TESTIMONY OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES

That the testimony of the New Testament is in favor of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch needs scarcely to be proved. The most of the analytic critics admit that the authority of Christ and the apostles is against them. So fully convinced are they of this fact that they have been trying to push the doctrine of the kenosis far enough to include the fallibility and errancy of Christ. A few of the analysts, not willing to believe that our Lord and Saviour erred in biblical matters, have refused to admit that he recognized Moses as the author of the Pentateuchal books. Such critics are doubtless in a strait betwixt two, unwilling to believe that the great Teacher erred in his didactic utterances, and yet unwilling to give up their anti-Mosaic theories. Such men have our commiseration.

Christ distinctly recognized Moses as the author of both the Pentateuchal laws and books.

1. The laws.

"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them. What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them. For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."¹ The law or the part of the law here mentioned is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

"Offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them."² The law of leprosy here mentioned is contained in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Leviticus.

"Moses said. Honor thy father and thy mother,"³ Moses is here recognized as the author of the fifth commandment, and impliedly of the whole decalogue.

"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."⁴ In this declaration "the law of Moses" is undoubtedly the law contained in the Pentateuch; but the Pentateuch, as containing the law, is also meant, and is distinguished from the two other parts of the Old Testament — the prophecies and Psalms. Moses is thus designated as the author both of the Pentateuch as containing the law, and of the law itself.

Again, "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man; . . . that the law of Moses should not be broken."⁵ Our Lord in this declaration states that circumcision did not originate with Moses, but with his predecessors; that Moses had transmitted this rite to the Israelites, and that he was the author of the law which enjoined it upon them.

2. In regard to Moses as the author of the Pentateuchal writings, our Saviour spoke as follows:" And as touching the dead, that they rise; have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?"⁶ The passage here referred to is contained in Exodus.⁷ But so far as the question of Pentateuchal authorship is concerned, it makes little difference, whether by "the book of Moses" is meant the whole Pentateuch or only the Book of Exodus. For if Moses wrote this, he certainly wrote also the other books of the Pentateuch. To every reverent and logical mind who believes in Christ, the Son of God, as an infallible and inerrant Teacher, this one declaration is a complete refutation of all the analytic theories.

"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: 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."⁸ Our divine Lord thus spoke of compositions of Moses that were accessible to those whom he addressed. He speaks of these writings as being known to his hearers. They had read them, but did not believe them. He addresses them as having these well-known writings of Moses in their possession. But where? Undoubtedly in the Pentateuch, which they had in their Hebrew Bibles and the Septuagint Version. The only writings ascribed to Moses are found there, and are found nowhere else. The hearers of Christ would naturally and inevitably understand him as referring to the writings of Moses in the Pentateuch, and undoubtedly he intended that they should so understand him.

"He wrote of me." How and where did Moses write of Christ? He wrote of him as the seed of the woman;⁹ as the seed of Abraham;¹⁰ as the coming Shiloh;¹¹ as the Star out of Jacob;¹² as the Scepter rising out of Israel;¹² as the Passover Lamb, not a bone of which was to be broken;¹³ as the goat for separation, bearing away the sins of Israel;¹⁴ as represented in the types and shadows of the tabernacle and of the tabernacle service, and as the great Prophet.¹⁵

"They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. . . . If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."¹⁶ In this passage the Prophets are put for what the prophets wrote, and Moses is put for what Moses wrote. And our Lord speaks of the writings of Moses, as well as of the prophets, as being known and accessible to the people whom he addressed. It is clearly implied that there were writings in the Old Testament that were understood to be Mosaic, and our Saviour here refers to them as such.

In one of the passages quoted above we have a threefold division of the Old Testament — the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.¹⁷ The first division, called the I^aw, is undoubtedly the Pentateuch.

It is thus shown that the authorship of the Pentateuchal books is ascribed by our Saviour to Moses, in almost every possible form of expression— "the law of Moses," "book of Moses," "writings of Moses," "Moses wrote," "Moses said," "Moses commanded," "Moses gave"; and in every case he was necessarily understood as referring to books, writings, and laws that are contained in the Pentateuch, and that his hearers ascribed to Moses. And further, he was necessarily understood by his hearers as himself acknowledging these books, writings, and laws as the productions of Moses.

The testimony of the apostles and New Testament writers in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch of course harmonizes with that of Christ. "For the Law was given by Moses."¹⁸ "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets, did write."¹⁹ " And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished."²⁰ "Both out of the law of Moses, and out of the Prophets."²¹ "Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law."²² "It is written in the law of Moses."²³ "When Moses is read."²⁴ "He that despised Moses' law."²⁵ Thus we have the testimony of the apostles and New Testament writers in harmony with that of Christ in regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuchal laws and writings.

The validity of this testimony, the validity of the testimony even of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been called in question by some of his professed friends and followers. Many of that class of analytic critics who profess the evangelical faith, rather than give up their theories take the position that our Lord and Saviour was fallible and errant, and that he was mistaken in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch. Some of these critics seem to think that it devolves upon them to point out errors in the public and biblical instructions of Christ, the Son of God. Such men, under the Old Testament dispensation, according to the Mosaic law, would have been stoned to death for blasphemy.

In regard to Christ's inerrancy, we remark as follows:

1. We expect such men as Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen — rationalists, skeptics, veritable infidels — to reject the testimony of Christ in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch and in every other case in which it is opposed to their views and theories. These leaders of the analytic school were and are disbelievers in the Bible, in divine inspiration, and the deity of Christ. Their writings indicate that they consider Christ a mere human being, much inferior to themselves in biblical knowledge. That such men should charge our Lord with error creates no scandal.

2. The Scripture doctrine of Christ's kenosis²⁶ does not imply that he was fallible and errant. Truly he emptied himself when he became man. Christ as man was doubtless subject to limitations. His knowledge, it appears, was not absolutely' infinite. For there is one thing he did not know — the time of the end.²⁷ But this is the only thing which our Saviour is said not to have known. The language employed concerning him implies that he knew everything else. Peter said to him, "Thou knowest all things."²⁸ He knew the hearts of men, reading their thoughts, though secret and concealed.²⁹ The future was known to him.³⁰ Things absent and distant were to him as things present. It was Christ's omniscience as indicated by the declaration, "Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee," which drew from Nathanael the confession, " Thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel."³¹ The woman of Samaria proclaimed Christ's omniscience, in saying, "Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?"³² The talk of the Jews concerning Christ's learning and knowledge is very significant: "And the Jews marveled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?"³³ Yet our analytic critics will have it that he did not know who wrote the Pentateuch. The examples we have given of Christ's extraordinary and superhuman knowledge, we may indeed say, of his omniscience, all relate to him as beset by human conditions in this life. There is but one exception stated as to the universality of his knowledge, namely, his not knowing the time of the end. This exceptional case is mysterious and strange. Reverent minds, that have no theories to support, are not disposed to draw conclusions from it. The reasoning of some of our analysts in regard to it is preposterous, as follows: Christ did not know the time of the end; therefore, he was mistaken in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch. There is a wide chasm between the premises and the conclusion. 3. The analytic critics, in endeavoring to get rid of Christ's testimony against their theories of Pentateuchal authorship, charge him not with ignorance merely, but with thinking that he knew, when he did not; with such ignorance as led him to make an untrue declaration. Christ knew that he did not know the time of the end, and he made no declaration concerning it. According to the analytic theory, Christ overrated his own knowledge. He thought he knew who wrote the Pentateuch, but did not, and hence made a mistaken declaration in regard to it. Here again the logic of the analyst is exceedingly bad. It proceeds thus: Christ knew that he did not know the time of the end, and was silent in regard to it; therefore, he might in some case overrate his knowledge, thinking he knew, when he did not, and thus be led to make a mistaken declaration.

4. Many of the declarations of Christ concerning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch were made by him after the transfiguration, and one of them was made after his resurrection.³⁴ Indeed, after these events it is evident that he held the same views in regard to this subject as before, for he took back nothing that he had said, but, on the other hand, virtually reiterated after his resurrection all his previous declarations in regard to it. "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."³⁴ According to the analytic criticism, our blessed Lord held and taught error up to the very time of his departure from the earth. According to the analytic criticism, he did not learn his error in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch, though he talked with Moses on the mount of transfiguration; nor were his views on this subject clarified and corrected by his death and resurrection. To us the spectacle of men, professors of the Christian faith, however learned and able they may be, assuming that the Lord of life and glory was fallible and errant, and undertaking to tell how and why he erred, would be supremely absurd and ridiculous, were it not so sad and repulsive. All this, of course, is lost upon such leaders of the analytic school as Reuss and Wellhausen, who have no more faith in the incarnation, transfiguration, resurrection, or ascension of Christ, or in any other supernatural event, than Paine and Voltaire. But there are analytic critics, not leaders, who ought not to be impervious to the foregoing considerations.

5. The smooth phrases that are sometimes employed by analytic critics to express their notion of Christ's. fallibility are deceptive. That "Christ condescended not to know," like most other euphemisms, is misleading. These critics would express their notion of our Lord's fallibility more fully and fairly by saying that he condescended to err; that he condescended to make untrue declarations; and that he condescended to keep on making untrue declarations after his resurrection from the dead, even up to the time of his ascension. They, of course, give him credit for uttering only what he believed to be strictly true, and for aiming to tell nothing but the truth. Yet they hold that, in fact, he deviated from the truth in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch, and also in some other matters. Even the smooth-speaking Driver says that Christ was mistaken in regard to the Davidic authorship of the One Hundred and Tenth Psalm.³⁵ Are such mistakes and errors to be proved and accounted for by Christ's condescension? The next thing for our analysts to do is to maintain that the Holy One of God condescended to commit sin.

6. Aside from the divine nature in Christ's person, there is an antecedent probability, or rather certainty, that the gift and influence of the Holy Spirit would secure truth and accuracy in all his biblical instructions and didactic utterances. Christ assured his apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things, and bring to their remembrance whatsoever he had spoken to them.³⁶ He promised that the Spirit of truth should guide them into all truth, and also show them things to come.³⁷ He informed them that the Holy Spirit should so enter into them, possess and actuate them, that their speaking would be the Holy Spirit speaking in them.³⁸ Accordingly, on the day of Pentecost "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."³⁹ Men thus filled, influenced, and guided by the Spirit were certainly inerrant. We do not enter upon the discussion of plenary inspiration. We are not now maintaining that the apostles were inerrant as teachers at all times, though we believe they were. But when they were filled and guided by the Spirit; when they were speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance; when they were so much under the influence of the Spirit that the Spirit spake in them; when this state of things existed and as long as it existed, the apostles would no more mistake and err than a child would fall when guided and held by its parent's hand. Now Christ's humanity was sustained and guided not only by the deity within him, but also by the Holy Spirit. After his baptism at Jordan the Holy Spirit descended upon him.⁴⁰ Next we read that he was full of the Holy Spirit, and was led or driven by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.⁴¹ Again, we read that "God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him."⁴² These declarations show that he had more of the Spirit and more of the Spirit's influence than the apostles. Since the Spirit guided them and spoke in them so that they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance, much more were Christ's sayings in accordance with the mind of the Spirit.

Besides this, the relation between Christ and the Father was such as to make the acts and sayings of the former the acts and sayings of the latter. Of this there are many proofs. Christ himself said: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me. The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."⁴³ And again: "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak."⁴⁴ Once more, "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."⁴⁵ Thus Christ taught that the Father concurred and cooperated with him in all that he said and did. Still further, Christ was in constant communion with the Father. He spent whole nights in prayer. His prayers were always effectual. At the tomb of Lazarus Christ said, "I knew that thou hearest me always."⁴⁶ Now Christ certainly prayed for all that was desirable for himself. It was certainly desirable that he should be kept from all errors in regard to biblical matters. The order and connection of these ideas are as follows: It was desirable that our Saviour should be exempt from all errors in teaching, including those charged upon him by the analytic critics in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch; he, therefore, prayed for exemption from such errors; he never prayed to the Father in vain; therefore, in all his didactic utterances and in all his declarations concerning the Scriptures he was infallible and inerrant.

It is not likely that the analysts will take the position that it was not desirable that our Lord should avoid all mistakes in his teaching. They will scarcely apply to the supposed errors of Christ the doctrine that evil, even sin, is overruled for good. They have been at work for a hundred years, trying to overthrow the opinion which Christ sanctioned, namely, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; and that he sanctioned it is one of the obstacles in the way of success. According to their theories, most assuredly it was desirable that Christ should have been kept from this error, which is certainly not to be accounted for on the principle of doing evil that good may come.

It has been urged that on the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch there should be no appeal to the teachings of Christ. This seems to us a strange and narrow view. Critics are accustomed to quote anything they can find in Josephus or any other author bearing on any biblical question under discussion. Critics do not hesitate to test the accuracy of Genesis by the discoveries of modern science. It is entirely proper to employ the discoveries of Egyptologists and other archaeologists in discussing the accuracy and authorship of the Pentateuch, though, indeed, the testimony derived from such sources is pretty much all in favor of one side. It is, perhaps, because of the one-sidedness of this testimony that the analysts are by no means fond of it, and that Wellhausen uttered his famous sneer that "Jehovah has nothing in common with the God-forsaken dreariness of certain Egyptologists."⁴⁷ It is, of course, good policy on the part of the opponents of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch to exclude, if possible, the declarations of Christ and the apostles from consideration in the decision of the question. The attorney in court may be counted on to keep out, if he can, all testimony that would prove damaging to his case.

1) Mark 10:2-5.

2) Matt. 8:4.

3) Mark 7:10.

4) Luke 24:44.

5) John 7:22, 23.

6) Mark 12:26.

7) Ex. 3:6.

8) John 5:4.5-47.

9) Gen. 3:15.

10) Gen. 22:18.

11) Gen. 49:10.

12) 12) Num. 24:17.

13) Ex. 12:46.

14) Lev. 16:20-22.

15) Deut. 18:18.

16) Luke 16:29, 31.

17) Luke 24:44.

18) John 1:17.

19) John 1:45.

20) Luke 2:22.

21) Acts 28:23.

22) Rom. 10:5.

23) I. Cor. 9:9.

24) II. Cor. 3:15.

25) Heb. 10:28.

26) Phil. 2:7.

27) Mark 13:32.

28) John 21:17.

29) Luke6:8.

30) John 1:48.

31) John 1:48, 49.

32) John 4:29.

33) John 7:15.

34) 34) Luke 24:44.

35) Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, Preface, p. xiv; also, p. 362

36) John 14:26.

37) John 16:13.

38) Mark 13:11.

39) Acts 2; 4.

40) Luke 3:22

41) Luke 4:1; Mark 1:12; Matt. 4:1.

42) John 3:34

43) John 14:10.

44) John 12:49, 50.

45) John 8:28.

46) John 11:42.

47) Israel, p. 440.