19And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all. 20And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. 21Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. 22Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. 23Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. 24But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. 25Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. 26Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. 27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. 30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. 33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. 34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. 36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. 37Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: 38Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. 39And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? 40The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. 41And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 42Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye. 43For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 44For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. 45A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. 46And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? 47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: 48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. 49But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. (Luke 6:17‑49)). Again, Matthew may give Christ’s genealogy from Abraham onwards to Christ (Matt. 1), while Luke, writing from a different point of view, and therefore following a different line, may give that genealogy from Christ back to Adam and to God (Luke 3:23-3823And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:23‑38)). Or, again, Matthew may tell of two blind men who had their sight restored (Matt. 20:3030And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David. (Matthew 20:30)), while Mark, relating the same circumstance, may only mention one of them (Mark 10:4646And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimeus, the son of Timeus, sat by the highway side begging. (Mark 10:46)). Or, yet again, Matthew may teach that in order to enter into the Kingdom it is necessary to be a doer of righteousness (Matt. 5:2020For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20) and 19:17-21), while John, leading us into the realm of grace, may tell us that “he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life” (John 3:3636He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36)). But, instead of seeing in these things differences which we cannot reconcile, there will dawn upon our minds and hearts such a conception of the divine purpose and plan and perfection of the Bible in these gospels as we have never had before.
We will now consider briefly two specimen cases where the writers are supposed by the critics to give conflicting accounts of what they saw and heard.
1. Two Accounts of the Sermon on the Mount
The accounts given in Matthew and Luke are compared, and we are supposed to be driven into a corner, from which there is no escape, by the question, which of the two really reproduces the words of Christ? For instance, did He say, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:33Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3)), or, “Blessed be ye poor” (Luke 6:2020And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20)); or again, did He say, as in Matthew 7:2424Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matthew 7:24), “Whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine,” or, as in Luke 6:4747Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: (Luke 6:47), “Whosoever cometh to Me and heareth My sayings”?
A little careful reading will show that there is, or ought to be, no real difficulty here at all, for the following two verses show unmistakably that Matthew’s and Luke’s reports contain, not two conflicting accounts of the same sermon, but two separate and faithful records of two different sermons altogether.
According to Matthew 5:11And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: (Matthew 5:1) Jesus went up into the mountain (evidently alone), for we read that, “when He was set His disciples came unto Him”; whereas Luke tells us that, after He had spent a night in prayer on the mountain, He came down with His disciples and sat on a level place (R.V., Luke 6:1717And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases; (Luke 6:17)). So that it is very clear that the Lord Jesus preached a somewhat similar sermon on two different occasions, although it is often assumed that Matthew and Luke report the same sermon.
This is further shown by the fact that the sermon recorded by Matthew was preached some time before Matthew was called to be a disciple of Christ—the sermon appearing in Matthew 5, 6, and 7, and the call of Matthew in Matthew 9:99And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. (Matthew 9:9); whereas, on reference to Luke 6:1515Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon called Zelotes, (Luke 6:15), it will be seen that Matthew was amongst the disciples which came down with Jesus into the plain (or level place) when He preached that sermon.
2. The Inscription on the Cross
It is considered by many that the four different accounts of the inscription on the Cross prove, beyond all controversy, that the Bible could not possibly have been inspired in every word, inasmuch as the wording is different in every case.
But those who raise this objection surely overlook the fact that Pilate—who was evidently anxious that all should read it—went beyond the usual custom of fixing up a condemned man’s accusation in one or at most two languages, and in this case had it written out in three different languages; viz.—
Latin, which was the official language—i.e. of the Romans (representing power and conquest— worldly empire).
Greek, which was the usual language spoken by the people (representing art and learning—human wisdom).
Hebrew, the vernacular or natural language of the Jews—that is, the religious language (representing the Covenant Race—God’s law).
So that it would be more correct, and much less misleading, to speak of the “inscriptions” instead of the inscription.
And what if the Holy Spirit was pleased to lead one evangelist to quote from the Latin, a second from the Greek, a third from the Hebrew, while a fourth was led by the same Spirit to give the substance of the whole—in order that in each case the wording of the inscription should retain the specific character of the particular gospel in which it was recorded, and thus set forth its own special view of the Savior?
Surely the only reasonable argument here as to inspiration is that this part of the prophecy, at any rate, did not come “by the will of man!” For had they been merely human records, it is safe to assume that they would almost certainly have been made to agree with one another.
But, instead of this, it should be observed that in each case the words preceding the quotation of the inscriptions clearly indicate that there was a distinct intention that the quotations should differ; e.g.—
Moreover, all these prefaces themselves differ from one another. Mark merely tells us that the superscription was written; Matthew, that it was set up over His head; Luke, that it was written in three languages; John, that Pilate was the writer.
And it would be just as reasonable to argue that the Bible cannot be verbally inspired, because the evangelists did not all give exactly the same information in this respect, as it is to complain of the wording of the inscriptions. The fact is, they give us different views of the same facts, while all are equally correct.
But it is now time to turn round upon the critic and ask him, even apart from what has been said, if he will kindly show us wherein the contradiction lies. Here are the four accounts:
Matt.: “This is Jesus ... ... ... ... the King of the Jews”
Mark: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. “The King of the Jews”
Luke: “This is ... ... ... ... ... ... the King of the Jews”
John: ... .. “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews”
————————————————————————————————
Total: This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.
From the foregoing table it will be seen that the words quoted by the different evangelists were absolutely correct; but as, throughout the whole of the gospels, a perfect and full view of Christ and His teaching can only be obtained by taking the four accounts together, so here it is the combined accounts that give us the total sum of the wording of the inscriptions, as written in the three languages; and it is as absurd to charge the evangelists with misquoting the inscription, as it would be to say that the chief priests misquoted it when, in the very next verse to that in which John gives it as “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (chap. 19:19), they say to Pilate, “Write not the ‘King of the Jews’” (chap. 19:20). The fact was, they quoted—and quoted accurately—those particular words which applied to the argument they were then using, and purposely omitted the rest; and this is just what the evangelists did under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, had they done otherwise they would have acted contrary to the principles on which the four gospels were written.
One more word on this point. Let those who imagine they have discovered errors and contradictions in the evangelists’ writings remember how easy—indeed, how natural—it is to give three or four accounts of one circumstance from different points of view, each account being quite different from the others, and yet all absolutely correct. A striking instance of this is before me in The Times of October 13th, 1904, in a leading article on the war between Russia and Japan. After speaking of the different accounts which reach us from various parts of the battlefield, from generals on both sides and from correspondents, the writer proceeds to make the following wise remarks, which apply with equal force to the various accounts given by the evangelists: “Accounts from both sides agree in this, if in little else—that since Sunday severe fighting has been going on along the whole wide front of the opposing armies. It would be strange indeed if along so extended a line there were no vicissitudes; hence it is probably easy enough, by a judicious selection of incidents, to present two very different pictures, both of which can claim to be in accordance with facts.”
Again, on December 19th, 1904, when two conflicting reports, one from Japanese and one from Russian sources, reached this country as to the date of the capture by the Japanese of an important strategic position at Port Arthur, instead of treating these reports, as the critics treat the Bible, by saying both cannot be correct, the writer of the leading article on the subject naturally and wisely says: “It does not seem possible to reconcile these differences at present. We must await an explanation.” Oh, if similar wisdom were displayed in reference to apparently conflicting passages in the Bible, how many people would be saved from much needless doubt and fear.
Moreover, let us not forget that at the time these gospels were written, there were then living men who had seen the miracles and heard the words recorded therein and had read the inscriptions on the Cross. Had there been, therefore, the least flaw or deviation from the truth, or contradiction between any of the evangelists’ writings, would not those men—whose bitter enmity led them to crucify the Son of God— have been only too ready to detect such discrepancies, holding them up to the scorn of an unbelieving world? Instead of this, however, though they hated the writers and slew some of them, they were apparently unable to detect the smallest error in their matchless writings, albeit those writings condemned their wicked ways.
What shall we, then, say of men who, after a lapse of nearly two thousand years, would have us believe that they know what took place in the days of Christ better than those critical Jews, who were not only His contemporaries, but were also contemporaries of those who wrote His gospels?
We are all acquainted with the story of the shield, over which two early English knights are said to have quarreled and fought so desperately, because one of them contended that it was made of gold, while the other declared it was silver; and how when in their rage they had nearly succeeded in killing each other, they discovered that they were both right; only, as they had been looking at the shield from different points of view, one saw the side which was gold and the other that which was silver.
How easy, also, would it be today for four strangers visiting London and arriving at the Bank of England from different directions to argue and even quarrel as to what was the real position of the Bank—one contending that it was in Threadneedle Street, a second that it was in Princes Street, a third that he certainly saw it in Lothbury, while a fourth might declare positively it was pointed out to him in Bartholomew Lane; of course, each would naturally think the others must be wrong. A little more knowledge, however, would have saved them all their trouble. They would be all quite right, for the Bank of England is, exactly what the gospels constitute, a four-sided building.
Differences in the Quotations
It is a fact that many of the quotations in the New Testament differ somewhat from their originals in the Old. Are we, therefore, to conclude that God does not trouble about the words of His message? or are we to say that the men who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost made mistakes? I trove not.
It may be interesting and instructive to the reader to know that, out of about 263 direct quotations from the Old Testament, Home says 88 are verbal quotations from the Septuagint; 64 are borrowed from it; 37 have the same meaning but different words; 16 agree more nearly with the Hebrew; and 20 differ from both the original Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint.
Now these figures of Home’s clearly show that, as a matter of fact, the apostles in writing the epistles, etc., did not make use of the Septuagint translation; otherwise, all their quotations would naturally have agreed with it. The truth is they wrote their epistles in Greek, and therefore must have understood that language well; while, being Jews, they would also have been perfectly familiar with the Hebrew language. This fact is emphasized in the case of Paul—see Acts 21:3737And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? (Acts 21:37), “Canst thou speak Greek?” and Acts 22:22(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) (Acts 22:2), “He spake in the Hebrew tongue.”
It is probable, therefore, that in making their quotations from the Old Testament they would translate directly from the Hebrew, adopting in each case such Greek expressions as the Holy Spirit guided them to use. This being so, it is natural to find that in some cases the Septuagint version happens to agree with what the apostles wrote, while in other cases the Septuagint, not being an inspired work, would differ somewhat from the apostles’ translations. In each case, however, the quotations as written by the apostles are as divinely inspired as the originals from which they are taken, although they may not be, as indeed they are not, mere repetitions of the exact Hebrew words.
It should ever be borne in mind that none but the Holy Ghost knows the exact and full meaning of His own words, as recorded in the Old Testament, and only He can infallibly reproduce His message in other words.
And surely He has a perfect right to do this, without our finding fault or charging Him with carelessness. But, further, may not there be a special design in these very differences—viz. that, by giving us an old truth in new words, we might be able to see some new and deeper teaching, which really lay hidden in the old, but which we never should have seen had it not been given us in a different form?
Take, for instance, Psalm 32:1, 21<<A Psalm of David, Maschil.>> Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. (Psalm 32:1‑2). When the apostle Paul, in Romans 4:6-86Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (Romans 4:6‑8), quotes those verses, he tells us that David is describing “the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works;” whereas in the psalm itself there is no mention of righteousness without works, but merely forgiveness of sins. Shall we call this a mistake? Is it not, rather, as I have already suggested, an added revelation throwing fresh light upon an old truth?
Again, in Exodus 12:4646In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. (Exodus 12:46), when speaking of the Passover lamb, God said to Moses, “Neither shall ye break a bone thereof.” Now there is evidently a reference to this in Psalm 34:19, 2019Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. 20He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. (Psalm 34:19‑20), from the wording of which it might appear that the passage in Exodus refers to God’s protection of a righteous man, for in that psalm we read, “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones; not one of them is broken.” But, lest we should miss the primary import of this Old Testament Scripture (Ex. 12:4646In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. (Exodus 12:46)), the Spirit of God has given it to us in a slightly different form in the New Testament, which, taken in its connection, cannot be misunderstood as referring to the Messiah; for in John 19:3636For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. (John 19:36) we read, “These things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of Him shall not be broken.”
I cannot, however, leave this subject without reminding the reader of the extreme care—even to a superstitious extent—with which the Jews regarded, not only the words, but the letters of the Old Testament; and, seeing that the writers of the New Testament were themselves Jews, it is not too much to say that, in quoting Old Testament passages, had they been left to themselves they would have copied the originals with the greatest care, and would not have dared to alter a single letter. But the truth is, these things were not done “by the will of man” (2 Peter 1:2121For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)); and so, in spite of the fact that in many cases the writers must have known that they were not giving the exact words of the old familiar text, nevertheless, being “moved”—or borne along—by the mighty influence of the Holy Ghost, they had to write the words which God gave them. And we may imagine with what fear and trembling they must at times have perused their own writings, seeing those differences, and yet never daring to lift a pen to alter one of them.
Bearing these things in mind, we must surely acknowledge that the altered wording in the quotations, far from revealing any human weakness or error, is the most convincing evidence of the absolute and verbal inspiration of the Bible.
The so-called “Immorality” of the Bible
There are those who say the Bible cannot be inspired throughout, owing to those parts which they consider immoral.
Now, first of all, it should never be forgotten that the Bible is an Eastern Book, written in Eastern style.
The Rev. James Neil—an experienced Eastern resident—in his Strange Scenes says, in relation to what are sometimes looked upon as coarse or immodest statements:
“No Eastern could possibly see any objection on this score. They still, as in ancient times, use the greatest plainness of speech throughout Syria. As soon as one acquires a knowledge of common Arabic the ear is assailed by a plain speaking on the most delicate subjects which is extremely embarrassing, until such time as one learns to become accustomed to it. Things that are never mentioned among us, are spoken of publicly in the East, even by ladies of the highest class, and of the greatest respectability, refinement, and purity.
“This explains at once the naturalness and innocence of the use of expressions and the mention of matters in the Bible which our translators have softened down in some instances, and public readers have tacitly, and as I believe wrongly, agreed to omit in others. The purest-minded Eastern woman would smile at an objection to the Bible on this score!
“But I may go further, and boldly say that, seeing the Bible purports to be an Eastern Book, written in the East, by Eastern and first—and for long ages—addressed to Easterns only, it could not possibly be genuine if these very matters, which have given rise to such blasphemous cavils, were absent from its pages!”
So that, on consideration, it will be seen that this is one of those very objections which constitute the surest proof of inspiration, and singles out the Bible from among all other books as a divine production. Who but God would have recorded Noah’s drunkenness, Abraham’s deception about his wife, Lot’s disgraceful conduct with his daughters, Jacob cheating his brother and deceiving his father, Moses’ outburst of temper, David’s sin, Peter cursing and swearing, and even Paul and Barnabas quarreling about Mark? Had mere men been writing about their best friends, would they not have “hushed up” these few faults in their lives, mentioning only their good deeds? and hence—as frequently happens in human productions—only a one-sided account of their lives would have been given.
Hannibal, the mighty Carthaginian general, who lived about 200 B.C., lost an eye in one of those perilous campaigns for which he was so famous. When later in life two artists were engaged to paint his portrait, so anxious were they both to hide the physical defect of their hero, that neither of them gave a true representation of the man. The one painted him full-faced, but gave him two good eyes; while the other produced a side-faced picture, but carefully selected that side which had the good eye! The intention was kind, but the result was in both cases a deception.
How different is God’s Book! Although the Bible tells us “Noah walked with God,” “Abraham was the friend of God,” Jacob and Moses were “His chosen,” and David was a man after His own heart, yet with unflinching faithfulness the same Book records the above-mentioned sins of those very saints of His— sins that make us blush with shame to read about. And why are such things written? Not to contaminate our minds or drive us from the Bible, but “to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted” (1 Cor. 10:66Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. (1 Corinthians 10:6)). And however pedantic some may affect to be about the reading of such things in the Bible, let us remember that what God hates is the doing of them; and hence He records them for our warning, “and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come” (1 Cor. 10:1111Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. (1 Corinthians 10:11)).
And may I here remind my reader that there is another Book—written by the same hand—the contents of which are so awful in their nature that they will make the ears of every one that heareth to tingle! I refer to the Book of Remembrance, in which has been recorded, with more awful detail and accuracy than could be done by any human hand, every filthy and wicked thought and deed and word, of which the vilest sinners have been guilty since the world began (Matt. 12:36, 3736But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matthew 12:36‑37), and Rev. 20:1212And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)). And in the day when that Book is read it will be realized, when it is all too late, by those whose names are associated with such deeds, that long-forgotten and hidden sins have all been taken account of; and it will then be universally acknowledged that in keeping such a record the Judge of all the earth has done right (Rev. 19:22For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. (Revelation 19:2)).
But how shallow are some of these objections which are brought forward on this subject!
Here are two specimens, sent to a minister quite recently by two independent persons, and which by a curious coincidence came into my hands—objections which apparently stood in the way of their believing in the full inspiration of every part of the Scriptures.
It will be seen, however, that here, as in most similar cases, the true teaching is both clear and solemn and could only be misunderstood either by being read carelessly, as in the first case, or being considered altogether apart from its connection, as in the second case.
I quote the objectors’ own words:
Spoil of the Midianites
“Am I to understand that God approved of taking as tribute, in spoils of war, a number of virgins for a use that is only too obvious? (Num. 30:25-31, 35, and 40).”
Here it is implied that either this passage is not inspired, or that God winks at immorality.
The mere question, however, displays great ignorance, and shows that the questioner must have read the chapter very carelessly, and apparently with a biased mind. That passage contains one of the most solemn warnings against immorality to be found in the Bible; and, far from even recognizing acts of impurity, shows Israel’s God to be a God of awful purity.
In Numbers 25:11And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. (Numbers 25:1) we read that the men of Israel had previously committed whoredom with these daughters of Moab; and, as judgment always begins at the House of God (1 Peter 4:1717For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17)), we are told that every man of Israel found guilty of this horrible crime was slain without mercy (Num. 25:5, 85And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baal-peor. (Numbers 25:5)
8And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. (Numbers 25:8), and 9).
But Numbers 31 shows that, although in the case of the Midianites judgment was delayed—as it often is in the case of the wicked (Eccl. 8:1111Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. (Ecclesiastes 8:11))—nevertheless, when it did come, it came with relentless severity; every male, without exception, being slain (vers. 7, 8, and 17), and every woman who had been guilty of whoredom was slain likewise (ver. 17). Indeed, from verse 18, it seems clear that every grown woman was guilty, none but little girls— “women children” —who numbered thirty-two thousand (ver. 35), remaining pure; and these God saved from the general destruction, as He saved Lot out of Sodom.
The gratuitous and almost blasphemous suggestion of the questioner that God allowed the Israelites to take “a number of virgins for a use that is only too obvious” displays such gross ignorance of the whole subject that it is difficult to write calmly about it. Who shall say that God, in His mercy toward these innocent little girls (“women children”), did not purposely bring them thus into association with His people Israel, in order that they, having seen the judgment that fell upon their own people for their wickedness, might learn of Him, and grow up pure and useful members of society. Moreover, when all the males and all the grown women were slain, who was to look after these thirty-two thousand helpless orphan girls if God’s people did not? Were they to be left to starve and die? or to be taken up by some other heathen nation, and, like their ancestors, learn a life of shame?
Jael and Sisera
Perhaps under this heading it might be well to mention briefly the case of Jael (Judg. 4 and 5). This story, we are told by a popular writer, is quite incompatible with inspiration, inasmuch as Deborah the prophetess could never have been guided by the Holy Spirit to greet Jael with such a triumphal benediction after “her act of treachery” in slaying Sisera, as she did in those words, “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be.”
Let me, however, remind the reader, first of all, that what we have in the Bible is a divinely inspired, and therefore an absolutely correct, record, both of Jael’s act and of Deborah’s song—whether Jael’s act were right or wrong, and whether Deborah’s song were inspired or not. Or, to put it in another way, the inspired historian tells us that Jael did a certain thing, and that Deborah and Barak sang a certain song, and so far as I know the Scriptures do not actually state that either the act or the song was inspired. So that, from an historical point of view, this does not in any way affect the inspiration of the Bible.
But, as a matter of fact, there is every evidence that the song of Deborah and Barak was inspired, and that Jael’s action in slaying Sisera was absolutely correct. Indeed, it was prophesied beforehand in the hearing of Barak that “the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman” (Judg. 4:99And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honor; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh. (Judges 4:9)).
The fact is, this passage could only be misunderstood by those who are unacquainted with Eastern habits and customs.
“Among the nomad tribes of Palestine and the surrounding deserts the rights of hospitality are peculiarly sacred and inviolable. Base beyond description would that wretch be accounted who, having first entertained a stranger, not to say an ally, in an Arab tent, afterward took his life when he laid down to rest.”
And yet Deborah the prophetess and Barak sang in eloquent language the praises of Jael, and no word of protest was raised by any of the thousands of Israel. Nor was there the least hint given by those who knew all the circumstances that Jael had acted treacherously.
Yet, strange to say, the very writer referred to above, who so strongly condemns Jael’s act as one of treachery and Deborah’s song as a piece of uninspired but natural outburst of enthusiasm in the hour of victory, “excusable perhaps in those early days of the world’s education,” adds this remarkable comment, “How easily we might even praise her (Jael) ourselves, perhaps, if we knew all the circumstances.” Exactly so, and with a little trouble he might have known at least more of the circumstances than he appears to know at present.
The explanation is perfectly simple to those who are acquainted with native life in the East, which is exactly the same today as it was four thousand years ago.
“Jael, left alone by herself, separated from her husband and his servants, who appear to have been at a distance with the flocks, sees the general of Jabin’s forces running towards her tent, determined to force an entrance. What could she do to resist an armed and desperate man? No other course was possible save to do as we read she did—namely, put a good face on the matter and ask him in. But the point on which the narrative turns is this. Sisera had no right to enter her tent at all. The women’s apartment of an Arab tent—the only place in it where any privacy exists—must never under any circumstances be entered by a man. Instances are recorded by the Arabs of a defeated warrior having hidden himself in the apartments of women; but such a heinous breach of Eastern etiquette has in each case been followed by the sentence of death. The insult and wrong done to Jael from the point of view of a Bedouin woman was such that, in order to avenge her honor, her husband or her brother would have been bound, by the unwritten but inflexible code of Eastern law, to take Sisera’s life. She simply became the executioner of a sentence which some other person would, under ordinary circumstances, have carried out. This alters the whole case; and Jael, instead of being a cruel, lawless, and treacherous creature, becomes, from the only standard by which we have any right to judge her, a true heroine. It is most interesting to observe that, in Deborah’s inspired commendation of the conduct of Heber’s wife, particular stress is laid upon the fact of her being a Bedouin woman, and acting nobly and righteously from a Bedouin’s point of view—viz. ‘Blessed let her be among women in the tent’ (Judg. 5:2424Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent. (Judges 5:24)). This could not possibly have been said if it were a case of treachery or murder in connection with a guest.”
Moreover, the “buttermilk” which she gave to Sisera (Judg. 5:2525He asked water, and she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish. (Judges 5:25)), is said by travelers to quickly induce great drowsiness and heavy sleep, and “there can be no doubt that Jael’s purpose in supplying this so liberally was to send him into a sound deep sleep (Judg. 4:2121Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died. (Judges 4:21)). If so, then her conduct throughout appears to have been perfectly consistent, as an attempt to punish, in a summary but lawful way, what in her eyes, and the eyes of her people, was an unpardonable crime, committed by a well-known and unscrupulous tyrant, who seems to have trusted for impunity to his high rank.”
Viewed in this light, how natural to read—immediately after Jael had shown Barak the dead body of Sisera— “so God subdued on that day Jabin the King of Canaan before the children of Israel” (Judg. 4:22, 2322And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will show thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples. 23So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel. (Judges 4:22‑23)), showing that, however much man in these days might misjudge Jael, the Almighty so approved of her act as to associate His name with it!
The Jew
One word more before closing this chapter. Frederick the Great once demanded proof in one word that the Bible was inspired. The answer given was “Jew”—an answer which must appeal to all.
Among the many prophecies concerning this remarkable people—some of which are being fulfilled before our eyes today—there are two which, on the face of them, seem so contradictory as to make the fulfillment of both appear utterly impossible. One is that if they did evil in the sight of the Lord and refused to obey God’s voice, they would be “scattered among the nations” (Deut. 4:2727And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the Lord shall lead you. (Deuteronomy 4:27), and 28:64; Jer. 9:1616I will scatter them also among the heathen, whom neither they nor their fathers have known: and I will send a sword after them, till I have consumed them. (Jeremiah 9:16); Ezek. 22:1515And I will scatter thee among the heathen, and disperse thee in the countries, and will consume thy filthiness out of thee. (Ezekiel 22:15); Zech. 7:1414But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them, that no man passed through nor returned: for they laid the pleasant land desolate. (Zechariah 7:14), etc.). The other is in Numbers 23:99For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations. (Numbers 23:9), where Balaam, speaking under inspiration, said, “Lo! the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”
How utterly incompatible these prophecies seem and yet there is probably nothing more manifest in the eyes of the whole world today than the literal fulfillment of them both. In accordance with Jehovah’s oft-repeated warning, the Jews are scattered among the nations; but, unlike all other people on the face of the earth, they never lose their nationality by assimilating themselves with the people amongst whom they dwell; and hence, in equally strict accord with Balaam’s prophecy, wherever they are found they always “dwell alone” and are not reckoned among the nations!