In a small pamphlet it is necessary to be concise, and therefore under this heading we propose to quote Modernistic views from one book only, viz: " Peake's Commentary on the Bible." It has been published since the first Great War, so that it is fairly up-to-date. The late Professor A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D., was its compiler, and its contributors number sixty-one men of scholarship, most of them principals or professors of theological colleges. Rev. W. Graham Scroggie described this Commentary as " Sodden with infidelity." A few extracts will abundantly prove this description to be true.
Peake's Commentary is designed, so it is stated, to present the generally accepted results of Biblical Criticism, Interpretation, History, and Theology. It is put forth in the hope that it may be specially helpful to day and Sunday school teachers, lay preachers, leaders of Bible classes, and theological students. May God have mercy on leaders taught in this connection.
That verbal inspiration of the original Scriptures is denied by Modernists is fully proved by the following extracts.
Writing of Genesis Professor Peake says:- " Apart from internal inconsistencies there are intrinsic incredibilities... much in Gen. 1:1111And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (Genesis 1:11). It is of mythical origin; but it has been purified in various degrees by the religious genius of Israel and the spirit of revelation." (P., P. 133).
Evidently according to the Professor he thinks Gen. 1:1111And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (Genesis 1:11) is largely mythical and therefore, to that extent, uninspired, but purified by the religious genius of Israel and the spirit of revelation; that is, inspired in some vague and partial way.
We ask, Was it the religious genius of Israel that brought a measure of purity into the Scriptures, or the Scriptures that originated the religious genius of Israel? Has Professor Peake not observed how the tendency of the children of Israel was ever to relapse into the idolatry of the surrounding nations? Where then was the indigenous religious genius of Israel?
Was not Abraham a poor idolator, when the God of glory appeared unto him? Was it the religious genius of Abraham that purified him of idolatry, or was it the revelation of God that effected this wonderful result?
Ishmael and Isaac were both sons of Abraham. Why did Isaac alone exhibit "natural genius for religion"? Esau and Jacob were both sons of Isaac. Why did Jacob alone develop a "natural genius for religion"?
Moses was brought up in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was accustomed to court life. Was it his "natural genius for religion," or the sight of the burning bush and Jehovah's commissioning him for his great work, that sent him to his great task?
Take the conversion of the apostle Paul. Was it his "natural genius for religion " that led him into the path of Christianity, or that wonderful experience on the Damascus road, when the light above the brightness of the sun unhorsed him, and the voice from heaven converted him?
In every case the truth is exactly the opposite of Professor Peake's idea.
Then further, he thinks that Gen. 1 II has been purified by the spirit of revelation. Surely if there were the spirit of revelation it was capable not merely of purifying that which was corrupt, but of giving us a pure revelation first hand. Fancy " the spirit of revelation " in Genesis leaving " internal inconsistencies " and " intrinsic incredibilities." The purifying did not go very far. It is an insult to God to put such views upon record.
We may well ask, Why was Israel the only nation to have this " natural genius for religion "? Why was Israel alone monotheistic amid nations steeped in the idolatry of gods many? Why did Israel worship the true and living God, and not created things as did the surrounding nations.
It was in truth something outside and above themselves that originated these ideas, something that held them to them in spite of their constant tendency to relapse. Those forces were revelation and the Spirit of God. Surely if God revealed His mind at all, He would reveal it adequately, and not be compelled to take up man's corrupt ideas, purifying them somewhat, yet leaving myth and legend, " internal inconsistencies" and "intrinsic incredibilities" to puzzle and perplex the readers of the Scriptures.
What is the plowman, and the fisherman, the artisan and the shopman, nay, the learned and the scholar to make of a Bible such as Professor Peake wishes to give us? Where is the assurance as to God's Word? Completely gone.
And if the reliability of God's Word is taken from us, everything is gone. It is the central stone of the arch, the keystone of the building. Without it there can be no arch, no building.
Principal E. Griffith-Jones says:- "There is an instinctive craving in the human soul for a standard of belief and conduct which shall be accepted as infallible. To stigmatize this as a superstition or an infirmity is to pass an undiscriminating judgment on a universal tendency. What marks man everywhere, in all his strivings after spiritual peace and assurance, must be a valid instinct in itself, however many the abuses associated with its workings." (P., p. 7).
This is well said indeed. But he says too much to be consistent with his Modernistic view. It seems to us that the Professor is hoisted with his own petard. He unites with Professor Peake in destroying our faith in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, yet he tells us that there is an instinctive craving in the human soul for a standard of belief which shall be accepted as infallible. We ask, Who gave to man that craving? The answer must be, God. And if God gave the craving, shall He mock us by allowing us to have a book with much of it of mythical origin, with "internal inconsistencies" and "intrinsic incredibilities"?
If God gives man hunger He must of necessity give food, and provide the food, too, before He gives the hunger, and if He gives food He does not mix it with poison and rubbish. And if God meets the physical hunger of man with food of His own providing, will He not meet man's spiritual hunger by giving Him that which satisfies his craving for infallibility, and this we find in Christ, and in God's holy Word?
Professor Peake says:- " The story [of creation in Genesis 1) rests upon a much older tradition, mainly it would seem, Babylonian in its origin... At what time this myth reached Israel is much disputed." (P., p. 135).
It is strange how contradictory conclusions may be. Professor Pinches writes:- " The important point is, that there is very little in all this that implies borrowing, as has been stated, on the part of the writer of the book of Genesis. In the opinion of the Babylonians, the heavens and the earth came into existence and were not created... there is no appearance of the Deity as the first and only cause of the existence of things... the simple theology which appears in this book of Genesis did not, therefore, exist with the Babylonians and Assyrians, but gave place to a clever and attractive cosmological theory." THE WITNESS OF Archeology TO THE BIBLE, pp. 7, 8.
Another authority on Babylonia-Maunder-said that the whole Bible is as clean as driven snow of any trace of Babylonian ideas.
That mankind generally should have ideas of creation is to be expected, and that these ideas, filtering down from the earliest stage in the history of man through succeeding ages, should become mixed up with degrading and fantastic ideas is not surprising. Indeed, Romans tells us how man, knowing God at first, did not like to retain God in his knowledge, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into images of corruptible man, of bird and beast and creeping thing.
Unless God revealed to us how creation took place we should never have known how it took place, for no human person was there to see. Everything but revelation is guess, and worth nothing.
Contrast the following account of creation with Gen. 1, and then decide how much Moses copied from any other source.
Berosus tells us that the Babylonians held that- "In the beginning all was darkness and water, and therein were generated animals of strange forms—men with two wings and two faces, men with heads and horns of goats, there were bulls with human heads, dogs with boars' bodies and fishes' tails. A woman ruled them. Then Belus appeared, and split the woman in twain; of the one half of her he made heaven, and of the other half he made the earth. Belus commanded one of the gods to cut off his head and to mix the blood which flowed from the earth and form man therewith, and beasts that could bear the light.
If Moses was inspired to produce the simple, profound, and majestic description as found in Genesis 1, it is unbelievable that he could be indebted in any degree to such a grotesque account of creation as we have just quoted.
The Chaldean "Genesis" is again described as:- " A struggle between Tiamat, the female personification (presumably) of primeval waters and the rest of the gods. Anu claims the right to decide the dispute, but Tiamat declares war. Marduk fights against her, takes captive the gods who are her allies, cleaves her in twain, and out of the one half of her skin fashions the firmament of heaven, out of the other the earth. The eleven monsters he places in the sky to be signs of the Zodiac."
Or take the Hindu theory of the universe:- "The earth was a flat, triangular expanse, in three stories, built upon the backs of elephants, and that the elephants in turn stood firm upon a tortoise, and the tortoise upon a serpent's coil, and the serpent on no one knows what."
It may be that Professor Peake sincerely believed that he was doing God's service by promulgating such ideas as we have just quoted from his Commentary, but that makes such propaganda all the more dangerous. Saul of Tarsus sincerely thought that he was doing God's service when he was haling men and women to prison, and even consenting to the murder of Stephen because he was a Christian.
A child of eighteen months recently was left in a motor car, touched a lever, setting it in motion. It knocked down an electric standard, thereby cutting off the electric current for a large town for a considerable period of time. The fact that the innocent babe did not realize the seriousness of its act did not lessen the consequences of it.
For gratuitous speculation, unsupported by a line of Scripture, the following from the pen of Professor Peake would be hard to beat- "Among the animals formed by Yahweh in His first attempt to provide man with a companion, was the serpent; at that time, either a quadruped or holding itself erect." (P., p. 140).
We could not have believed such arrant nonsense could have been written did it not appear word for word in his Commentary. The Bible may be questioned, Christ may be blasphemed, but here God Himself is stated to have made an attempt to mate Adam with the serpent, and to have failed, and this without one line of proof. It is pure speculation and assumption. What sort of God is this? It is horrible stuff, and puerile and contemptible at that.
To criticize every statement in Peake's Commentary would mean several volumes, but if the rest of Professor Peake's statements are no more satisfactory than those we have just criticized, we may well avoid placing the slightest confidence in him as a religious guide.
Let us now take a statement of Principal E. Griffith-Jones. " Out of 275 quotations it has been found that there are only 53 in which the Hebrew, the Septuagint (or Greek version of the Old Testament) and the New Testament writers verbally agree; there are 99 in which the New Testament quotation differs from both (which also differ from one another), and 76 in which the correct Septuagint rendering has been wrongly altered. This is quite incompatible with the position that all the words of Scripture are equally inspired; for can we believe that the Holy Spirit would misquote Himself?" (P., P. 4).
a point against the Scriptures, but, in reality, it does not show up the Bible, but the ignorance and simplicity of the reverend gentleman who makes it. If he cannot look beneath the surface a little better than this, we shall not be inclined to take him any more seriously than we do Professor Peake.
If the Bible claims to be inspired it surely would not be so careless as to throw away its chances of being thus received by exhibiting such obvious carelessness. A mere copyist could have ensured the making of the quotations correctly. We could have set the office boy to a task like this.
Out of 275 quotations Mr. Griffith-Jones tells us that 222 are incorrect. It looks at first sight as if the Bible writers had purposely set out to be utterly careless in that particular. It is not a question of half-a-dozen quotations being garbled among so many, and even those would have been seized upon with delight by the enemies of the Bible, but the number is so preponderating as to set aside the charge of carelessness.
The answer to Principal Griffith-Jones' statement is this. When an inspired writer quotes from the Old Testament he uses just as much of the passage quoted as suits the purpose of the Divine Mind, though never contradicting it, altering it often in order to convey, not the exact meaning of the Old Testament passage, but the fuller meaning intended to be conveyed by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.
Now no one but God could so treat Scripture. The fact that it is done, and done largely, is another claim to inspiration. God is the Author of the Bible, and He can quote His OWN words, altering and adding to them to suit His purpose. But if any of us quote Scripture, we must do it with careful exactitude. We have no right to alter a jot or tittle. But the Author of the Book can do this. It matters little what pen He uses, whether it be Moses or Isaiah, Peter or Paul, or Matthew or John, it is all His writing.
Let us give an illustration. In the Old Testament we have a Scripture, and in the New Testament we have the quotation.
Why is the "IT" of the Old Testament altered to "HE" in the New Testament? Principal Griffith-Jones sees no more in it than the mistaken bungle of the writer of the New Testament quotation. Surely he is looking at the matter from the point of view of a mere mechanical copyist. The fact is both passages are equally and verbally inspired. They both fit in with the scheme of the dispensation in which they occur.
In the Old Testament we get the hope of the Jew: in the New Testament the hope of the Christian. The former is for Christ to come back to earth, subdue His enemies, take out of His kingdom all things that offend, and set up His glorious reign, making Israel the head of the nations because He will be at the head of the Jewish nation. Such a prospect is rightly described as a vision in Hab. 2:33For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. (Habakkuk 2:3), and a glowing, glorious vision it surely is. Reference to the vision is marked by the word "IT."
But when we come to the hope of the Christian another point of view is taken up. Before the Christian is called to take his part to reign WITH Christ, Christ will come FOR him and take him out of this world, "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye " (1 Cor. 15:5252In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:52)), to be with Himself. The Christian thus waits for a Person, and the quotation is altered designedly and of set purpose from the "IT" of Habakkuk to the "HE" of Hebrews. Both the Old Testament passage and the altered quotation in the New Testament are alike verbally inspired and equally Scripture.
But Principal Griffith-Jones is blind to all this-" a blind leader of the blind," we fear.
Take another instance, and this must suffice, though we could extend the list to a very long one. We set the Old Testament Scripture and the New Testament quotation side by side:-
Evidently the New Testament quotation throws light upon the Old Testament passage, enlarging and amplifying it in view of the fuller light that Christ had put upon everything. In Psa. 8 we are not given the name of the Son of Man. Christ had not come then. But a thousand years before His advent into the world the Son of Man is prophesied of as coming, so surely, that what was dimly future then, was spoken of as having been already accomplished. No uninspired pen would ever have dreamed of putting things in that way.
Not only so, but the New Testament tells us the Son of Man of Psa. 8 is none other than our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, and the object for which He was made a little lower than the angels is given, viz: " for the suffering of death " and that " He by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
Yet Principal Griffith-Jones would have the New Testament writer to refuse the fuller light which the coming of Christ gave, and to quote with the dull accuracy of a mere mechanical copyist, or of a compiler of dry statistics, but the living Word of God cannot be so bound. We should have been infinite losers if it had been.
Then Principal Griffith-Jones comments on the fact that the original Scriptures have long since disappeared, and that in the hundreds of MSS. existing there is much variation; that while we can be practically certain of the sense of most passages, we cannot often be sure which rendering is nearest the exact wording of the original text. He then says:—" In view of these unquestionable facts, it is futile to affirm any longer the verbally inspired character of the Bible, and those who would ' save their faces ' by suggesting this of the lost original text are doing small honor to the Holy Spirit, for if it was worth while working a miracle to produce such a text, why was not a miracle wrought to preserve it from corruption?" (P., p. 4).
The answer as to why the original Scriptures have not been preserved we think is twofold. First, if they had been, probably religious skeptics would have denied the fact of their being the originals. What would there have been to have hindered their doing so?
On the one hand, if rationalism might have flouted their claim to be the originals, the ritualists would have gone to the other extreme, and have surrounded them with idolatrous superstition.
We remember how the children of Israel burned incense before the brazen serpent that Moses made, and that the godly King Hezekiah broke it in pieces, and called it in derision, "Nehushtan," literally a trifle of brass. We believe God allowed the original Scriptures to disappear for the same reason that Hezekiah destroyed the serpent of brass.
Principal Griffith-Jones asks, if it was worth while producing a verbally inspired text, "why was not a miracle wrought to save it from corruption?"
We may well ask the reverend gentleman a question. If he allows, and he does allow a measure of divine inspiration in the Scriptures, does he not do the Holy Spirit small honor when he affirms that the writers of the Scriptures put down a mixture of truth and error?
As he says:- "It is quite in analogy with other facts to believe that a real vision of God may be compatible with imperfect knowledge of facts and events, and that a true point of view may co-exist with much intellectual error and confusion... The truth may have taken on the color of the speaker's temperament and individuality, and so more or less distorted in expression, without losing its Divine quality." (P., p. 4).
Surely if the Holy Spirit had gone thus far He would have gone further, and have given poor mortals the pure Word of God, unadulterated and infallible.
We would now seek to answer the Principal's question, Why was not a miracle wrought to preserve the copies and translations of the Scriptures from corruption? If that had been the case we should have been in the same danger as if the original Scriptures had been preserved. Revelation and inspiration were necessary for the original Scriptures, but to have preserved every copyist from mistakes would simply be claiming inspiration for any person, who chose to copy the Scriptures, whatever their reason for doing so might be.
Nay further, and let Principal Griffith-Jones take note of this. Why is it that we have many hundreds of manuscript copies of the Holy Scriptures, either in part or the whole, and no other book in the world has received such attention? Why was it the life-long work of men of former centuries to copy the Scriptures with such reverence and extreme care? Why is it that the writings of the early 'fathers abound in Scripture quotations, so numerous that practically the whole of the Bible was quoted by them? Why was it that Scripture was thus regarded as infallible and authoritative? Simply because it was firmly believed by the apostles, and those who came after them, to be the veritable, inspired Word of God.
Even Peake's Commentary admits that- " For more than a thousand years after our era [the Christian era] the tradition of Mosaic authorship was not seriously questioned." (P., p. 121).
We think that Paul and Peter and John and Augustine and Chrysostom, and Jerome were as good judges as Professor Peake and his collaborators, and they came to a very different conclusion from that of the Modernists.
And further, that God used the reverent and painstaking labors of the men, who copied the Scriptures, to preserve to us His own word is very remarkable. Look at the fanatical jealousy with which the Jews guarded the integrity of the Old Testament. Scriptures. Even to this present day, men, who deny the Virgin Birth, preach from a Bible which affirms it. Men, who deny the existence of hell, hold in their hands the Book which states its existence again and again. The Bible in whole or in part is being printed by the million in over 1,000 languages without one word being altered.
Lastly, if you take all the disputed passages as the result of various renderings of the ancient manuscripts, it is as but a mere handful of chaff to a whole field of wheat. Not one Bible doctrine is weakened. There is absolutely no serious disagreement. The deity of Christ, His true manhood, His atoning death, His glorious resurrection, the glorious gospel, His coming again, all shine out in clear light, and are absolutely unaffected.
It is as if you had a looking-glass, with a mere speck or two of the quick-silver defective. If you looked into the glass and saw your reflection, you would have no doubt, as to what you saw, though the glass had sustained this trifling defect. So with the translations of the Word of God.
We would rather that the original Scriptures were lost. The very multiplicity of the copies of part and the whole only proves indubitably that the original Scriptures existed; and the exceedingly insignificant variation of the text only brings into brilliant relief the marvelous reliability of the translation of the Scriptures we hold in our hands.
The very fact that the copyists were uninspired and that God worked no miracle in their case, only proves more than ever the integrity of the Holy Scriptures, for if so very much in the Word of God in these circumstances is undisputed, and the little that is, does not affect anything fundamental or vital in the very least, it only confirms in overwhelming fashion our faith that we hold the very Scriptures of God in our hand.
We sometimes use an illustration to show how God can employ a man as an inspired penman without reducing him to a mere automaton, extinguishing his personality. For instance, one can get an idea of the different writers from their writings. Paul, that rare combination of great intellect, argumentative power, indomitable will, and tender affection. Peter, lacking the breadth of mind that education gave to Paul, impulsive and energetic. Isaiah, poetical. Solomon, sententious and wise, etc., etc.
Suppose you are at a banquet. You notice a number of jelly shapes on the table. Some are large and some small some square, some oblong, some round, some ornamented and some plain.
We ask the question, How much of the mold is in the jelly? The mold gives shape to the jelly, just as one can often tell by a passage of Scripture which writer penned it. You hear a verse and you say, That sounds like Paul, or like John, or like David.
You can tell what kind of mold the jelly has been in, but how much of the mold is in the jelly? The answer is, Not a single atom of the mold is in the jelly. So God, we believe, gives us in language, molded by the personality of the writer, thoughts which are God's alone, without any admixture of error. We recognize the mold, but what is conveyed is God's truth. "The words of the Lord are pure words."
Sometimes we are asked how can we tell that the Apocrypha is not inspired. A brief answer can be given under three heads. (1) It is never once quoted in the New Testament, whilst the Old Testament Scriptures are constantly quoted. (2) It apologizes for itself, which the inspired Scriptures never do. (3) The perusal of it makes the reader very conscious that it is far below the lofty standard of the inspired writings.
Professor E. Griffith-Jones shows his ignorance of the spiritual meaning of Scripture when he asks the question:- " What value for spiritual life can we find in the minute liturgical and ceremonial details of the Tabernacle and its services?" (P., p. 5).
It is true that he refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews as dealing with Judaism as the shadow of Christianity, but it is evident that he could not have penned the above question, if he had rightly understood and appreciated the Hebrew epistle. That epistle is filled with the choicest teaching for the Christian, based on the Tabernacle details, either used as the shadow is to the substance, or by way of contrast. We find the teaching, based on the Tabernacle shadows in the light of the New Testament substance, most valuable for spiritual life.
The late Sir Robert Anderson, L.L.D., put upon record how the opening up of the spiritual meaning of the Jewish ceremonial law convinced him of the wonderful inspiration of Scripture, and was of untold blessing to him.
When Principal Griffith-Jones can dismiss with a wave of his hand such a portion of God's Word as valueless for spiritual life, when it forms one of the greatest helps to be found in the Word of God, we can only express our conviction that in criticizing the Bible he is only showing up his own ignorance of it.
Writing of deliverance from old-fashioned views on the Bible, the same Professor writes:- " The first blow came from the Copernican astronomy, which dethroned the earth from her central place among the heavenly bodies; the second from geology, which superseded the Mosaic program of the creation of the world in six days, and substituted eras of unimaginable length in the formation of the earth's crust for the legendary week of Genesis r; the third from the theory of evolution, which filled the vast ranges of space and time thus suddenly thrown open with a perspective of developing life, whose evolution is still far from its goal. The emancipation is now fairly complete but unfortunately, the triumph of science has for the time impaired the authority of Scripture not only as a text-book of astronomy or physics, but in its own proper domain as a fountain of religious knowledge and of spiritual inspiration.," (P., p. 5).
Certainly here we have an extract "sodden with infidelity." Here is a Christian minister who refuses to believe in Gen. 1 as to the creation of the world and of man, because he thinks it is in conflict with the speculations of geology and the theories of evolution. Let us take the three points at issue.
Where does the Bible contradict the truth that the sun and not the earth is the center of our system? Naturally, as this earth is the habitation of man, we should get in detail the steps in the creation and arrangement of the earth as planned for his comfort, whilst little is said about the sun and moon and stars.
Take the case of a young child with opening intelligence. Naturally this earth would occupy his mind; by-and-bye, as he grew up, he would grasp the meaning of the sun as a beneficent light-giver and fructifier of earth's harvest, and without which this earth would cease to be able to maintain life, whether animal or vegetable.
If the Bible taught that the earth was the center of the universe, how is it that centuries before Copernicus lived, we should have the coming of the Son of Man prophesied as to occur simultaneously in broad daylight, at early morn, and in the darkness of night, as seen in two men in the field, two women grinding together, and two men in one bed, at the same moment of time (see Luke 17:34-3634I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (Luke 17:34‑36))? This could only happen by the earth revolving on its axis, when the part of the earth towards the sun is bathed in light, and the part away from it is wrapped in darkness. How does Principal Griffith-Jones explain this?
The German Strauss was confident that the Copernican system had given the death-blow to Christianity. Well, Christianity has survived the blow, if blow it be. No, the Copernican theory did not strike a blow at Christianity, for the Bible and the Copernican theory do not contradict each other. True science and the Bible cannot be at variance, for God is the author of them both. Further, Principal Griffith-Jones says that geology has superseded the Mosaic program of the creation of the world in six days. But the Bible never says it took six days to create the world. The creation of the world is stated in Gen. 1:11In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1). There may have been millions of years between Gen. 1:11In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) and the rest of the Chapter, and geologists are welcome to all the time they demand for the formation of the rocks in their present order. The six days, whether literal days or long periods of time, were periods of re-construction.
Evidently the creation of the sun is included in the brief record of Gen. 1:11In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1), and it received its place as the center of our system as recorded in verse 16.
There are mysterious things to account for, such as the disappearance of the mammoth, and of other prehistoric animals, who have left no descendants on the earth. Did they disappear between Gen. 1:11In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) and 1:2? We think this is so. Also, how comes it that in the arctic regions of Hudson's Bay Territory there are fossils of gigantic ferns and palms, which show that in these arctic regions there was once a climate more tropical than anything we know now? These things should make men propound their theories, as to how creation took place in ages before man existed, with at least some measure of reserve and diffidence.
It has been said that it is much easier to reconcile Gen. 1 with geology, than it is to reconcile the last edition of Sir Charles Lyell's "Geology" with its first edition.
The third blow that Christianity has sustained, according to Principal Griffith-Jones, is from evolution as contradicting the account given of the creation of Adam in Gen. 1 Principal Griffith-Jones is right in calling evolution a theory, for it is a theory unscientific and unproved. It is not one missing link that is necessary to complete the proof of the theory, but millions, and they are ALL missing. There is no trace in nature of transmutation of species whatever, and the theory rests on that, an idea without a shadow of proof. Natural selection, another necessary part of the theory, utterly fails to furnish an iota of proof. Let man by his skill and arrangement produce superior varieties of pigeons, such as fantail, pouter, etc., then let the birds loose into the woods and in a few generations natural selection will have wiped out all the differences, and the descendants of these fantails and pouters will have got back to the common rock pigeon, the basic type.
Principal Griffith-Jones speaks of the Bible as a text-book of astronomy and physics. It is no such thing. It teaches what is necessary for man. It never contradicts true science, but it does challenge what Paul called with withering scorn, "science falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:2020O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (1 Timothy 6:20)).
We regret that we can only answer these extracts so cursorily, for the answer that can be given is annihilating. But space forbids anything fuller.
Sir Wm. Ramsey, an authority, whose competence to speak is without question, wrote:- The Modernist theologian knows all that I do not know. He has no hesitation; he fixes the limits of the possible, and knows exactly what is impossible... He knows all things, and he is content and happy in his utter ignorance... He believes in the so-called laws of Nature and thinks that he knows.
"I am only too ready to believe in the laws of Nature, but I do not know them. What are those laws of Nature? Of all the truths that I was taught at college fifty-five years ago, expressing the nature of light, of electricity, and heat, and sound, there is nothing left which a scientific man could now recite to his admiring and credulous pupils without exposing himself to ridicule as an ignorant pretender to knowledge, as repeating the outworn patter of an antiquated teaching. The Modernist is no more than a survival from the remote past."
These are scornful words, but the sting lies in their TRUTH.
It may well be that in another fifty-five years the present Evolutionary and Modernist theories will be described as "the worn-out patter of an antiquated teaching."
One proof of inspiration is, that whilst the theories of science are almost as changing as Paris fashions in ladies' dresses, the Bible remains the same, corroborated and not contradicted by any genuine fact as distinguished from hypotheses or theories which a pseudo-science has to offer us.
The Bible is the only Book that has stood the test of long centuries. What book of its age has anything more than an academic interest? They don't print Homer's Iliad or Caesar's History of the Gallic Wars by the million, nor do you hear of any one saying that the Iliad saved him from sin and made a new man of him Shakespeare's poetry does not gild the bed of death with light, as the Bible does for the dying saint. It was the Bible that Queen Victoria put into the hands of a dusky chieftain as the secret of Britain's greatness.
We now turn to another extract. Professor Addis writes:- "We set out to prove that there are no Psalms certainly or even probably Davidic. We have in reality advanced further. The Psalter, as a whole, presumably belongs to the second Temple, and even to the later history of that temple." (P., p. 368)
This bias in this astounding extract is plain. He can use the adverbs "certainly" and "probably" when denying what the Word of God affirms, and then use the adverb "presumably" when affirming what is sheer conjecture.
The reverend gentleman ought surely to have known what a serious statement he was making.
The apostle Peter attributes Psa. 16 to David's authorship, and shows that the royal author as a prophet foretells the resurrection of Christ Himself. But the Professor makes nothing of this, and in his comments on Psa. 16, confines the experience described to some unknown writer in the days of Ezra or later. He presumed to know better than the Apostle Peter.
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews attributes Psa. 95 to the authorship of David. (Heb. 3:77Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, (Hebrews 3:7)). So Professor Addis would have us believe that he knew better than the Apostles Peter and Paul, and the whole Jewish nation, its high priests and leaders.
And lastly, the Lord Himself attributed Psalm 110 to the authorship of David, claiming inspiration for it when He said, "David himself said by THE HOLY GHOST" (Mark 12:3636For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Mark 12:36)). In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and in the Acts of the Apostles, we get the affirmation that David wrote this Psalm. God forgive the flippant blasphemy of Peake's Commentary in daring to give the lie direct to the Son of God in the process of throwing doubt on the inspired Word of God.
Professor Peake, writing on the verse: "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel" (Isa. 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)), says:- "It has... no reference to the birth of Jesus more than seven hundred years later. Isaiah has no particular woman in view. Any young woman who shortly gives birth to a son may call his name Immanuel and by this expression of faith that God is with His people will rebuke the king's unbelief... The name Immanuel means 'God is with us,' not 'God with us'; there is no reference in it to an Incarnation of God." (P., p. 442).
The audacity of the above extract is shocking. Does not Matthew tell us concerning the manner of Christ's birth:—" Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken OF THE LORD by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matt. 1:22, 2322Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:22‑23))?
Professor Peake must have known of this passage and yet he has no scruple in ignoring it, or of making out that Matthew was mistaken. Matthew tells us distinctly that Isa. 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) refers to the Lord. Professor Peake says it does not. The issue is plain.
Moreover, Professor Peake denies that "virgin" means virgin, but affirms that it means a young woman of marriageable age, without any suggestion that she is not married.
And yet the narrative in Matthew makes it clear that Mary was a virgin; stating the fact most modestly yet most explicitly.
The coincidences of Scripture form a great argument for its inspiration. Why did Moses prophesy that the seed of the WOMAN should bruise the serpent's head? Why not the seed of the man? In God's ordering, procreation is produced by the seed of the man, and without it there is no procreation. Why does Moses speak then of the seed of the woman, if he were not inspired to record the very words of God, which were a first intimation of the Virgin Birth. Moses, Isaiah, and Matthew, link hands in this, as an old divine quaintly put it, "without collusion or collision."
Many Modernists either belittle the necessity of the Virgin Birth, or deny it altogether. The tendency is to lower the unique manhood of Jesus to the level of mankind generally, hence the desire to weaken or deny the truth of the Virgin Birth.
There are four ways in which human beings have come into this world.
(1) Adam, without the agency of man or woman.
(2) Eve, through man, without woman.
(3) The Lord Jesus, by woman without man.
(4) Mankind generally, by man and woman.
Those who gird at the Virgin Birth are found generally to be Evolutionists, and refuse the Bible account of the creation of Adam and Eve. Modernism and Evolution go hand-in-hand; both are founded on conjectures and guesses. Disbelieve a part of God's Word and confidence in the whole is shattered.
An infidel doctor was discussing the Virgin Birth with a Christian doctor, known to the writer. The former said, "I don't understand the Virgin Birth." The quick retort was, "Do you understand your own birth?" and the infidel was obliged to own that one was as mysterious as the other.
Bring God in, and everything is simple and understandable. By choosing that Christ should be born of a virgin, God would draw attention to Him as unique. He never was and never could be fallen humanity, as all of Adam's race are. If the birth of Jesus was brought about by "the power of the Highest" overshadowing the one who was His mother according to the flesh, little wonder that the divine conclusion is given in the words of Scripture:-"Therefore that HOLY thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God " (Luke 1:3535And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)).
We turn now to another quotation. In one sentence, Canon Streeter not only denies verbal inspiration, but reduces inspiration to almost a negligible quantity. For sheer audacity read the following:- "Students of the Old Testament will at once recall the evidence which points to the view that all the historical books of the Old Testament were put together on this ' scissors add paste ' method by compilers working on earlier documents." (P., p. 673).
Was ever any ancient book in the world put together like that? The following from the pen of the Rev. Dr. F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock shows to what mad lengths these critics have got. He says:-
"One rule of logic, known as 'the law of parsimony,' forbids the capricious multiplication of principles or things to suit one's purpose. When we first studied the Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch we had only J and E and P and D [letters indicating four documents from which the critics said the Pentateuch was compiled], we now have J1 J2 J3, E1 E2 E3, P1 P2 P3, D1 D2 D3, RI R2 R3, etc., in fact, they can be raised to any power required, for the constant resource of the critic is a fresh source... This nebulous series has now become the stock-in-trade of the critical school, and it is questionable if it does not involve a greater miracle than the ordinary Mosaic theory." WHEN CRITIC MEETS CRITIC, p. 15.
At first sight the above extract looks like some algebraic formula, but it is thus that the Modernists, undermining confidence in the Word of God, label their imaginary authors and editors. Is it not on the face of it a mass of wild guesses leading to the absolute undermining of all confidence in the Scriptures?
Alas! there was some ground for the Roman Catholic bishop, who held up the Bible and said, " This is the Word of God spite of what the Protestants say." The Jesuit scholar, the Rev. Jones, I. J. Corrigan, lecturing before 1,000, Catholic and non-Catholic, said recently:- "Modernism is Bolshevism in religious life, just as Communism is Bolshevism in private life... The Modernist movement is doomed to fail because it has assailed the rational basis of Christianity—which is impregnable... Modernism is too dishonest to win candid minds. Its scholarship is shallow, its philosophy false, historically it is inaccurate, and scientifically it is unsound. In religion, it is anti-Christ." Extracted from OUR HOPE, vol. 30, No. II.
Let us turn now to what Peake's Commentary tells us concerning the New Testament. Principal Griffith-Jones writes:- " It is no longer possible to insist on the literal accuracy of the gospel narratives; but concerning the Fact behind the narratives-the authentic personality of Jesus Christ-there is concordant and emphatic testimony" (P., p. 15).
Mr. H. G. Wood, writes: " We may suspect the stater in the fish's mouth (Matt. 17: 27), because it comes to us only on the testimony of the first gospel, because the occasion of the miracle is trivial, and because the basis of the story is a folklore motive. The strange silence of the Synoptists may make us hesitate to accept the raising of Lazarus (John 11) as history." (P., p. 663).
It really excites indignation to have to quote such folly. To think that one reason why Mr. Wood may suspect the story of the fish and the tribute money is because only Matthew records it, and a similar reason makes him hesitate to accept the story of the raising of Lazarus. What would Mr. Wood's wife, if he has one, think, if she told her husband a bit of news, and he responded, " My dear, I have heard this from your lips alone, and therefore I suspect that it is not true." Would this not be tantamount to saying that she was such a liar that anything she said, unsupported by another, was likely to be untrue.
Nor was the occasion of the miracle of the tribute money trivial. It was just one of these extraordinary incidents that would confirm the belief that Jesus was indeed the very Christ. Did not Psa. 8 prophesy that the Son of Man would have dominion over "the fish of the sea," and was this not a proof that He was indeed the Son of Man?
As to the raising of Lazarus, it is certain that John, familiar with the contents of the synoptic gospels, seeing he wrote his gospel long after the Christian church was familiar with them, would not have dared to describe such a story as the raising of Lazarus, if it had never happened. He certainly knew that he alone of the evangelists narrated the story. Is it possible that John who wrote the profound truths as to the Lord's Person. His sayings, His acts, and His death and resurrection, would have descended to such a colossal lie, nay, such a stupid lie, for if the story were not true John would have been branded not only as a liar, but as an exceedingly stupid liar? Would he have imperiled his character as a teacher and apostle by such a foolish misadventure? The whole circumstances of the case are evidence against it.
What Mr. Wood calls "the strange silence of the Synoptists" in connection with the incident of the raising of Lazarus is to our mind a strong proof of inspiration -a bit of "circumstantial evidence," so convincing to the legal mind. If the Synoptists had not been inspired, they certainly would have seized upon the miracle as "good copy." Such a dramatic incident in the life of our Lord they would not have missed. But the restraint of inspiration is as wonderful as its constraint, and is seen in no other book in all the world's literature.
Moreover, the raising of Lazarus is a sort of pledge of the resurrection of the saints. If the Lord will empty the tombs of all His people at His second coming, is it any wonder that He should give us this sample of His power in His lifetime? Is it not very convincing? Was not the raising of Lazarus intended as a sample of what will take place on a large scale at the coming of Christ? Was it not indeed an augury of His own resurrection? If He were "the Resurrection and the life," was it likely that He would remain in the grave? Nay, He prophesied His own resurrection and gave the sign of it. Is it not intended to strengthen our faith? His own resurrection alone exceeds this miracle in significance, but then all that refers to Christ Himself is unique and stands by itself.
Nor is the rude hand of the critic slow to lay hands on the character of the Lord Jesus Himself.
Principal E. Griffith-Jones says of the Lord Jesus:- "He was one who knew little, if anything of Greek philosophy, of Roman law, and nothing of the vast accumulation of knowledge which has been garnered and systematized since His day." (P., p. 8).
Seeing that "all things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:33All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)), it follows that the Lord certainly knew all the laws and phenomena of nature, including those of thought and mind, seeing His wisdom and power brought them into existence. Man has been slowly and laboriously finding out what existed as the work of His hand from all time. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing" (Prov. 25: 2).
Again Professor Griffith-Jones says:- " We cannot claim infallibility for Him in questions of history, such as the authorship of Old Testament books, or on the problems of science. In these directions He must be quite frankly considered to have accepted the current notions of His time." (P., p. 8.)
Thus writes this reverend gentleman, and this is the kind of teaching he gives his theological students, thus helping on the apostasy foretold in Scripture.
On similar lines Mr. H. G. Wood says:- "Isa. 53 probably sustained His [the Lord's] conviction that His death would be a ransom for many." (P., p. 661).
If this means anything, it means that the Son of God did not know what He came into the world to do. We have got no Christ if the above statement be true.
Again Mr. Wood says:- "In the [Christ's] baptism it was revealed to Him that He was the Coming One of whom John spoke, He was destined to be the Christ." (P., p. 662).
Can anything be worse than this, that the blessed Lord should not know who He Himself was, and what was His destiny? Can insult go further?
It is with great shrinking that we pen these extracts, which cast such grave dishonor upon our blessed Lord. We can only describe them as horrible and blasphemous, and " sodden with infidelity."
If the Lord were as ignorant as Principal Griffith-Jones states, how is it that Christ should prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, and their place of universal subjection to the Gentiles, forty years before it happened, and this latter item of prophecy has been slowly fulfilled all down the ages, and is even now being fulfilled before our very eyes? For the problem of the survival of the Jews, neither destroyed by persecution, nor absorbed among the nations where they sojourn, is insoluble save by referring it to a divine power.
If Christ were ignorant how can we account for such things? Of course it was not His mission to teach science and the arts and history, but He taught just what was designed by God as revealing Himself in Christ for the blessing of man
If a doctor writes on surgery and mentions nothing about astronomy, are we to suppose, according to the methods of the Modernist, that he knows nothing about astronomy? Or, if he mentions a single astronomical fact, is it not a proper assumption that he knows a good deal more than that one fact? Is he likely to know only one fact, and in stating it exhaust his knowledge on the subject? Yet Christ's critics will not treat Him with the same fairness that they would give to an ordinary man.
How was it that the Lord knew that the Samaritan woman had had five husbands, and was even then living in sin, seeing He had never seen her previously? No wonder that she said, " Sir, I perceive that Thou art a Prophet " (John 4:1919The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. (John 4:19)), and when she spoke about the coming Messiah, who should tell all things, and He told her to her amazement that He was indeed the Messiah, though present in humiliation and not in glory, she believed Him, saying to her fellow-townsmen:- " Come see a man that told me all things that ever I did; is not this the Christ [Messiah]?" (John 4:2929Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? (John 4:29)).
No, as we read the four gospels as marvelous in their brevity as in their fullness by what they do not say as in what they do, by their remarkable restraint and reticence, as much as by their fullness of expression and lively portrayal of the life of lives, we can only say, in fellowship with the apostles, " Now we are sure that Thou knowest all things and needest not that any man should ask Thee: by this we believe that Thou camest forth from God." John 16:3030Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. (John 16:30)).
Mr. H. G. Wood says:- " From the historian's point of view, the prominence thus given to the driving out of demons is to be expected in a genuine popular tradition, and in a religious movement which embraced not many rich, not many wise, not many noble. But for faith it raises the question of the limitations of the knowledge of Jesus. If the belief in demons be entirely illusory-a modern assumption which is seldom questioned, though it is certainly questionable-then Jesus was involved in a popular error. If the belief were only in part erroneous-and that it was and is in part superstitious can scarcely be doubted-then our records do not lead us to suppose that Jesus Himself ever said anything to correct the element of mistake in a belief which He shared with the common people. The same issue in principle is raised by our Lord's unquestionable acceptance of the current Jewish traditions as to the character and authorship of Old Testament Writings." (P., p. 663).
Mr. H. G. Wood does not shrink from stating that the blessed Lord was in error as to belief in demonology, that He was deceived by popular belief into accepting a theory that was false. So much is said in the four gospels about evil spirits, and so often is the Lord described as casting them out, that if Mr. H. G. Wood is correct, he is wiser than the Lord was, as also wiser than the four evangelists. At any rate, the four evangelists had the advantage of being on the spot, or of knowing those who had been, so that we imagine they were in a better position to know than Mr. H. G. Wood.
Some think that demonology was just another way of describing lunacy, but Matt. 4:2424And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. (Matthew 4:24) differentiates between diseases, torments, demon-possession, lunacy, and palsy. We should have thought that Modern Spiritism would have been evidence of the truth of demon-possession. The money-making medium, thrown into a trance, is very evidently possessed and controlled by a spirit not her own, and, judging from results, by an evil spirit.
If it were true, as Peake's Commentary suggests, that the Lord was subject to limitations, that He could be in error of a serious kind, or could condescend to deceive people by countenancing them in error when He knew better all the time, we have lost our Lord and Master, and we can sympathize with Mary Magdalene and re-echo her words of poignant grief:- "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him." (John 20:1313And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. (John 20:13)).
Christianity, to be true, demands an infallible Person and an infallible Book, and we have both in Christ and the Scriptures, blessed be God.
"Christ Jesus who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant." Authorized Version.
"Christ Jesus who subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God: but emptied Himself, taking a bondman's place." J.N. Darby's New Translation.
The Greek verb for emptied is Kenoo in the original, hence the term, Kenosis theory.
Modernists do not hesitate to say that Christ, in becoming Man, limited Himself to such an extent that He shed His omniscience and omnipotence, qualities of His Godhead, so that He could be in error, not have sufficient knowledge of things, be in perplexity and doubt, etc.
Dr. F. W. Adeney says of the Kenosis theory:- " This seems to mean that certain divine qualities were abandoned and certain human limitations accepted when Christ was seen in the likeness of a man." (P., p. 873).
This is rather vague. But how the Lord Jesus as God the Son, equal with the Father, could shed divine qualities, and yet be God the Son, is impossible to understand. As a divine Person, "who is over all, God blessed forever," He ever was, and ever will be God. He emptied Himself, taking upon Himself "the form of a servant." Such is the statement of Phil. 2:6,76Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Philippians 2:6‑7). In taking upon Himself "the form of a servant" He never ceased to be what He ever was-God. To twist the passage into meaning that He emptied Himself of Deity and its attributes is simply a perversion of Scripture to support a "critical" lie. By His emptying Himself we understand the veiling of the visible glory of God, who dwells in unapproachable light, and the voluntarily taking upon Himself manhood, and becoming subject to the Father's will, and living that life of perfect devotion to Him in this world. Yet constantly there was that shining out which revealed His Godhead glory, and that communion with His Father, so that the apostles could say: "And 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 1:1414And 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)).
And later on Thomas, the apostle, exclaimed when he saw Him after His resurrection: " My Lord and my GOD," (John 20:2828And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (John 20:28))
The Kenosis theory would annihilate the truth as to the Lord's Person. The mystery of His Person can never be understood by man. " No man knoweth the Son, but the Father " (Matt. 11:2727All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)), puts an impassable barrier, which we can never cross; yet how satisfying to faith are the assertions of Scripture that Jesus is very God and very man, yet one Person. How could a creature be that?
Lord Byron, dissolute and wretched as he was, had sense enough to say:- " If ever man was God, or God was man, Jesus Christ was both."
One more extract will suffice for our purpose. Modernists have a fling at the Book of Revelation, the one book in the Bible to which a blessing is attached in the reading of it, hearing its words, and keeping the things written therein.
Yet we find Professor H. T. Andrews writing:- "The hook of Revelation is right in assuming that God must come to the rescue of His people; it is wrong only when it attempts to describe the mode in which the deliverance must arrive. Its lurid pictures of the outpouring of God's wrath were not realized, but its promise of Divine succor and help for the stricken Church was abundantly fulfilled." (P., p. 926)
"Right in assuming" is strange language applied to the Word of God. Assumption implies lack of full knowledge. It assumes, according to Professor Andrews, a well-known Bible doctrine, which is so constantly affirmed in the Scriptures that there is no need to assume it, and then sets aside the whole Book as containing pictures that were never to be realized. The above extract is a contemptuous disposing of the whole of Revelation, as containing an assumption, and that assumption being carried out wrongly.
Our quotations have not been many in number, but they are sufficient to show forth the deadly infidelity of Modernism, even in such a moderate form as it is found in Peake's Commentary. Other Modernists go so far as to disown the deity of Christ, refuse the Virgin Birth, deny the atoning character of His death, and even the reality of His resurrection.
And when we turn to the testimony of archeological investigation, every bit of it only strengthens the confidence of the Christian in the veracity and faithfulness of Scripture. It is surprising to read a statement like this from the pen of Professor Peake:- " It is not inopportune to point out that archeological investigation has so far done nothing to rehabilitate any stories which a sober criticism has doubted, or to give the patriarchs any definite position in the history of their time. The crucial case here is that of Chedorlaomer's expedition." (Gen. 15), (P., P. 134).
It is true that later on he goes into details, seeking to prove that archaeological discoveries throwing light on the times of Chedorlaomer do not alter the findings of the critics. But these discoveries have at least identified Hammurabi as the Amraphel, King of Shinar, mentioned in the expedition, besides giving the name of other kings in that Chapter. The extraordinary thing is, that those ancient records, unearthed after all these centuries, are received without a question at their face value, whilst the Bible is questioned and doubted at every point.
But the above extract, which is hopelessly incorrect, makes a statement that "archeological investigation has so far done nothing to rehabilitate any stories which a sober criticism has doubted."
But it is only a few years ago that "sober criticism" held that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch, because writing, the critics affirmed, was unknown in his day. And probably that opinion would have been held to this day had not archeological discoveries proved otherwise.
But archeological discoveries proved that writing was commonly practiced four centuries before the time of Moses. The late Professor Orr wrote:- " It would be difficult to exaggerate the brilliance and importance of the marvelous discoveries in Babylonia. The point which concerns us chiefly is the extraordinary light thrown on the high culture of early Babylonia. Here, long before the time of Abraham, we find ourselves in the midst of cities, arts, letters, books, libraries; and Abraham's own age-that of Hammurabi-was the bloom tide of this civilization. Instead of Israel being a people emerging from the dim dawn of barbarism, we find in the light of these discoveries, that it was a people on whom, from its own standpoint, the ends of the world, had come... I read sometimes with astonishment of the statement that Babylonian discovery has done little or nothing for the confirmation of these old parts of Genesis." THE FUNDAMENTALS, vol. 6, p. go.
Professor Sayce, who had to abandon the critical view in the light of archeological testimony, wrote:- " The Babylonia of the age of Abraham was a more highly educated country than the England of George III... From one end of the civilized ancient world to the other, men and women were reading and writing and corresponding with one another; schools abounded, and great libraries were formed, in an age which the ' critic ' only a few years ago dogmatically declared was almost wholly illiterate." MONUMENT FACTS AND HIGHER CRITICAL FANCIES, pp. 35, 42.
And yet " sober criticism " averred that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. Surely the spade of the archeologist turned up more than the soil.
Then again " sober criticism " stated that a code of laws was not possible before the period of the kings of Judah, whereas, just as the Tel-el-Amarna tablets proved the existence of writing at a period when " sober criticism," with imperfect knowledge, jumping to hasty conclusion, averred that it did not exist, so the discovery of the stele of Hammurabi disclosed the existence of a code of laws long before the Kings of Judah. Tel-el-Amarna tables date about a century before the Exodus, according to Urquhart. The stele of Hammurabi was found at Susa in Persia.
Again, " sober criticism " denied the existence of a Hittite nation, and derided the idea of its power being on an equality with the great Egyptian nation, as the Bible states.
There was for long no account of the Hittite Empire in history save in the Bible. It was safe to contradict the Bible.
But investigation has reversed all this, and ignorance has been proved to be on the part of " sober criticism " and not with the Bible. The hieroglyphics of Egypt, and cuneiform inscriptions have brought this lost empire to light. Its territory extended from the Aegean in the West, to Lake Van in the East. Carchemish was its capital, and it proved a relentless and redoubtable foe to Egypt.
Much more evidence can be adduced to prove Professor Peake's statement to be incorrect. Moreover, whenever archeology has thrown light on a disputed point in the Bible, it has always, WITHOUT ONE EXCEPTION, proved that the Bible has been right and the critic wrong. And yet Professor Peake talks of " sober criticism." We should apply to it a very different adjective.
Professor Sayce says:- " In dealing with the history of the past we are confronted with two utterly opposed methods, one objective, the other subjective, one resting on a basis of veritable facts, the other on the unsupported and unsupportable assumptions of the modern scholar. The one is the method of archeology, the other of the so-called ' higher criticism.' Between the two the scientifically trained mind can have no hesitation in choosing." MONUMENT FACTS AND HIGHER CRITICAL FANCIES, pp. 17, 18.
Miss A. M. Hodgkin says:- " The Rev. James Neil, who was chaplain to Bishop Gobat, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was in that city in the early days of the Palestine Exploration Society, when a band of young men, under Lieutenant Condor, began operations. Charles Terry Drake, a descendent of Admiral Drake, was acting as dragoman. He was at the time skeptical in his views of Christianity, but would exclaim to Mr. Neil, 'It is wonderful: here we are, testing the Bible as it has never been tested before. Often we think we find it wrong; but as sure as we stop about three weeks in a place, in every case we find the Bible minutely accurate."
This continued for about three years, and then Drake died at his post, but leaving a clear testimony to his faith in Christ and his confidence in the Word of God.
We close with one last example. Sir William Ramsay was weaned from Higher Criticism by the facts discovered by archaeological research. Writing of the census described in Luke 2:1-31And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. 2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) 3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. (Luke 2:1‑3), he said:- "There are four statements about the action of the Roman Imperial Government which the critics of the New Testament pronounced to be incredible and false." THE BEARING OF RECENT DISCOVERY ON THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, p. 97.
1. The four counter-statements of the critics were:-
2. That such a census never took place;
3. That if it did, it would not have extended to Palestine;
4. That it would not have been necessary for Joseph, and much less Mary, to go to their own city of Bethlehem; That Cyrenius was not governor of Syria during the reign of Herod.
Sir William Ramsey says:—-Discovery confirms the correctness of all the facts that Luke mentions regarding the census and its manner and its dates... He gives us a very striking picture of a splendid piece of governmental work. The man who cannot see the splendor of this passage must be blind to the spirit of history. Augustus, the mighty emperor, and Mary with her infant child, are set over against each other." IBID, pp. 235, 248, and 306.
Surely the Modernist has abounding cause to abate his confidence and to abandon his speculations.