THE
BIBLE, A REVELATION FROM GOD
T.P.
Simmons
Having
now seen that the existence of God is an established fact, a fact more certain
than any conclusion from formal reasoning-because it is the necessary foundation
of all reason-we pass on to the consideration of another
matter. There is now, and has been for centuries, in this world a peculiar book,
called the Bible, which professes to be a revelation from God. Its writers speak
in boldest terms of their authority as spokesmen for God. This authority has
been admitted by millions of the inhabitants of the earth, both in the past and
in the present. We desire to ask, therefore, if this book is what it professes
to be, and what it has been and is believed to be by a multitude of people-a revelation from God. If it is not a revelation from God,
then its writers were either deceived or else they were malicious deceiver.
I.
IS THE BIBLE HISTORICALLY AUTHENTIC?
By
this question we mean: Is the Bible trustworthy as a record
of historical facts? About a century ago critics held the Bible to be
untrustworthy as history. They said the four kings mentioned in Gen. 14:1 never
existed, and that the victory of the kings of the West over the kings of the
East, as described in this chapter, never occurred. They denied that such a
people as the Hittites ever lived. Sargon, mentioned in Isa. 20:1 as king of
Assyria, was considered a mythical character. Moreover Daniel
was supposed to be in error in mentioning Belshazzar as a Babylonian king. Dan.
5:1. Typical New Testament examples of supposed historical errors are to be
found in Luke's representation of the island of Cyprus as being ruled by a
"proconsul" (Acts 13:7) and of Lysanias as being tetrarch of Abilene while Herod
was tetrarch of Galilee (Luke 3:1.) But how is it now? We can say today, after
far-reaching investigations concerning ancient nations have
been made, that not a single statement in the Bible stands refuted. The
confident denials of early critics have been proved to he the assumptions of
ignorance. Prof. A. H. Sayce, one of the most eminent of archeologists, says
"Since the discovery of the Tel el-Amarna tablets until now great things have
been brought out by archeology, and every one of them has been in harmony with
the Bible, while nearly every one of them has been dead against the assertions of the destructive critics." Some years ago
the United Press broadcasted the testimony of A. S. Yahuda, formerly Professor
of Biblical History at the University of Berlin and later of Semitic Languages
at the University of Madrid, to the effect that "every archeological discovery
of Palestine and Mesopotamia of the Bible period bears out the historical
accuracy of the Bible."
II.
IS THE BIBLE GOD'S REVELATION?
We
enter now upon the consideration of a further question. An historically correct
book might be of human origin. Is this true of the Bible?
1.
AN ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY
Careful
thought, apart from the question of whether the Bible is God's revelation, will
convince any fair-minded believer in God's existence that it is highly probable
that God has given to man an explicit and enduring written
revelation of the divine will. Man's conscience apprises him of the existence of
law as has been well said: "Conscience does not lay down a law; it warns of the
existence of a law" (Diman, Theistic Argument). When man has the consciousness
that he has done wrong, he has indication that he has broken some law. Who else,
other than Jehovah, whose existence we have found to be an established fact,
could be the author of this law? And since man intuitively
thinks of God as being good, he must think of the purpose of His law as being
good. Therefore we cannot think of this law as being for the mere purpose of
condemnation. It must be that this law is for man's discipline in righteousness.
We must also conclude that God, being shown to be wise by His wonderful works,
would use the most effective means for the accomplishment of His purpose through
the law. This argues for a written revelation; for any large
degree of obedience to a righteous law is impossible to man without knowledge of
that law. Nature and reason are too uncertain, indistinct, incomplete, and
insufficient for the purpose. James B. Walker sums up the matter as follows:
"The whole experience of the world has confirmed the fact beyond the possibility
of skepticism that man can not discover and establish a perfect rule of human
duty" (Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation, p. 73).
If
this be true of the law of human conduct, then how much more is it true of the
way of salvation? "The light of nature leaves men entirely without the knowledge
of the way of saving sinful men. . .angels . . . themselves would not be able to
know the way of saving sinful men, or how sinful men can be justified before God; wherefore, in order to know this, they
'desire to look into it,' 1 Pet. 1:12" (Gill, Body of Divinity, p. 25).
Furthermore,
E. Y. Mullins says: "The very idea of religion contains at its heart the idea of
revelation. No definition of religion which omits the idea can stand in the
light of facts. If the worshipper speaks to God, and God is
forever silent to the worshipper, we have only one side of religion. Religion
then becomes a meaningless make-believe" (The Christian Religion in its
Doctrinal Expression).
"If
the Bible is not what the Christian people of the world think it to be, then we
have on our hands the tremendous problem of accounting for its increased and
increasing popularity among the great majority of the most enlightened people of
the earth and in the face of almost every conceivable opposition" (Jonathan Rigdon, Science and Religion).
"Greater
efforts have been made to destroy the Bible than were ever put forth for the
destruction of any other book. Its foes have persistently attempted to arrest
its influence. Criticism has assailed it and ridicule has
derided it. Science and philosophy have been invoked to discredit it. Astronomy,
in its disclosure of heavenly wonders, has been asked for some facts to
disparage it; and geology, in its researches in the earth, has been importuned
to throw suspicion upon it" (J. M. Pendleton, Christian Doctrines). Yet
"Steadfast, serene,
immovable, the same
Year after year . . .
.
Burns on for evermore
that quenchless flame;
Shines on that
inextinguishable light."
The
Bible "rises up today like a phoenix from the fire, with an air of mingled pity
and disdain for its foes, as much unharmed by their puny attacks as were
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego by Nebuchadnezzar's furnace" (Collett, All About
The Bible).
It
is not likely that any merely human production could have triumphed over such
opposition as has been brought against the Bible.
3.
PROOFS THAT THE BIBLE IS GOD'S REVELATION
(1)
The Great Differences between the Bible and the Writings of Men Evidence that it
is not a mere Human Production.
"These
differences are:-
A.
As to its Depth and Reaches of Meaning.
"There
are infinite depths and inexhaustible reaches of meaning in the Scripture, which
difference it from all other books, and which compel us to believe that its
author must be divine" (Strong). We may pick up the
productions of men and get about all they have to say at one reading. But not so
with the Bible. We can read it over and over and find new and deeper meanings.
Our minds are staggered at its depth of meaning.
B.
As to its Power, Charm, Attraction, and Perennial Freshness.
The
Biblical writers are incomparable in "their dramatic power, that divine and
indefinable charm, that mysterious and ever-recurring attraction, which we find
in them throughout our lives, as in the scenes of nature, an ever fresh charm.
After being delighted and moved by these incomparable narratives in our early
childhood, they revive and affect our tender emotions even in hoary age.
Certainly, there must be something super- human in the very
humanity of these forms, so familiar and simple" (L. Gaussen, Theopneustia). And
this same author suggests a comparison between the story of Joseph in the Bible
and the same story in the Koran. Another author (Mornay) suggests a comparison
between the history of Israel in the Bible and the same history in Flavius
Josephus. He says that in reading Bible history, men "will feel their whole
bodies thrill, their hearts move, and a tenderness of
affection come over them in a moment, more than had all the orators of Greece
and Rome preached to them the same matters for a whole day." He says of the
accounts of Josephus that one "will leave them colder and less moved than he
found them." He then adds: "What, then, if this Scripture has in its humility
more elevation, in its simplicity more depth, in its absence of all effort more
charms, in its grossness more vigor and point than we are
able to find elsewhere?"
C.
As to its Incomparable Conciseness.
In
the book of Genesis we have a history that tells of the creation of the earth
and of its being made a fit place for man's abode. It tells
of the making of man, animals, and plants, and the placing of them on the earth.
It tells of man's apostasy from God, of the first worship, of the first murder,
of the deluge, of the re-peopling of the earth, of the dispersion of men, of the
origin of the present diversity of tongues, of the founding of the Jewish
nation, and of the development and experiences of that nation for some five
hundred years. Yet it is all contained in fifty remarkably brief chapters. Now compare with this the history written by
Josephus. Both Moses and Josephus were Jews. Both wrote about the Jews. But
Josephus takes up more space with the history of his own life than Moses
consumes for the record of history from the creation to the death of Joseph.
Take also the gospels. "Who among us could have been, for three years and a
half, the constant witness, the passionately attached friend, of a man like
Jesus Christ, and could have been able to write in sixteen
or seventeen short chapters. . . . the whole history of that life--of His birth,
of His ministry, of His miracles, of His preachings, of His sufferings, of His
death, of His resurrection, and of His ascension into Heaven? Who among us would
have found it possible to avoid saying a word about the first thirty years of
such a life? Who among us could have related so many acts of kindness without an
exclamation; so many miracles without reflection on them; so
many sublime thoughts without an emphasis; so many sinless infirmities in their
Master, and so many sinful infirmities in His disciples, without any
suppression; so many instances of resistance, so much ignorance, so much
hardness of heart, without the slightest excuse or comment? Is it thus that men
write history? Who among us, further, could have known how to distinguish what
required to be said cursorily from what required to he told
in detail?" (Gaussen).
(2)
The Revelation of Things that Man, left alone, could never have Discovered gives
Evidence of the Superhuman Origin of the Bible.
Where
could Moses have gotten this if God did not reveal it to him? "The very
suggestion that Moses obtained his historical information from those Chaldean
and Gilgamesh legends . . . is simply absurd; for, interesting as they are, they
are so full of legendary nonsense that it would have been practically impossible for Moses or any other man to evolve, from such mythical
legends, the sober, reverent, and scientific records which are found in the book
of Genesis" (Collett).
Moreover
Moses did not get his information about creation from the science and philosophy
of Egypt. "Moses as the Crown Prince of Egypt attended the
best of their schools and 'was instructed in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians!--most of which is considered pure nonsense today--but he did not
write it in his books. The weird and fantastic theories held by the Egyptians
concerning the origin of the world and of man were passed over completely; and
in the first chapter of Genesis in majestic language which has never been
surpassed to this day he gives an account of God's creation
of the world and of man, no statement of which is disproved by modern science"
(Boettner, Studies in Theology, p. 34).
B.
The Doctrine of Angels.
"Was
anything similar to angels ever conceived of by the
imaginations of the people, by their poets, or by their sages? No; they never
even show the slightest approach to it. One will perceive, then, how impossible
it was, without a constant operation on the part of God, that the Biblical
narratives, in treating of such a subject, should not have constantly borne the
all too human impression of our narrow conceptions; or that the sacred writers
should not have let slip from their pen imprudent touches,
in vesting the angels by turns with attributes too divine, or affections too
human" (Gaussen).
C.
The Omnipresence of God.
Do
the following passages represent the conclusion of human
philosophy?
"Am
I a God at hand, saith Jehovah, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in
secret places so that I shall not see him? saith Jehovah. Do not I fill heaven
and earth? saith Jehovah (Jer. 23:23,24).
"Whither
shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I
ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in SheoL behold, thou
art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts
of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me"
(Psa. 139:7-10).
These
passages and others in the Bible teach, not pantheism, nor that God is at
different places successively; but that He is everywhere at once and yet
separate in being from His creation. Did the unaided intellect of man originate
this conception, seeing that even when it has been set down the mind of man can
comprehend it only partially?
D.
The Problem of Human Redemption.
If
there had been submitted to man the problem of how God could be just and the
justifier of the ungodly, would man have proposed, as a solution, that God
become flesh and suffer in man's stead? "That the guilty creature should be saved at the expense of the incarnation of the
Creator; that life should come to the sons of men through the death of the Son
of God; that Heaven should become accessible to earth's distant population by
the blood of a shameful cross-was utterly remote from all finite conceptions.
Even when the wonder was made known by the gospel, it excited the contempt of
the Jews and Greeks. To the former it was a stumbling-block and offense; to the latter it was foolishness. The Greeks were a highly
cultivated people, acute in intellect, profound in philosophy, and subtle in
reasoning, but they ridiculed the idea of salvation through one who was
crucified. They may well be regarded as representing the possibilities of the
human intellect-what it can do; and, so far from claiming the Christian doctrine
of redemption as an invention of philosophers, they laughed at it as unworthy of
philosophy. The facts of the gospel they rejected as
incredible, because they seemed to be in positive conflict with their
conceptions of reason" (J. M. Pendleton, Christian Doctrines).
"How
could these books have been written by such men, in such surroundings without
divine aid? When we consider the subjects discussed, the
ideas presented-so hostile not only to their native prejudices, but to the
general sentiment then prevalent with the wisest of mankind,-the whole system of
principles interwoven everywhere with history and poetry and promise, as well as
minute wonders and single excellences of the word- our minds are constrained to
acknowledge this as God's Book, in a high and peculiar sense" (Basil Manly, The
Bible Doctrine of Inspiration).
(3)
The Marvelous Unity of the Bible Confirms it as a Divine Revelation.
"Here
is a volume made up of sixty-six different books, written in separate sections,
by scores of different persons, during a period of fifteen
hundred years,-a volume antedating in its earlier records all other books in the
world, touching human life and knowledge at hundreds of different points. Yet it
avoids any absolute, assignable error in dealing with these innumerable themes.
Of what other ancient book can this be said? Of what book even one hundred years
old can this be said?" (Manly, The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration).
The
Bible contains almost every known form of literature -history, biography,
stories, dramas, arguments, poetry, prow, prophecy, parables, pleas, philosophy,
law, letters, satires, and songs. It was written in three languages by about
forty different authors, who lived on three continents. It was in the process of
composition some fifteen or sixteen hundred years. "Among these authors were
kings, farmers, mechanics, scientific men, lawyers,
generals, fishermen, ministers, and priests, a tax collector, a doctor, some
rich, some poor, some city-bred, some country-born-thus touching all the
experiences of men" (Peloubet's Bible Dictionary).
Yet
the Bible is in agreement in all of its parts. Critics have
imagined contradictions, but the contradictions disappear as mist before the
morning sun when they are subjected to the light of intelligent, careful,
candid, fair, and sympathetic investigation. The following marks of unity
characterize the Bible:
A.
It is a Unit in its Design.
The
one grand design that runs all through the Bible is the revelation of how man,
estranged from God, may find restoration to the favor and fellowship of God.
B.
It is a Unit in its Teaching Concerning God.
Every
statement in the Bible concerning God is compatible with every other statement.
No writer has contradicted any other writer in writing on the stupendous theme
of the ineffable, infinite God!
This
is true in spite of the efforts of modernists to represent the God of the Old
Testament as a God of vengeance and war and the God of the New Testament as a
God of love and non-resistance. Modernists willfully ignore the fact that in the
Old Testament God dealt with a nation, while in the New Testament God is dealing
with individuals. There is not a word in the New Testament that teaches that nations should not resist aggression. Modernists grossly
pervert the New Testament when they insist on applying to nations the teachings
of Jesus with respect to individual believers.
C.
It is a Unit in its Teaching Concerning Man.
Everywhere
in the Bible man is shown to be by nature a corrupt, sinful, rebellious, failing
creature under the wrath of God and needing redemption.
D.
It is a Unit in its Teaching Concerning Salvation.
The
way of salvation was not made so clear in the Old Testament as it was in the New
Testament. But it can be seen readily that what is clearly revealed in the New
Testament was fore- shadowed in the Old Testament. Peter affirmed that Old
Testament saints were saved in exactly the same way that New Testament saints
are saved. Acts 15:10,11. Read in this connection the fifty-third and fifty-fifth chapters of Isaiah. Also note that Paul makes Abraham a
typical example of justification through the faith (Rom. 4) and says that the
gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8). Note moreover that Paul told Timothy
that the "holy Scriptures" (the Old Testament) which he had known from a child
were able to make one wise "unto salvation through faith which is in Christ
Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15). The supposed conflict between James and Paul on justification will be treated in the chapter on
justification.
E.
It is a Unit as to the law of God.
A
perfect ideal of righteousness is portrayed throughout the
Bible in spite of the fact that God, in harmony with the laws of man's
development, suited His government to the needs of Israel that they might be
lifted from their rude state. This adjustment of God's discipline was like a
ladder let down into a pit to provide a way of escape for one trapped there. The
letting down of the ladder is not meant as an encouragement to the one at the
bottom to remain there, but is intended as a means of
rescue. So the condescension of God's discipline in the case of Israel was not
meant as an encouragement of evil but as a regulation of evil for the purpose of
lifting the people to a higher plane. To deny the unity of God's law because of
adaptations to the need of particular peoples is as foolish as to deny the unity
of the architect's plans because he uses temporary scaffolding in the
accomplishment of them.
F.
It is a Unit in the Progressive Unfolding of Doctrine.
All
truth was not given at once in the Bible. Yet there is unity. The unity in
progressive unfolding is the unity of growth. We see "first the blade, then the
ear, then the full grain in the ear" (Mark 4:28).
The
force of this marvelous unity in its application to the question of inspiration
of the Bible is emphasized by David James Burrell as follows: "If forty odd
persons of different tongues and degrees of musical education were to pass
through the organ-loft of a church at long intervals and, without any possibility of collusion, strike sixty-six notes each, which, when
combined, should yield the theme of an oratorio, it is respectfully submitted
that the man who regarded that as a 'fortuitous circumstance' would by universal
consent be regarded-to put it mildly,-sadly deficient in common sense" (Why I
Believe The Bible).
(4)
The Accuracy of the Bible in Scientific Matters Proves that
it is Not of Human Origin.
A.
Bible not given to Teach Natural Science.
It
is rightfully said that the Bible was not given to teach natural science. It was
not given to teach the way the heavens go, but the way to go
to Heaven.
B.
Yet it makes Reference to Scientific Matters.
"On
the other hand, however, seeing that the whole universe is so entirely and
inseparably bound up with scientific laws and principles, it
is inconceivable that this book of God- which confessedly deals with everything
in the universe which affects the highest interests of man-should make no
reference whatever to any scientific matter; hence it is that we do find
incidental references to various branches of science ... (Sidney Collett, All
About The Bible).
C.
And when it does Make Reference to Scientific Matters, it is
Most Accurate.
The
Bible does not contain the scientific errors of its day. It anticipated the
vaunted discoveries of men by hundreds of years. None of its Statements have
been proved erroneous. And it is only in modern times that men have come to
understand some of them.'
Note
the following accurate Biblical references to scientific matters:
(a)
"The rotundity of the earth. Centuries before men knew that the earth is round
the Bible spoke of "the circle of the earth" (Isa. 40:22).
(b)
The gravitational support of the earth. Men used to
__________
*The conflicts supposed by many to exist between the Bible and science with respect to the
creation of the earth and of living beings are dealt with in later chapters on
God's Relation to the Universe and The Creation of Man. Moreover scientific
evidence of the flood will be given in chapter dealing with Creation of Man.
Furthermore this latter chapter will deal also with the supposed great antiquity
of man.
discuss
the question of what it is that supports the earth, various theories being
advanced. Finally scientists discovered that the earth is held in place by the
gravitation of the sun. But long before men knew this, and while they were
contending for this or that material foundation for the earth, the Bible declared that God "hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).
(c)
The nature of the heavens. The Bible speaks of the heavens as "expanse," and
this was so far in advance of science that the Hebrew word (raqia) was
translated "firmament" (Gen. 1:7,8; Psa. 19:6), which means a solid support.
(d)
The northern empty expanse. It has been only within the last century that the
Washington Observatory discovered that within the northern heavens there is a
great empty expanse in which there is not a single visible star. But more than
three thousand years ago the Bible informed men that God "stretcheth out the north over the empty place" (Job 26:7).
(e)
The weight of air. Galileo is credited with the discovery that air has weight-a
thing that men formerly had never dreamed of. But two thousand years before
Galileo's discovery, the Bible said that God made "a weight for the wind" (Job
28:25).
(f)
The rotation of the earth. In speaking of His second coming, Christ gave
indication that it would be night in one part of the earth and day in another,
(Luke 17:34-36), thus implying the rotation of the earth upon its axis.
(g)
The number of stars. In the second century before Christ,
Hipparchus numbered the stars at 1,022. Over three hundred years later, Ptolemy
added four more. But the Bible anticipated the revelations of the modern
telescope by comparing the stars with grains of sand by the seashore (Gen.
22:17; Jer. 38:22), with only God being able to number them (Psa. 147:4).
(h)
The law of evaporation. Long before men knew that it is
evaporation that keeps the sea from overflowing and keeps rivers running by
making rain possible, the whole amazing process was strikingly represented with
scientific accuracy as follows: "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is
not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again
(Eccl. 1:7).
(i)
The existence of trade-winds. Today we know that the rising of hot air in the
tropics causes the cold air from the north to move in, causing what we call
"trade-winds." We also know that "in some places they blow in one direction for
half the year, but in the opposite direction for the other half (New Students
Reference Work, p. 1931). The Bible anticipated this modem knowledge in a very
remarkable statement as follows: "The wind goeth toward the
south, and turneth about unto the north, it whirleth about continually, and the
wind returneth again according to his circuits" (Eccl. 1:6).
(j)
The importance of the blood.
Only
for about three and a half centuries have we known that the blood circulates,
carrying oxygen and food to every cell in the body, removing carbon dioxide and
other wastes from the body through the lungs and excretory organs, and promoting
healing and fighting diseases. But a long time ago the Bible declared that "the
life of the flesh is in the blood." See Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:11,14.
(k)
The unity of the human race. Ancient tradition represented men originally as
springing individually from the soil without lineal relationship. But modern
knowledge has revealed many physical, physiological, geographic, and linguistic
evidences of the unity of the race.* The strongest evidence, however, lies
__________
*An
extended discussion of The Unity of Man is found in The New Biblical Guide
(Urquhart, beginning on page 381 of Vol. 1), where reference
is made to a discussion of variations in the human family by Pritchard in The
Vestiges of Creation, and Pritchard is quoted as saying: "We have but obscure
notions of the laws which regulate this variability within specific limits, but
we see them continually operating, and they are obviously favorable to the
supposition that all the great families of men may have been of one stock."
Furthermore Pritchard is quoted as saying: "The tendency of
modern study of languages is to the same point." Then Urquhart says of the
eminent and learned Quatre- fages: "He has expressed the belief that the only
possible conclusion of science is that the human race sprang from a single
pair?"
__________
in
the fact that whereas medical science can distinguish between human blood and
animal blood and can distinguish between the blood of different species of
animals, yet it cannot distinguish between the blood of the different races of
mankind. But Moses did not have to wait for this modern knowledge. Without
hesitance or equivocation he declared that the race has spread by the
descendents of the sons of Noah (Gen. 9:19; 10:32). Nor did
Paul hesitate to affirm that God "hath made of one blood every nation of men"
(Acts 17.26).
(5)
Fulfilled Prophecy Witnesses to the Fact that the Bible Came from God.
A.
The Prophetic Reference to Cyrus.
Fifty
years before the birth of King Cyrus, who decreed that the children of Israel
might return to their land, Isaiah spoke of God as the one "that saith of Cyrus,
He is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem,
She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid" (Isa. 44:28).
B.
The Prophecy of the Babylonian Captivity. See Jer. 25:11.
C.
Prophesies Concerning Christ.
(a)
The parting of His garments. Psa. 22:18. For fulfillment see Matt. 27:35.
(b)
The fact of His bones not being broken. Psa. 34:20. For fulfillment see John
19:36.
(e)
His betrayal. Psa. 41:9. For fulfillment see John 13:18
(d)
His death with the thieves and burial in Joseph's tomb. See Isa. 53:9, 12. For
fulfillment see Matt. 27:38, 57-60.
(e)
His birth in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2. For fulfillment see Matt.
2: 1; John 7:42.
(f)
His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Zech. 9:9. For fulfillment see Matt.
21:1-10; Mark 11:1-8; Luke 19:29-38.
(g)
His piercing. Zech. 12:10. For fulfillment see John 19:34,
37.
(h)
The scattering of His disciples. Zech. 13:7. For fulfillment see Matt. 26:31.
There
is but one plausible explanation of the wonder of fulfilled prophecy. And that
explanation is that he "who worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11) moved the hand of the writer of prophecy.
(6)
The Testimony of Christ Proves the Genuineness of the Bible as a Revelation from
God.
Jesus
regarded the Old Testament as the Word of God. He frequently
referred to it as such, and said: "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
He also promised further revelation through the apostles (John 16:12,13). Thus
we have His pre-authentication of the New Testament.
The
testimony of Jesus is of unique value, because His life
proved Him to be what He professed to be-a revelation of God. Jesus was not
deceived; "for this would argue (a) a weakness and folly amounting to positive
insanity. But His whole character and life exhibit a calmness, dignity,
equipoise, insight, and self-mastery, utterly inconsistent with such a theory.
Or it would argue (b) a self-ignorance and self-exaggeration which could spring
only from the deepest moral perversion. But the absolute
purity of His conscience, the humility of His spirit, the self-denying
beneficence of His life, show this hypothesis to be incredible." Neither was
Jesus a deceiver; for "(a) the perfectly consistent holiness of His life; (b)
the unwavering confidence with which He challenged investigation of His claims
and staked all upon the result; (c) the vast improbability of a lifelong lie in
the avowed interests of truth; and (d) the impossibility that deception should have wrought such blessing to the world,-all show that Jesus
was not a conscious imposter" (A. H. Strong).
III.
WHAT CONSTITUTES THE BIBLE?
From
what has been said already, it is manifest that the author
believes that the Bible, God's revelation, consists of the sixty-six books of
what is known as the Protestant Canon.
No
lengthy and labored argument is necessary here, and none shall be attempted. The
whole matter, so far as those who believe in the deity of Christ are concerned,
can be settled by His testimony.
Let
us note:
1.
Christ accepted the thirty-nine books of our Old Testament as constituting the
written revelation that God had given up to that time.
These
books composed the "Scripture" (a term occurring twenty-three times in the New
Testament) accepted by the Jews. It is believed they were collected and arranged
by Ezra. They were translated from Hebrew into Greek some time before the advent
of Christ. There can be no doubt that Christ accepted these
books and no others as constituting the writings that God had inspired up to
that time. He quoted from these books with the formula, "It is written." He
referred to them as "Scripture." And He said, ". . . the Scripture cannot be
broken (John 10:35).
On
the other hand, neither Christ nor the apostles accepted the
fourteen books and parts of books (known as the Apocrypha), most of which have
been added to the Protestant Canon to make up the Old Testament in the Roman
Catholic Bible (Douay Version). "And although there are in the New Testament
about 263 direct quotations from and about 370 allusions to passages in the Old
Testament, yet amongst all these there is not a single reference, either by
Christ or His apostles, to the apocryphal writings"
(Collett, All About the Bible, p. 50). Neither were these bocks received by the
nation of Israel.*
Josephus,
in writing Against Apion (Book 1, See. 8), says: "We have not an innumerable
multitude of books
__________
*This
is admitted by Roman Catholic authorities. In A Catechism of the Bible, written
by "Rev. John J. O'Brien, M. A.," and published with the usual authorization by
the International Catholic Truth Society, of Brooklyn, on
page 10, this question was asked concerning these books: "Were the added books
accepted by the Hebrews?" And the answer given is: "No, the Hebrews refused to
accept these added books."
__________
among
us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only
twenty-two books (this number was arrived at by certain combinations of our
thirty-nine books) . . . for during so many ages as have already passed, no one
has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them,
or to make any change in them." Nor were these books a part of the original
Septuagint, as is often supposed. Cyril of Jerusalem (born A. D. 315) spoke of
the Septuagint as follows: "Read the divine Scriptures-
namely, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament which the seventy-two
interpreters translated." They were probably added to the Septuagint about the
middle of the fourth century since the earliest copy of the Septuagint we
possess (Vatican version) contains them, and this is supposed to date from the
fourth century. Perhaps it was the addition of these books that prompted the
Greek church at the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 363) to deny their inspiration. Even as late as 1546, the Council of Trent found
it necessary to declare these books to be canonical
2.
Christ also promised a further revelation going even beyond all that He had
taught.
In
John 16:12, 13 we find Christ speaking to the apostles as
follows: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth;
for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he
speak; and he will show you things to come."
Furthermore
Christ constituted the apostles a body of infallible
teachers when in Matt. 18:18 He said: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven." To "bind" means to forbid, that is, to teach
that a thing is wrong. To "loose" is to allow, to sanction, to teach that a
thing is right. Thus Christ promised to sanction in Heaven whatever the apostles
taught on earth. John 20:22, 23 is of the same import.
In
the New Testament we have this further revelation that Christ gave through His
infallible body of teachers. The few books not written by apostles evidently
received their place in the canon because of apostolic approval. At any rate,
their teaching is the same as that of the other books of the canon.
The
New Testament came into existence in the same way that the Old Testament did,
that is, the canon was determined by the consensus of opinion on the part of
God's own people. The fact that God gave and preserved an infallible revelation
of the old dispensation argues that He has done the same with reference to the new.
The
Roman Catholic contention that we accept our Bible on their authority is
splendidly null and eloquently vain. The canon of the whole Bible was settled
before there was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church. (See chapter on The
Doctrine of the Church for a discussion of its origin.) If we accepted our Bible on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, then we
should accept the apocryphal books which they have added, together with their
garbled translation of them. Furthermore, in that case, we should accept their
vain traditions. The decisions of church councils are considered of value to us
only as they are accepted as bearing historical evidence to the consensus of
opinion among God's true saints and as voicing the truth that is confirmed by
other evidences.
IV.
IS THE BIBLE SUFFICIENT AND FINAL AS GOD'S REVELATION?
The
sufficiency and finality of the Bible are rejected today by Roman Catholics in
favor of "tradition," and by the devotees of neo-orthodoxy
in favor of a continuous revelation. Back of the Roman Catholic contention for
the authority of tradition is the idea that the Roman Catholic clergy are
successors to the apostles. This is a figment of a perverted imagination.
Neither Jesus nor the apostles gave the slightest hint about an apostolic
successor, except for Judas; and it was necessary that he be one that had
companied with them from the baptism of John. See Acts 1:21,22. Roman Catholic traditions not only supplement the Bible; they also
contradict it. They have arisen in the same manner that Jewish traditions did,
and today they stand in the same relationship to the true Word of God. Thus the
condemnation of Jesus is just as applicable to them as to Jewish traditions-
"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their
lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching
for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:8,9).
Paul
plainly indicated that God's plan was to give man such a complete written
revelation that thereby "the man of God may he perfect, throughly furnished unto
all good works" (2 Tim. 3:16).
The
modern idea of the "authority of the Spirit," which is really the authority of
human reason, as giving a continuous revelation, is equally vain. We must go
back to Christ as our only reliable authority, and Christ gave no promise of
authoritative teachings extending beyond the apostles. This idea will be adopted
by none except modernists or those greatly affected by modernism. Those who accept this idea will be found either openly or virtually
denying the inspiration of the Bible. We care not for their misty notions. They
are so flimsy they collapse under their own weight. The New Testament is
manifestly complete, sufficient and final.