Walter B. Westcott
Their Authority and Value
That the attitude of a very large number of persons towards the Old Testament scriptures has undergone a change of recent years is beyond all contradiction true. This is to be accounted for partly by the growing skepticism of the age, partly by the extreme statements of some of the higher critics, and partly by the prevailing ignorance of the contents, as well as the intent, of the “sacred letters.”
It is now commonly proclaimed from the pulpit itself that the books of the Old Testament are interesting from a literary point of view, and that they teach some useful moral lessons, but that their claim to inspiration or divine authority must be abandoned.
Anglicans and Nonconformists vie with each other in making these pronouncements, as could be readily proved if space permitted. This, too, in spite of ordination vows in the one case, and traditional loyalty to the Word of God in the other.
The nation, as such, is clearly committed to the old-fashioned estimate of the Bible as a whole. Section 13 of the Coronation Oath provides: —
“Then shall the Dean of Westminster take the Holy Bible from off the Altar and deliver it to the Archbishop, who shall present it to the King, first saying these words to him: Our gracious King, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords. Here is wisdom: this is the Royal Law: these are the lively Oracles of God.’”
It is the writer’s desire to prove — and it is by no means a difficult task — that the surrender of the “God-breathed” character and the divine authority of the Old Testament writings necessitates the surrender also of any claim to the above-named qualities in the New. The truth of God — if such has been revealed — is accredited by two witnesses whose testimony agrees. Destroy the evidence of one, and it would be folly to place any reliance upon that of the other. It is a significant fact to notice at the beginning of our inquiry that no less than two hundred and seventy-six passages from the Old Testament are directly quoted in the New, and many more are indirectly introduced.
Moreover, of the incidents related in the Old Testament, at least one hundred and twenty are recorded, or referred to in the New, including the commonly rejected miracle of Jonah swallowed by the whale, the story of the Flood, etc.
A statement made by the apostle Peter in the presence of the hundred and twenty disciples after the Lord’s ascension, throws a flood of light upon the general character of the Scriptures familiar to the Jews of his day: “This scripture,” he says, “must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas”... Thus the words uttered prophetically by David, and recorded in the psalm, had high authority and origin indeed. The human element in the scriptures is under divine control, and what was true in the case of David was true in that of the prophets likewise, if we are to accept again the testimony of Peter in his second epistle. There we find it stated (2 Pet. 1:19-21), “We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For 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.”
Let us beware, therefore, lest in belittling the authority of the Old Testament scriptures, we be found “fighting against God,” even if we have the higher critics on our side I Among the many advantages enjoyed by the Jew, the apostle Paul singles out as chief this priceless privilege (Rom. 3:2), “that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” This is the value set by the cultured, logical, divinely-taught apostle of the Gentiles upon the Scriptures entrusted to the care of his much-loved nation. Speaking before the governor Felix, he confesses himself as “believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets”... Surely it ill becomes us who profess to esteem his ministry so highly, to differ from him in so vital a matter!
There is another feature of the case that requires our careful consideration. While history, experience and prophecy all find their place in the Old Testament, it is distinctly stated by Paul that “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” This statement asserts the present and permanent value of the early records of the Bible. Altered conditions of life do not render obsolete or archaic any part of the Holy Scriptures. God’s principles never alter, though His revelation varies in form and degree. No new aspect of truth contradicts an older one, though it may enlarge and supersede it.
Unquestionably there is development in the manifestation of the nature and attributes of God, who was never fully made known until the Son came to the earth.
The slaughter of the Canaanites, the imprecatory Psalms, and other problems of the Old Testament are solved for those who take into account the local circumstances and the eternal righteousness of God. These questions, however, do not come within the scope of our inquiry, and other pens have written ably on such subjects.
That which most convincingly evidences the authority and value of the Old Testament Scriptures, is the use made of them by the Lord Jesus Christ when here on earth. His attitude in general is revealed in His argument with the Jews, related in John 5 (vs. 39, etc), “[Ye] search the Scriptures,” said He, “for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me”; and again (vss. 45-47), “There is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust, for had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings how shall ye believe My words.” In this utterance our Lord places His seal upon the Scriptures in general, and the writings of Moses in particular. To reject the writings of Moses involved (and still, we maintain, involves) the rejection of Christ Himself.
It is deeply interesting and important to notice that at several crises in the life of the Lord, He makes use of or applies to Himself, some part of the early Scriptures. Thus after His baptism, when He “was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being forty days tempted of the devil,” He meets the threefold attack of His great enemy by “It is written,” quoting in each instance from the Book of Deuteronomy. He does not draw upon His infinite resources as the Creator, but as the dependent Man He selects from the armory of the Old Testament weapons mighty to the overthrow even of the great adversary.
Following closely upon this victory, achieved by the use of the Word of God, comes the Lord’s first public appearance in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luke 4). Standing up to read, He turns to “the book of the prophet Esaias,” and finds the place where it is written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor: He hath sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord”. Then with the eyes of all that were in the synagogue fastened on Him, He continues, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”
Here we find the Lord definitely applying to Himself the prophetic scripture written hundreds of years before He came to the earth, the writer himself probably having no idea of the ultimate use of his inspired utterance (1 Peter 1:10-12).
That this is no solitary instance of the direct application and confirmation of Old Testament writings is clearly shown by the fact that at least twenty times in the gospels is the same comment made, in varied forms, that what was recorded took place in fulfillment of the Scriptures. Matthew 26 brings before us another crisis in the Lord’s life, namely His betrayal; even at such a moment it is clearly seen that His thoughts reverted to the prophetic scriptures. Thus in verse 24 He says, “The Son of Man goeth as it is written of Him;” again in verse 31, “it is written I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” Once more (vss. 53-54), “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? but how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be?” So in verse 56.
Still deeper into the sea of unutterable sorrow did the Savior advance, until finally the awful waves of Calvary surged upon Him. Yet even in the fierce anguish that pressed upon His spirit on the cross, He remembers that there is still one more prophetic word that He must seal, and “knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, (He) saith, “I thirst” (John 19:28).
Surely here is proof enough, though much more might be given, that our divine Lord vindicated and confirmed to the full the Old Testament Scriptures.
This should be enough for all those who own Him as Savior, Lord, and Pattern.
To the two going to Emmaus, Christ, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets... expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” Again, a little later in the day, to the disciples gathered at Jerusalem, He thus speaks: “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27 and 44-45).
“This was the well-known threefold division of the Hebrew Bible: the Law, the Prophets, and the other writings. The Book of Psalms came first in the last division of the Canon, and thus gave its name to the whole. The Bible which the Lord thus unfolded to His disciples was identical with the Old Testament we have in our hands today, not one book or chapter less or more, and He thus accredited it as a whole and in every part as being a testimony to Himself” (Sir Robert Anderson, The Bible and Modern Criticism, p. 176).
An instance of the unblushing use of the Old Testament Scriptures may be cited from a sermon of a present day religious leader, on the “suffering servant of God” (Isa. 35:3): —
“It is commonly supposed that these words had from the very first an immediate and direct reference to the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ.... The conventional Christian belief about the matter seems to be that five centuries or so before Jesus was born, a Jewish prophet foresaw His advent, and was able to describe His experience minutely, even to the agony of Calvary. It is supposed that we have here a natural and inspired anticipation of what our Lord would have to go through for the redemption of mankind. Behind this view of the meaning of these words is also the assumption that the redemption here alluded to was deliverance from a future hell by the payment of the debt which sinful humanity owed to God.”
Having thus referred to what is “commonly supposed”, to “the conventional Christian belief”, and so forth, traversing them by innuendo, he proceeds: “Will you allow me to point out that this is not, and could not be, what the man who originally wrote (these words) had in mind. In fact, I may go so far as to say that if we think of them in this literal way we shall limit and distort their true spiritual meaning very considerably.” Having thus cleared the ground, the speaker goes on to declare that the words apply primarily to Jeremiah, and in a secondary sense to all who suffer for the good of others, of course including Jesus.
But what becomes of the witness in the New Testament to this well-known passage? And in what sense could such expressions as the following apply in the remotest degree to Jeremiah or any other “sufferer” who was no more than man? — “with His stripes we are healed” (vs. 5); “the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (vs. 6); “Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin” (vs. 10).
Turning to Acts 8 we find that the eunuch in his chariot is discovered by Philip reading the glorious words, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer so opened He not His mouth: in His humiliation His judgment was taken away, and who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken from the earth”.
On inquiring from the evangelist, “of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself or of some other man?” we read that Philip “opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus”.
Had the gentleman referred to been sent in place of Philip, the anxious eunuch would doubtless have been informed that the prophet not only wrote of “some other man”, but of all other men who suffered for their fellows. He might have gone “on his way rejoicing”, but we should scarcely be able to discover why!
Another pillar of Nonconformity, preaching in his own chapel on the very same day on which the sermon already quoted was delivered, does not hesitate to renounce the historical basis of the miracles of the Old Testament.
Referring to the book of Job, he remarks: “A curious ignorance and misunderstanding led men to suppose that this great poem was intended as history, intended as the biography of a patriarch, and the orthodoxy of the past day insisted that it must all be treated as history, and that to question its veracity would be to discredit the Bible. When men began to see that it was poetry, that it made no claim whatever to be historical (1), the simple statement of that literary fact excited the indignation of this blinder kind of orthodoxy.”
Further on in the same address this Doctor of Divinity remarks: “The same school of orthodoxy has insisted upon making the truth of Christianity depend upon the fact that the ass spoke to Balaam, or that the prophet Jonah lived three days in the belly of a fish, never waiting to inquire — though surely it was obviously the first question that ought to be put — whether these statements were meant to be historical, or whether they were merely that kind of pictorial presentation of religious truth which is admissible in every literature, and may therefore be admissible in the Bible. No one waited to see whether the story of Balaam, or the story of Jonah, was merely the kind of didactic poetry which could be used for the instruction of men, and to illustrate the co-ordination and co-operation of the dumb creation with the living Creator.”
Dr. — is somewhat unfortunate, or unprincipled, in his selection of the incidents referred to in his sermon. If the Book of Job is merely a romance, and not — as “blind orthodoxy” regards it — “the biography of the patriarch,” what becomes of the passage in Ezekiel 14, where Jehovah is twice quoted as saying (vs. 14 and 20), “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel and Job,” etc. Are we to regard the records concerning Noah and Daniel as poetry also?
Well might James say in his epistle (vs. 11), “Ye have heard of the patience of Job”, seeing that he is called to such suffering at the hands of a twentieth-century friend!
The apostle Peter clearly followed, if he did not establish, the “blinder kind of orthodoxy,” which this religious teacher so tenderly enlightens, for he writes, concerning Balaam, “[He] was rebuked for his iniquity, the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet” (2 Peter 2:16).
More emphatic still in this connection is the seal set by Christ Himself upon the “blind orthodoxy” that regards the story of Jonah as historical fact. Do we not read of His saying to the scribes and Pharisees, “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”?
It is abundantly evident from the foregoing, and many other proofs that could be adduced, that to tamper with the accuracy, inspiration, and authority of the Old Testament Scriptures involves of necessity a denial of the full and absolute truth of the New Testament; and if neither the Old nor the New is to be relied upon, where can we look for guidance? The cry, “Back to Christ,” is a good one, but we must travel via the Scriptures.
The whole is greater than its parts, but the whole is not independent of its parts; and we cannot reasonably accept the teaching of the New Testament without admitting to the full the equally-inspired nature of the Old, with which it is so wonderfully interwoven. They stand or fall together; and woe be to the man, however gifted or apparently sincere, who attempts to divide them.
The attack upon the Scriptures must culminate in an attack upon Christ, and it is well that honest and simple souls should see this, that they may refuse to surrender any portion of the Holy Scriptures through which He is made known to them.
The Book of God
“I have thought I am a creature of a day, passing through life as an arrow passes through the air. I am a spirit, coming from God and returning to God,.... a few months hence I am no more seen. I drop into an unchangeable eternity. I want to know one thing; the way to land safe on that happy shore.
“God Himself has condescended to teach the way. He hath written it down in a Book. Oh, give me that Book; at any price give me the Book of God! I have it. Here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be a man of one book. Here I am far away from the busy ways of men. I sit down alone; only God is here.
“In His presence I open and read His book for this end — to find the way to heaven.
“Is there a doubt concerning the meaning of what I read? Does anything appear dark or intricate? I lift up my heart to the Father of lights. Lord, is it not in Thy Word, ‘if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God?’ Thou hast said, ‘if any man be willing to do Thy will he shall know.’ I am willing to do — let me know Thy will.”
John Wesley
He who abides in Christ will always be fruitful and full; he who essays to live in his own past blessings and experiences will soon deplore his barrenness and emptiness.