The Kings, And The Early Prophets.
Now here are three transgressions described: first, that they took meat to which they had no right; secondly, that they took it in a wrong manner; and, thirdly, that they took it at a wrong time. It is therefore evidently presupposed that the order to be observed had been fixed and was well known. In the Pentateuch that order is described: and perfectly agrees with what is here related. First of all, a certain portion was appointed for the priest, and it was not to be taken by himself but given by the sacrificer. See Deut. 18:3, and Lev. 7:29. With this compare also the account of the peace-offerings contained in chap. 3, from which it appears that the burning of the fat was an essential part of the sacrifice, as it is said, ver. 3, “And he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace-offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD, the fat that covereth the inwards.... and Aaron's sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt-sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD.” The anxiety therefore of a sacrificer, as described in the book of Samuel, that they “should not fail to burn the fat presently,” as well as the sin of Eli's sons, is explained by the ordinances of the Pentateuch. And yet it is quite evident that the mention of all these particulars is incidental, though a natural and necessary part of the narrative.
But as yet there is no mention of the Levites, not even when it is related that the ark of the covenant was conveyed to the camp of Israel to help them against the Philistines. This appears an omission, but it is no contradiction; for in chap. 6:15, where is related the return of the ark to Bethshemesh, they who are not alluded to before or after in the book, are described as being at their proper work. “The Levites took down the ark of the LORD.” No explanation is given, who they are, or why they should do it? To understand the circumstance related, the command (Num. 1:50, 51) is absolutely necessary.
In the account given in this book of the use to which the Ephod was applied is contained one of the most convincing proofs of the existence and knowledge of the ordinances of the Pentateuch, and one of the best specimens of Dr. Hengstenberg's skill and diligence in investigating Scripture. In 1 Sam. 14:37, it is related that “Saul asked counsel of God.” But how this was done we are not told; only we learn from verse 36, that the priest said, “Let us draw nigh hither unto God;” and from verse 3, that Ahiah, the son of Ahitub, was the LORD'S priest in Shiloh “wearing an ephod.” In chap 22:2 Doeg tells Saul, that Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, had inquired of the LORD; and from chap. 23 we know that he did so by means of an ephod. In verses 2, 3, we are told that David twice inquired of the LORD; and in the following verses this is explained: “It came to pass, when Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand.” And at ver. 9 we are told, that when David knew that Saul secretly practiced mischief against him, he said to Abiathar, “Bring hither the ephod.” Then it is said, that David inquired and the LORD answered him; and again. in 30:7, 8, David said to Abiathar, “I pray thee, bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought hither the ephod to David, and David inquired at the LORD.”
Now here is a use of the ephod not mentioned in the Pentateuch, in any of the passages where the making and the purpose of the ephod are described. Num. 27:21 helps to solve the difficulty and explain the mystery. There, speaking of Joshua as Moses' successor, it is said, “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the LORD.” Here, the mode of asking counsel, namely, by the Urim, is made known, but there is no mention of the ephod. Ex. 28:30 informs us that the Urim and Thummim were in the priest's breastplate: and ver. 28, that this breastplate was inseparable from the ephod. “They shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof unto the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, that it may be above the curious girdle of the ephod, and that the breastplate be not loosed from the ephod.” When therefore Abiathar brought the ephod, he brought also the breastplate of judgment, and therefore the Urim and Thummim by means of which the answer was given.
Thus the incidental mention of the ephod requires and presupposes an intimate knowledge of the ordinances of the Pentateuch, not found together, but scattered about in various places of that book. At the same time it is to be observed that the historian, though he does not mention the Urim and Thummim here, does mention them expressly in chap. 28:6, where he says, that “when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.” There are allusions to many other ordinances of the Pentateuch, as 1 Sam. 21:3, 4; to the difference between the common bread and the shewbread, Lev. 24:5, &c; Ex. 25:30. In 1 Sam. 14:32, to the prohibition to eat blood, Lev. 7:26; 17:10. In 1 Sam. 20:5, 18, 27, to the feast of the new moon; in ver. 26 also, to Deut. 23:11, and Lev. 7:20, and 15:5, 8-11. In 1 Sam. 28:3, to the Pentateuchal prohibition against consulting those who had familiar spirits, Deut. 18:10, 11, and Lev. 20:27, &c.
In fact, in this book none can deny that we find all these ordinances of the Pentateuch: the tabernacle of the congregation, the ark of the covenant, the yearly visitation, the rejoicing with the whole household, the duties of the priests and Levites, the altar, the incense and the ephod, the Urim and Thummim, the priests' dues, and the manner in which they were to be received, the inquiring of the LORD by the priests, the new moon, the laws concerning ceremonial uncleanness, wizards and possessors of familiar spirits; and many of those described in the exact and peculiar language of the Pentateuch. And when to this we add, that the Pentateuch existed in the days of Solomon, to what other conclusion can we come than that it existed in the days of David also?
But, side by side with these historic records, there was from the time of David a series of hymns used in the public worship of Israel's God, and in the private devotions of His worshippers; and the total impression left by their perusal is, that the sweet singers of Israel were thoroughly imbued with the sentiments and the language of the Pentateuch. Many of them sing praises of the Law of the LORD, and many more refer to the history and great principles of the Pentateuch, so that if judged after the manner of human writings, one would say that the Pentateuch is the source and parent of that devotional literature which stands alone in the history of the ancient world. This grand impression no microscopic criticism can remove. The devotions of Israel all testify to the existence and power of the Pentateuch.
At the same time, a similar testimony may be elicited from the Psalms which confessedly belong to the times of David and Solomon. Thus, the eighth Psalm is an echo in the very words of Gen. 1. Psa. 29:10, “The LORD sat at the deluge (Mabbul), and sitteth a king forever,” is an unmistakable reference to the narrative of Genesis. The word Mabbul, deluge, is used only in these two places of the Bible. Psa. 11:6, “Upon the wicked he raineth snares (coals), fire, and brimstone,” is an obvious reference to the history and language of Gen. 19; Psa. 110:4, “Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec,” to Gen. 14 Melchisedec is nowhere else mentioned in the Old Testament. The epithets of God in the Psalms also show knowledge of the Pentateuch. Thus in Psa. 132:1, “The mighty one of Jacob,” occurs only in the Pentateuch (Gen. 49:24) before the time of David. “The God of Jacob,” Psa. 20:1, and “The God of Israel,” refer to the history of Jacob, and the change of his name. The sixty-eighth Psalm describes the majesty of God by a reference to the wonders of Egypt, the wilderness, and the giving of the Law at Sinai; and begins with the very words of Num. 10:35. Psa. 132:8, 9 contains references to the ark, the holy garments of the priests (Ex. 40:13), and the joyful shout of the people (Lev. 9:24). Verse 12 refers to the covenant and the testimony, that is, the law. Psa. 1 refers to “the statutes” as well as to the covenant by sacrifice. To enter into a discussion as to the authorship of other Psalms, which testify still more strongly as to the existence of the Book of the Law, is not possible here, nor is it necessary. Enough has been said to show, that in the days of David, Samuel, and Eli, the Pentateuch was known; and if so, it must have existed in the days of the Judges, and of its existence there are plain traces in the
BOOKS OF RUTH AND JUDGES.
The nature of these documents forbids us to expect a detailed narrative of the progress of religion, or of rites and observance of public worship. The book of Ruth is a family record, a sketch from private life. The book of Judges is a collection of memoirs of the remarkable persons, whom the LORD raised up to defend or to deliver the invaded provinces of Israel, not even an outline of the history of the whole nation. Allusion therefore to priests or religious laws or even to those parts of the land not similarly exposed, must be few and incidental. Those that do occur are the more satisfactory and convincing.
The first thing to be observed with regard to these books is that the fundamental principle of the Pentateuch, the dependence of blessing or cursing on obedience or disobedience, is the hinge on which every particular history turns. This is the binding principle that holds all these separate narratives together. The prosperity of a poor Moabitish widow and the success of armies are made to depend upon the fear of the true God and, the practice of the true religion. National calamity is the consequence of disobedience. God is the God of Israel, and rewards or punishes: the LORD who revealed himself on Sinai, as Deborah tells us in that wonderful song which Ewald and others admit to be the genuine work of the prophetess. In the next place, we find such a state of things as would naturally have arisen from the knowledge of the Pentateuch. There was a congregation, also a tabernacle of the congregation, here called the house of God, as in Samuel, Judg. 20:18; and an ark of the covenant of God, ver. 27; and the practice of inquiring of the LORD, vers. 18 and 28, and a priest to make the inquiry, ver. 28; and Levites consecrated to the service of God, 17:13, 19:1; and an ephod, 17:4 (Heb.); and burnt offerings and peace-offerings, 20:26, and Nazarites, 13:5, 7, and a yearly feast, 21:19, where the words refer to the passover; and the duty of marrying a brother's widow, and the punishment of him who refused, Ruth 4; and the obligation to redeem, 4:3-5; and the prohibition to marry the heathen (Judg. 14:3); and to eat that which is unclean, which caused Samson to conceal from his father and mother whence he got the honey, 14:9; and the belief in the inalienability of that which was solemnly devoted to the Lord (11:35), and the duty of overthrowing idol-altars, (6:28). Now all these things mentioned in the language of the Pentateuch testify to its existence in the days of Judges, and bring us back to the time of Phinehas the son of Eleazar, who was himself an eyewitness of the giving of the Law, and the LORD'S dealings in the wilderness.
The book of Joshua also gives the same evidence. But as without it we have traced the existence of the Pentateuch to a contemporary of Joshua and Moses, and as the controversies respecting the Book of Joshua would require much discussion, it is necessary to stop here for the present. The Pentateuch which we possess has been traced from the present time to the days when it was written; it must therefore be genuine. No apparent difficulties are sufficient to shake the testimony of the prophets and the historic books. In a book so ancient there may be many difficulties arising from the brevity of the narrative, from our ignorance of all the circumstances, from the errors of transcribers, &c., and some of them may be beyond the power of solution in the present day. But they who urge them as objections against the genuineness or authenticity are bound to account for the existence of the testimonies to which we have referred, and satisfactorily to set them aside before they ask us to reject what rests upon such an accumulation of evidence. The testimonies adduced can be examined by every reader of the English Bible. An attentive reader may find many more; and sure I am that he, who will take the trouble of patiently studying the Scriptures from Malachi to Joshua in reference to this subject, will arrive at the firm conviction that there never was a time in Israel from the days of Moses on, when the Pentateuch was unknown. (To be continued).