| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Pentateuch, in Its Progressive Revelations of God to Men
Author: Cowles, Henry
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Pentateuch, in Its Progressive Revelations of God to Men" ***
book was produced from scanned images of public domain
material from the Google Books project.)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ The Table of Contents has been modified by the Transcriber │
│ to agree with the text. │
│ │
│ The original text shows quotations within quotations set │
│ off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been │
│ changed to single quotes for improved readability. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ Bold text: --> =text=. │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a number in │
│ brackets [2] and have been accumulated in a single section │
│ at the end of the text. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified in the text by a ♦ symbol, │
│ and are accumulated in a single section at the end of the │
│ book. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
THE PENTATEUCH,
IN ITS
PROGRESSIVE REVELATIONS OF GOD TO MEN.
DESIGNED FOR BOTH PASTORS AND PEOPLE.
BY REV. HENRY COWLES, D.D.
“Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can
I unless some man should guide me?”――ACTS VIII: 30, 31.
NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON & CO.,
549 AND 551 BROADWAY.
1874.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873, by
REV. HENRY COWLES, D.D.,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C.
PREFACE.
MY reasons for treating the Pentateuch topically rather than textually
will be obvious. Criticism on the original text is rarely needed. There
is seldom the least occasion to aid the reader in following the line
of thought or the course of argument. The demand here is rather for
the discussion and due presentation of the great themes of the book.
My plan has therefore aimed to meet this demand, discussing these
themes _critically_ so far as seemed necessary either because of their
intrinsic nature or because of popular objections or misconceptions;
and always _practically_ so far forth as to show the important moral
bearings of these themes as revelations of God to man. It has been,
however, my purpose to explain all the difficult, doubtful, or
controverted passages.
The modern objections to Genesis, more or less related to true science,
have been brought under special examination because they are at present
eliciting so much public attention. Let all real truth be welcomed and
held in honor, whether revealed in the works of God or in his word. It
is _knowledge of God_ that we seek; some of which we learn through his
works of creation or of providence; more through his revealed word. It
behooves us to dismiss all apprehensions lest these diverse forms of
divine revelation may come into real conflict, and equally, all fear
lest the Bible should be compelled to recede as Science advances.
The points of contact between sacred and profane history and
antiquities have been carefully examined, both for their own intrinsic
interest and for the incidental confirmation which they bring to the
sacred volume.
As will appear in the Introduction I have had an eye somewhat to the
idea of _progress_ in these successive steps of divine revelation――yet
with an aim not so much to prove a point disputed as to illustrate
a fact sometimes overlooked; hoping thus to heighten the reader’s
interest.
This wonderful grouping of those events of the earliest ages of
time, given us of God through the masterly hand of Moses, is for every
reason worthy of profoundest study. In the humble hope that these pages
may serve to obviate old difficulties; suggest new aspects of truth;
inspire fresh zeal in this study; and enhance the spiritual profit of
every reader――this volume is submitted to the Christian public.
HENRY COWLES.
OBERLIN, O., October, 1873.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION, p. 1.
CHAPTER I.
CREATION, p. 9.
Naturally the first fact revealed; Its moral lessons, 9;
The origin of this record and the manner of its revelation to
men, 12;
Nature and the supernatural, 13;
Theories on the origin of life, 14;
The sense of the word “day” in Gen. 1: 16; Argued
(1) From the laws of language, 17;
(2) From the narrative itself, 18;
Objection from the law of the Sabbath, 21;
(3) From Geological facts and their bearings on the question,
22;
Prominent points of harmony between Genesis and Geology,
25;
(4) Does “Create” (Gen. 1: 1) refer to the original production
of matter? 26;
(5) The relation of v. 1 to v. 2, and to the rest of the
chapter, 29;
(6) The work of the fourth day, 31;
(7) The sense of the record as to the _origin of life_,
vegetable and animal, 32;
(8) On God’s “making man in his own image,” 33;
(9) The relation of Gen. 2: 4–25 to Gen. 1, 35;
(10) Invariability of “_kind_” in the vegetable and animal
kingdoms, 37;
The theory of Mr. Darwin, 38;
The issue between Darwin and Moses, 38;
Darwin’s five main arguments, 39;
Brief replies, 40;
Objections bearing generally against Darwin’s scheme, 43;
(1) It requires almost infinite time back of the
earliest traces or possibilities of life, 43;
(2) Requires what Nature does not give――a close
succession of animal races, differing but
infinitesimally from each other, 43;
(3) His argument is essentially _materialistic_ and is
therefore false, 45;
(4) It ignores man’s intellectual and moral nature, 46;
(5) It ignores or overrides the law of nature by which
hybrids are infertile, 46;
(6) This scheme is in many points revolting to the
common sense of mankind, 46;
(7) It is ♦reckless of the authority of revelation, 48.
CHAPTER II.
THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN, 49;
Two main questions:
1. Is the human family older than Adam? 49;
(1) The argument for man’s high antiquity,
From traces of his skeleton, 50;
From his tools and works, 51;
(2) From the traditions and chronologies of the old
nations, 59.
CHAPTER III.
HEBREW CHRONOLOGY, 60;
2. How far back was Adam? 60;
From birth of Christ back to the founding of Solomon’s
Temple, 60;
First disputed period――that of the Judges, 60;
Second disputed period――that of the sojourn in Egypt, 62;
Third disputed period――between Terah and Abraham, 64;
Fourth disputed period――from the creation to the flood, 66;
Fifth disputed period――from the flood to the call of
Abraham, 68.
CHAPTER IV.
ANTIQUITY OF MAN RESUMED, 72;
On the Antiquity of Egypt, 72;
The date of Menes, its first king, and of the pyramids, 74;
Unity of the human race: Were there races of pre-Adamic
men, now extinct? 75;
Are the present living races descendants of the same first
pair? 75.
CHAPTER V.
THE SABBATH, 77;
As old as Eden; made for man as a race.
CHAPTER VI.
THE EVENTS OF EDEN, 81;
I. Is the description of man’s fall symbolic or historic? 81;
II. The moral trial, 84;
III. The temptation, 87;
IV. The fall, 88;
The curse; the first installment of the penalty for
transgression, 89;
The first promise, 90.
CHAPTER VII.
FROM THE FALL TO THE FLOOD, 92;
1. Notes on special passages;
Gen. 4: 1, “I have gotten a man――the Lord,” 92;
Gen. 4: 6, 7――words of the Lord to Cain, 92;
Gen. 4: 23, 24, the song of Lamech, 92;
2. Abel’s offering and the origin of sacrifices, 93;
3. The great moral lessons of the antediluvian age, 95.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE FLOOD, 99;
Its moral causes, 99;
Its physical causes, 101;
Was this flood universal? 102;
As to the earth’s surface, 102
As to its population, 104;
Traditions of a great deluge, 105.
CHAPTER IX.
FROM THE FLOOD TO THE CALL OF ABRAHAM, 107;
1. The law against murder and its death-penalty, 107;
2. The prophecy of Noah, 108;
3. The genealogy of the historic nations, 110;
4. Babel and the confusion of tongues, 112.
CHAPTER X.
ABRAHAM, 114;
His personal history; the divine purposes in the new system
inaugurated with him; Concentration of moral forces; a more
definite _covenant_ between God and his people; Utilizing
the family relation, 116;
Developing a great example of the obedience of faith, 120;
In leaving his country at God’s call, 120;
In waiting long but hopefully for his one son of promise, 120;
In obeying the command to offer this son a sacrifice, 120;
God’s revelations to Abraham _progressive_, 122;
The missionary idea in this system――blessings to all the
nations, 125;
The Messiah included in these promises, 126;
Sodom and Gomorrah, 128;
The angel of the Lord, 130.
CHAPTER XI.
THE PATRIARCHS, ISAAC, JACOB, JOSEPH, 132;
Isaac, 132;
Jacob, 133;
At Bethel, 133;
At Mahanaim, 137;
The struggle of prayer; The points and grounds of this
conflict; The law of prevailing prayer, 140;
Jacob and Joseph, 143;
Developments of personal character, 144;
Joseph in Egypt, 146;
The hand of God in this history:
Seen in the sufferings of the innocent, 155;
Seen in overruling sin for good, 158;
The purposes of God in locating Israel in Egypt, 160;
Ancient Egyptian history and life confirms Moses, 162;
Special passages considered:
Going down into Sheol, Gen. 37: 35, 166;
Jacob’s benedictions upon his sons, Gen. 49, 168;
The Scepter of Judah, Gen. 49: 10, 169;
The less readable portions of Genesis, 171;
Close of Genesis, 172.
CHAPTER XII.
EXODUS 173;
The oppression, 173;
Moses, 175;
His great mission, 179;
The ten plagues, 185:
These plagues supernatural, 187;
Several of them specially adapted to Egypt, 189;
The case of the magicians, 190;
The shape of the demand upon Pharaoh to let the people go, 193;
The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, 194;
History of the case, 194;
What is said of God’s purpose in it, 203;
Light on this case from God’s revealed character, 204.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE PASSOVER, 205;
Consecration of all first-born, 207;
The long route to Canaan, 209;
The march and the pursuit, 210;
The guiding pillar of cloud and of fire, 211;
The locality of the Red Sea crossing, 215.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE HISTORIC CONNECTIONS OF MOSES WITH PHARAOH AND EGYPT, 216.
♦CHAPTER XV.
THE EVENTS NEAR AND AT SINAI, 222;
The manna, 222;
Rephidim; water by miracle, 225;
The battle with Amalek, 229;
Jethro, 230;
The Scenes at Sinai, 232;
The national covenant; The giving of the law, 232;
The moral law, given from Sinai, 236;
To be distinguished from “the statutes and judgments,” 236;
The commandments considered severally;
1. 238;
2. 239;
3. 241;
4. 241;
5. 243;
6–9. 243;
10. 245;
Progress in the revelations of God to man, 246.
CHAPTER XVI.
THE HEBREW THEOCRACY, 251;
The supreme power, 251;
The powers of Jehovah’s Vicegerent, 253;
The General Assembly and their Elders, 254;
The scope afforded for self-government, democracy, 255;
The fundamental principles of this system, 258;
Its union of Church and State, 259;
Its principles and usages in regard to war, with notice of the
war-commission against the doomed Canaanites, 261;
The grant of Canaan, and the command to extirpate the
Canaanites, 262.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE CIVIL INSTITUTES OF MOSES, OR THE HEBREW CODE OF CIVIL LAW,
270;
General view of it, 270;
Analysis of the crimes condemned, 273;
Crimes against God:
Idolatry, 273;
Perjury, 274;
Presumptuous sins, 275;
Violations of the Sabbath, 276;
Blasphemy, 276;
Magic arts, 276;
Crimes against parents and rulers, 279;
Crimes against person and life, _i. e._ crimes of blood, 280;
Cities of refuge, 282;
Murder by unknown hands, 284;
Crimes against chastity, 285;
Statutes to protect rights of property, 286;
Statutes against usury, 288;
Statutes for the relief of the poor, 289;
Crimes against reputation, 292.
CHAPTER XVIII.
CIVIL INSTITUTES OF MOSES CONTINUED;
Hebrew servitude, 294;
Man-stealing, 294;
No rendition of fugitives, 295;
Severe personal injuries entitled to freedom, 295;
Periodical emancipation, 296;
Religious privileges of servants, 298;
The slavery that existed before Moses, 299;
The condition of Israel in bondage in Egypt, 299;
The Jubilee, 300;
Its bearing upon foreign servants, 301;
Meaning of “bond-servant,” 302;
Servants of foreign birth, 302;
Judicial Procedure, 304;
Judges, 304;
The seat of justice, 305;
The processes of prosecution, 305;
Advocates, 305;
Of witnesses, 305;
Punishments, 306;
Fines, 306;
Sin and trespass offerings, 307;
Stripes, 307;
Excommunication, 308;
Modes of capital punishment, 308;
Disgrace after death, 308;
Judicial procedure and punishment summary, 308;
Statutes without penalties, 309;
Two Historic Questions, 311;
How far is this system indebted to Egypt? 311;
How far have the best civil codes of the most civilized
nations been indebted to this Hebrew code? 314;
Progressive revelations of God in this code, 319.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM OF THE HEBREWS, 321;
Classification of sacrifices, 322;
Choice of animals for sacrifice, 323;
The scenes of sacrifice, 324;
The significance of sacrifices, 325;
Of the portion taken as food, 326;
Special sacrifices, 327;
Sacred times and seasons, 327;
The Morning and Evening Sacrifice, 327;
The Sacrifices for the Sabbath, 328;
The sacrifices at each new moon, 328;
The three great festivals, 328;
The Passover, 328;
The Feast of Pentecost, 328;
The Feast of Tabernacles, 329;
The great day of Atonement, 331;
Sacred Edifices and Apparatus, 334;
The Sacred Orders, 335;
Present value of the Mosaic ritual, 336;
Its lessons on the blood of atonement, 338;
That these lessons are steps of _progress_ in the revelation
of God to men, 340.
CHAPTER XX.
HISTORIC EVENTS OF HEBREW HISTORY FROM SINAI TO THE JORDAN, 342;
The golden calf, 342;
The intercession of Moses, 343;
The Lord reveals his name and glory, 346;
Incidents connected with this idol-worship, 350;
Lessons from Moses on prayer, 353;
Taberah and Kibroth-hataavah, 354;
Miriam and Aaron envious of Moses, 355;
Kadesh-barnea and the unbelieving spies, 356;
Rebellion of Korah and his company, 360;
The fiery serpent and the brazen one, 363;
Balak and Balaam, 364;
Balaam’s prophecies, 367;
His prayer, 368.
CHAPTER XXI.
ON THE LAST FOUR BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH, 375;
Their _method_ and _subject-matter_, 375;
Leviticus, 376;
Numbers, 376;
Deuteronomy, 377;
Deut. 12–26, 378;
The prophet like Moses, 380;
The blessings and the curses, 383;
The last words of Moses, 384;
The Song of Moses, 386;
Moses blesses the tribes, Deut. 33, 394;
Death and character of Moses, 401;
The Mosaic system and the future life, 403;
Progressive developments of truth and of God, 412.
Advertisements, 415
INTRODUCTION.
THE REVELATIONS OF GOD TO MEN PROGRESSIVE.
IT is supposable that God might have made his entire written revelation
of himself to men _at once_, through one inspired prophet and one only;
in one definite locality (Eden or Jerusalem), and all brought within a
twelve-month. But he did not deem this the wisest way. He preferred to
speak at considerable intervals of time――through a long succession of
“holy men of old;” “at sundry times and in diverse manners” (Heb. i: 1).
Among the choice results of this progressive method we may name the
following: (1.) That by means of it God made large and admirable use of
_history_. This was revealing himself to men, not simply by his _words_
but by his _works_. In ways which men could not well mistake, he was
thus able to manifest himself as the God of nations; also as the God
of families; and not least, as the God of individual men. It was vital
to human welfare that he should place himself before men as being
not a heathen Brumha, sunk in unconscious sleep for ages, but as the
All-seeing, ever-active One, exercising a real government over men,
ruling in equity and yet with loving-kindness; ever present amid all
their activities and impressing himself upon the thought and the heart
of the race. In this line of policy how admirably did he give promises
to his servants to inspire their faith in himself; then prove that
faith through years and ages of trial and delay; but at last confirm
his word by its signal fulfillment! By what other method could He so
effectually reveal himself as a _personal God_――the personal Friend
of his trustful children――evermore worthy of their supreme confidence,
whether they could or could not see at once all the reasons of his
ways?
His providential rule over nations as such found in this method ample
scope for the fullest illustration. The record of this ruling in the
ministrations of prosperity and adversity; in the rise and the ruin
of great nations through the lapse of the world’s early centuries,
constitute a marvelously rich portion of this progressive revelation of
God to man.――――A Bible made up of words from God without any _deeds_ of
God would be open to dangerous misunderstanding and thus might in great
measure fail of its purpose. At best it would be tame and unimpressive
compared with the method God has chosen of revealing himself largely
in actual works at innumerable points along the ages for more than four
thousand years.
(2.) Again; no small gain accrued from the large number and various
qualities of the holy men through whom God spake. The personal blessing
to themselves was too rich to be limited to any one man. Rather let it
be shared by many scores of men, standing forth before their respective
generations age after age from Adam down to him of Patmos.――――We may
also note the large range of diversity in their personal character
and in their endowments as authors. How varied were the circumstances
of their lives and the moral trials which were the refiner’s fire to
their spiritual life! How abundantly by this means did their personal
experiences illustrate the ways of God with those who come nearest
to him in the fullness of heart communion! How many chapters are thus
provided of the most reliable most varied and easily applied Christian
experience!
By means of the diversity of inspired writers, the Bible is enriched
with the charms of a large variety in style, as well as in the
experiences of the Christian life. Among all the sacred penmen, no
two minds are cast in the same mold. Poetry, eloquence, imagination,
logic, sublimity, pathos――in what endless combinations do we find
these gifts apportioned and manifested! How should we admire the wisdom
which chose out men of gifts so diversified, and then adopted a method
of inspiration which left each writer’s mind to the unrestrained
development of its own peculiar genius.
(3.) Yet farther; the progressive historical method of making up the
Bible opened the door widely for miracles and prophecy. The occasions
for miracles were multiplied. They could be introduced naturally where
manifold and not single results should accrue. In this way there was
no need to manufacture opportunities for miraculous interposition.
Abundant occasions arose to demand them, when consequently they had
a most thrilling effect. We may see this in the scenes of the Exodus,
the conquest of Canaan, the rescue of Hezekiah and his people.
So also of prophecy. It asks for _time_. On the supposition that
the fulfillment is to appear in the Scriptures, an interval of some
duration must come between the utterance and the fulfillment. It was
also wise that prophecy should subserve the superadded purpose of
spiritual comfort to God’s people during the ages between comparative
darkness and forth-breaking light. In fact it gave to God’s people the
first single beams of morning twilight, bearing the grateful assurance
that the Sun of Righteousness would surely rise on the nations in the
fullness of gospel times.
(4.) Still again; by this method of making up inspired history it
is placed side by side with profane history and the most ancient
monuments of the race, and thus invites investigation on the point
of its truthfulness. Is this progressive history of God’s ways toward
men confirmed by whatever reliable history of the same period has come
down to us through other sources? This point well deserves and richly
rewards a careful examination.
(5.) Moreover, it is to be presumed that God would commence his
revelation of himself to our race in the very infancy of their
existence. The Bible shows us that he did. Assuming that at this point
they had every thing to learn, we ought to expect that their first
Bible lessons would turn their thought to the great truths of _natural
religion_――the manifestations of God in his _works of creation and
providence_. In harmony with this reasonable expectation, we read――“In
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In that opening
chapter of revelation, God said, “Let there be light,” and it was;
also “a firmament” above, and it was; “Let the dry land appear,” and it
appeared; “let there be light-bearers in the heavens,” and they shine
forth; let grass and herbs grow; let creatures live in the waters, in
the air, and on the dry land, and it was so; and finally, “let us make
_man_,” far unlike all the rest――“in our own image and likeness”――and
god-like man sprang into being. So onward the narrative witnesses to
the ever-present hand of God in the mists, the rains, and the teeming
vegetation of the new-made world. God, the great Author of nature; God
in nature and evermore over all nature, was the first lesson recorded
in God’s revelation of himself to men.
In natural order, the next lesson like this, is _God in
providence_――God administering the agencies of earthly good or ill,
making his presence manifest among his intelligent and moral offspring,
and even “coming down to see” (as the early record has it) what men
were doing and whether the cry coming up to him told truthfully of the
guilty violence perpetrated by man upon his fellows. This idea――God
ruling over the race in righteous retribution for their good or
evil deeds――was obviously one of the first great moral lessons to be
illustrated, enforced, impressed. So vital is this conviction to the
ends of a moral government that it should not surprise us if the actual
administration of present rewards and punishments in the common course
of human life in this world should be made far more prominent and
palpable in the early than in the later ages of the race, so much so as
to force itself upon the dullest eyes and compel the attention of the
most stupid and reluctant observers.――――Such (we shall have occasion
to notice) was unquestionably the divine policy throughout the earlier
stages of human history, abundantly apparent in the records of the
Bible. In later times, the exigencies of a system of probation, and
especially the importance of giving large scope to _faith_, after
sufficient evidence has been afforded, served to impose narrower limits
upon present retribution, reserving the larger share to the perfect
adjustments of the great future. In the earlier stages of human history,
it would obviously be vital to give men sufficient demonstration that
God _does rule_, and therefore is to be believed when he threatens to
punish either here or hereafter, and consequently is evermore to be
_feared_ as the certain avenger of crime. Hence the imperative need
in those early ages of such manifestations of God’s justice as would
impress the _fear_ of his name. With our eye open to the native pride
of depraved souls and to their appalling tendency to disown God and bid
him “depart” and not trouble them with his “ways,” it will not surprise
us that God should shape his earliest agencies of providence to inspire
fear rather than love. It needs but the least thought to see that this
policy was a simple necessity――the most obvious dictate of wisdom.
In this point revelation might naturally be _progressive_, advancing as
soon as was safe and wise from manifestations inspiring fear to those
which would reveal his love.
The doctrine of divine providence in regard to the sufferings of good
men――one of the hardest problems of human life――might be expected to
unfold itself gradually. It would be quite too much for the infancy of
human thought and knowledge to grasp this problem and master all its
intricacies. Hence the scope for a gradual unfolding (as we may see)
all the way from the discussions in Job and the Psalms to the clearer
light which shines in the epistle to the Hebrews, as also in Peter and
Paul. This beautiful illustration of progress in divine revelation will
well reward attention in its place.
(6.) On the supposition that God’s scheme for the recovery of our
lost race contemplated some atonement for sin――a provision in its very
nature and relations toward both God and man exceedingly delicate and
critical――it is at least presumable beforehand that God would bring
out this idea _with great care_――with the wisest precaution against
misconception, and not improbably with some foregoing illustrations
of its significance and of its intended application. Precisely this
we see in the great sacrificial system of the Mosaic economy. We only
put essentially the same idea into other and more general terms when
we say that a protracted course of successive revelations provides
for making an antecedent economy pave the way for a subsequent one――a
first revelation preparatory to a second――one set of ideas imprinted
and impressed upon the human mind, made conducive to other and higher
revelations yet to follow. The wisdom of such progressions can not fail
to impress itself upon all thoughtful minds.――――Thus God’s revelations
of himself from age to age were adjusted to the advance in spiritual
development which he had provided for in the human mind. As training
and culture developed higher capacities, new lessons were in order and
higher attainments were made. “Whoso is wise and will observe these
things, even they shall understand” the loving-kindness and matchless
wisdom of the Lord.
To forestall misapprehensions (possible and sometimes actual), let
it be noted that progress in the revealed science of God by no means
supersedes what has gone before. Naturally it only serves to place old
truths in new and richer light. No one fact affirmed concerning God
in the earlier ages is denied in the later. Certain features of his
character may be brought out more prominently in the later lessons, but
there is no unsaying of the things said before. Nothing can conflict
with this axiom of divine science――“I am the Lord; I change not.”
Prominence may be given in the early ages to such manifestations as
impress men with fear and as set forth God’s righteous justice toward
transgressors; while later revelations may disclose more fully the
depths of divine love and compassion. Yet let none infer that God is
less just in the New Testament than in the Old, or that the earlier
policy of God’s throne has been modified to a larger leniency toward
persistent criminals. The men who flippantly talk of throwing aside the
older revelation “as they do an old almanac” mistake most egregiously.
God has written nothing to be thrown aside. The oldest records still
give us lessons of God shining with unfading freshness and undimmed
glory. The statutes binding on Israel in the wilderness and in Canaan
may not be in the same sense binding on our age, but they have not
for this reason become valueless. They made revelations of God then,
truthful and rich; they make revelations of God still which it were
but small indication of wisdom or good sense to ignore.
CHAPTER I.
CREATION.
FITLY the written word of God to the race begins with the _creation_.
In every reflecting mind the first inquiry must be this: Whence am I?
Whence came my being――this wonderful existence; these active powers?
It must be that I am indebted for all these gifts to some higher Being;
how earnestly then do I ask――_To whom?_――――No other question can claim
priority to this. Every thing in its nature and relations gives it
precedence above all other questions. Inasmuch as my reason affirms
to me that I owe my existence to some great Maker, I feel that I must
know Him and must know my responsibilities to Him. I need to learn also
how the further question――my future destiny――may link itself with my
relations to Him who brought me into being.
Of secondary yet similar interest are the corresponding questions as
to the world we live in. Who made it? Does its Maker hold it under his
own control? Does He still operate its forces and wield its agencies?
Have I any obligations and duties toward Him who made the earth and all
that is therein? Verily I must assume that if there be a God, at once
Creator and Upholder of the earth and Father of his rational offspring,
his written word will hasten to throw light on the otherwise dark minds
of his children――will let them know that “in the beginning God made the
heavens and the earth” and man.
The _moral lessons_ of this great fact――God our Creator――are forcibly
brought out in later scriptures. Listen to the Psalmist: “O come, let
us sing unto the Lord ... for he is a great God and a great King above
all gods. In his hands are the deep places of the earth; the strength
of the hills is his also. The sea is his and he made it, and his hands
formed the dry land. O come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel
before the Lord our Maker, for he is our God and we are the people of
his pasture and the sheep of his hand.” (Ps. 95: 1–7.) Note also the
blended sublimity and beauty of David’s appeal: “Praise the Lord; sing
unto him a new song, for the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord.
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made and all the host of them
by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together
as an heap; he layeth up the depth in store-houses. Let all the earth
fear the Lord; let the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him,
for he spake and it was: he commanded, and it stood fast.” (Ps. 33:
1–9.) Still higher if possible rises the lofty strain of Isaiah when
he would set forth the unequalled power of the great Creator as the
Refuge and Salvation of his trustful children:――“Who hath measured
the waters in the hollow of his hand and meted out heaven with a span,
and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the
mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? To whom then will ye
liken God”? etc. (Isa. 40: 12, 18).――――So when Job had indulged himself
too far in questioning the ways of God in providence, the Lord replied
out of the whirlwind, demanding of him――“Where wert thou when I laid
the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast understanding. Who
hath laid the measures thereof if thou knowest――who hath stretched the
line upon it? Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened, or who
laid the corner-stone thereof when the morning stars sang together and
all the sons of God shouted for joy”?... “Canst thou lift up thy voice
to the clouds that abundance of waters may cover thee? Canst thou send
lightnings that they may go and say unto thee, Here are we”? (Job 38:
4–7, 34, 35.)
In that great conflict of ages against idolatry, the one final appeal
was wont to be made to this great fact of God’s Creatorship. We have
examples in Ps. 115: 2–8 and Jer. 10: 1–16 and elsewhere.――――Thus
throughout the sacred word this great fact that God is our Creator,
involving the whole sphere of God in nature, stands as the first
witness to his true divinity, the first proof that in him we live
and have our being――the ground of the first claim upon us for
supreme homage, worship, trust, love and obedience. The first lessons
taught in Eden were taken from this great and open volume of natural
religion. The first lessons which God’s people were to place before
the heathen in their mission work of the early ages were drawn from
the visible worlds and from their testimony to the Great Creator. These
manifestations are the alphabet of God; the point therefore from which
progressive revelations begin.
Noticeably the record of the creation (Gen. 1 and 2) rests not with
simply giving the general statement that God made all things, but
enters somewhat into the particulars, reciting in certain points the
_steps of the process and the order of its details_. First the heavens
and the earth had a beginning and this beginning was _from God_. At
some stage in the process, perhaps the next in order after the heavens
and the earth could be said to be, the earth was chaotic, _i. e._
formless and desolate; then God brought forth light; then to clear the
atmosphere somewhat of mists and vapors, he caused some of its waters
to rise into the expanse, and some to descend to the earth below;
then gathered waters below into seas, leaving portions of the earth’s
surface dry land. Then he brought forth grass and herbage; next, the
light-bearers in the heavens appeared――the sun, moon and stars; then
came into being fish, reptiles and fowl; and on the sixth day land,
animals and man. Thus in six successive periods of time, through steps
of gradation easily traced by the witnessing “sons of God” (Job 38: 7),
the processes of this creative work were finished. The Great Father
would have his first-born unfallen “sons” as well as his later-born and
redeemed children enjoy these works of his creative hand, and therefore
he developed them slowly and in the order of naturally successive steps
that they might see that all was truly “good,” “very good.”
Partly because of advances made within recent times in physical
science, partly because of speculations not always friendly in tone to
the inspired record, and partly because of the intrinsic interest and
importance of the subject, some special points in this narrative demand
very particular attention.
1. _The origin of the written record and the manner of its revelation
to men._
The entire book of Genesis is ascribed to Moses on most valid grounds;
whether as compiler only or as original author, is, therefore, the
first question.――――I do not see how this point can be determined with
absolute certainty. The probabilities in my view favor the supposition
of previously written documents, these probabilities arising, not
to any considerable extent from manifest differences of style in
its various portions, and not at all from diversities in the use
of the names of God, Jehovah and Elohim; but mainly from the strong
presumption that such genealogical records as abound in Genesis,
coupled so largely with numbers, would be put in writing before the
age of Moses. Men who had the knowledge of writing would certainly
appreciate its utility for the preservation of such facts as
these.――――And further; the very use of the word “generations”[1]
(Gen. 2: 4) in the sense of history, and much more still the statement
(Gen. 5: 1), “This is the _book_ of the generations of Adam,” raise
this presumption nearly or quite to a certainty.――――In making up the
historical portions of the Scriptures it seems rational to assume that
the Lord moved “holy men of old” to put in writing such facts falling
under their personal observation and immediate knowledge as he deemed
useful for these sacred records. In some cases the writer might be
(as was Luke) just one remove from the original eye-witnesses, yet
in a position to learn the facts with “perfect understanding” and
“certainty.” We should not doubt the _power_ of God to give to holy
men these historic facts by immediate revelation; but the question is
not one of power, but of wisdom, of divine policy, and of fact. The
divine policy seems to have been (in this case as in miracles) never
to introduce the supernatural, the miraculous, to do what the natural
might accomplish equally well. On this principle inspired men were
moved of God to use their own eyes and minds in writing Scripture
history in all cases when the facts came within their certain knowledge.
There were facts, like these of the creation, which fell under no human
eye, and which therefore do not come under this principle. Some form
of direct revelation from God is, therefore, to be assumed here. Though
the supposition of a revealing angel might find some support from
subsequent prophetic Scriptures, yet a direct revelation from God to
some inspired writer is the more obvious supposition.――――It has been
asked――Was this creation in its processes and announcements shown in a
manner analogous to prophetic vision――the writer then recording in his
own phrase what he saw and heard?――――There being no testimony on this
point from either of the two parties――the divine Revealer or the human
writer――we must leave it undecided. Fortunately it is of no particular
importance to us.――――It is, however, of some importance that we
consider the question whether in this account of the creation we are
to look for statements adjusted to science――not merely to the stage of
its progress in this present year of the nineteenth century, but to the
perfect science of ultimate fact; or, on the other hand, for statements
adapted to the average mind of Hebrew readers in the age of Moses,
written for their comprehension, instruction and spiritual culture. I
answer unhesitatingly, the latter. “All Scripture, given by inspiration
of God, is profitable for doctrine ... and for instruction in
righteousness” (2 Tim. 3: 16), and was of God designed and shaped for
these ends.――――Yet let it be borne in mind; these statements respecting
the processes of creation, being in the sense intended, actually true,
will not conflict with any true science. They may omit processes which
human analysis and research may render probable, passing them as not
germain to the scope of a moral revelation and as not likely to be
intelligible to the masses of mankind.――――Finally――that the assumed
stand-point of view from which these processes of creation are
contemplated is on this earth and not elsewhere in the universe is
certain from the fact that it was written to be read and understood by
men and not by angels. Hence we must expect the facts to be presented
_as they would have appeared to a supposed observer upon our globe_.
2. _What is the true idea of nature, and what the line between nature
and the supernatural?_
A reference to familiar facts will best set forth the case. Thus; it
is in and by nature that at a certain temperature water becomes vapor;
at another temperature, ice; that vapor rises in the atmosphere, water
runs downward, and ice abides under the laws of solids. On the other
hand it is _not_ in nature that water in any of its forms creates
itself. Its elements can not begin to be, save by some power above
nature.――――Again, by nature plants and animals reproduce their kind,
but never can of themselves _begin_ their own existence. Hence some of
the processes brought before us in this record of creation come under
the head of nature; others are as obviously supernatural――from the
immediate hand of God. The work of the second day――the mists of the
atmosphere, in part ascending in vapor, in part precipitated upon the
earth in water――seems to have followed natural law. In the work of the
third, the waters on higher portions of the earth’s surface subsiding
into the seas, follow the law of flowing water. But the original
creation of matter and the beginnings of life, both vegetable and
animal, must have been supernatural――from the immediate fiat of the
Almighty.
This point would scarcely need special definition had not extreme views
been put forth in our times; as (_e. g._) that nature is virtually
a second-rate deity――indebted to God, indeed, for the original gift
of its powers, but thenceforward working those powers independently
of God――made to run without God after he has once wound it up as the
mechanic makes and winds up his watch. But the Scriptures recognize no
such semi-deification of nature. According to their teaching, God still
“_upholds_ all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1: 3); “By him
all things consist” (Col. 1: 17)――_i. e._, are maintained in their
existence――are held to system and order under natural law. It is
precisely God himself who gives or withholds the rain; who calls to
the lightnings and they answer, “Here we are”――(Job 38: 35); and it
is none the less God who wields these agencies because he does it in
harmony with principles which are just as fixed as he pleases to have
them. Therefore true science will take no exception to the doctrine
that nature is nothing more or less than _God’s established mode of
operation_. We may call these modes of operations “laws” or “powers,”
and may think and speak of them as constituting “Nature;” but if we
come to regard Nature as a maker and a doer, working independently of
God, we have (inadvertently perhaps, but none the less really) ruled
God out of his own universe. Both Scripture and reason hold that “in
him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17: 28.) The broad fact
that God’s intelligent creatures must live in this material world and
be constantly acting upon matter and acted upon by matter, suggests
abundant reasons why God should ordain fixed laws for the changes and
states of all material things. But why should we think of God’s hand as
any the less present in all these changes of material states and forms
because they follow fixed and ascertainable laws? In truth the divine
wisdom is only the more abundantly manifested by means of this reliable
uniformity.
Another doctrine yet more extreme severs all connection between
nature and an intelligent Power above and over her, and thus makes
her _supreme_ in her domain. This is so far Atheism――ruling God out
from at least the entire material universe.――――Yet, again; to make
nature herself intelligent――to ascribe to nature whatever traces of
design appear in her operations, and to hold that nature is herself
the universe, undistinguishable from any higher spiritual power, is
Pantheism.――――It is therefore important to define nature so that her
true relations to the Supreme Intelligence――the very God――Creator
and Lord of the universe――shall be distinctly seen and reverently
recognized.
The advocates of extreme naturalism have labored faithfully to verify
their doctrine by experiment. They have put Nature to task――not to
say torture――to compel her to originate _life_. Pushing their chemical
analysis of those forms of matter in which life is thought specially to
reside, they flatter themselves that they have at last got their hands
on the very elements which, brought together, make life, viz. carbonic
acid, ammonia, and water, chemically combined. To this compound they
give the name, “protoplasm.” They have found, they say, that where life
is there is protoplasm, its home and dwelling-place at least; and that
life never appears lodging in any other home. They can not see that the
presence of life adds any thing to this compound, or that its absence
takes any thing away. Therefore they are sure they have found what
makes life.
Now the skillful chemist in his laboratory has not the least difficulty
in providing himself with carbonic acid, ammonia, and water. Why then
does he not evolve the long-sought-for _life-force_ and prove his
doctrine, past all doubt? Let him bring out new beings, new forms of
life, vegetable or animal or both, in ample diversity, for the range
is unlimited. Let his laboratory push forth into being such troops of
offspring as will forever confound gainsayers and prove that Nature,
properly manipulated, is equal to the production of life-forces in
endless variety and abundance.
Have any modern scientists done this? Not yet. Have they made any
approximation toward it? Mr. Huxley thinks he has come so near to it
that if he could only have at his service the favorable conditions of
the very earliest state of matter, he should succeed. “If it were given
me (says he) to look beyond the abyss of geologically-recorded time
to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through
physical and chemical conditions which it can no more see again than
a man can recall his infancy, _I should expect to be a witness of the
evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter_. That is the
expectation to which analogical reasoning leads me.”[2]――――“Not living
matter evolving living protoplasm” means that matter itself, dead
matter, begets real life. Nature would thus become herself a creator,
exercising the most decisive functions of the Infinite God. Mr. Huxley
can not make Nature do this exploit in the present state of this world
or of the universe; but he fully believes there was a time when he
should have seen it if he had been there! This is his proof of the
new doctrine. He will not presume to “call it any thing but an act
of philosophic faith.”
3. _The sense of the word “day” as used in Gen. I. of the six days of
creation._
To simplify the subject I make the single issue――Is it a period of
twenty-four hours, or a period of special character, indefinitely
long? The latter theory supposes the word to refer here not so much
to _duration_ as to _special character_――the sort of work done and the
changes produced during the period contemplated.
Turning our attention to this latter theory, we raise three leading
inquiries:
(1.) Do the laws of language and, specially, does the usage of the word
“day” permit it?
(2.) Apart from the bearing of geological facts, are there points in
the narrative itself which demand or even favor this sense of the word?
(3.) What are the geological facts bearing on this question, and what
weight may legitimately be accorded to them?
(1.) Beyond all question the word “day” is used abundantly, (and
therefore admits of being used) to denote a period of special
character, with no particular reference to its duration. We have a
case in this immediate connection (Gen. 2: 4), where it is used of the
whole creative period: “In the _day_ that the Lord God made the earth
and the heavens.” Under the same usage we have “the _day_ of the Lord”
(1 Thess. 5: 2) for the day of judgment; “the _day_ of God,” in the
same sense (2 Pet. 3: 12); “the _day_ of salvation” (2 Cor. 6: 2);
“day of redemption” (Eph. 4: 30); a “day of darkness and of gloominess;
a day of clouds and of thick darkness” (Joel 2: 2). “In the day of
prosperity, be joyful; but in the day of adversity, consider” (Eccl.
7: 14). “If thou hadst known in this thy _day_ the things,” etc. (Luke
19: 42). So also Job 19: 25, and John 8: 56, etc.
To set aside this testimony from usage as being inapplicable to the
present case, it has been said――(a.) That here is a succession of days,
“first day,” “second day,” “third day,” etc., and that this requires
the usual sense of days of the week.――――To which the answer is that
here are six special periods succeeding each other――a sufficient
reason for using the word in the peculiar sense of a period of special
character. Each of these periods is distinct from any and all the rest
in the character of the work wrought in it.――――The reason for dividing
the creative work into six periods――“days”――rather than into more or
fewer lies in the divine wisdom as to the best proportion of days of
man’s labor to the one day of his rest, the Sabbath. God’s plan for
his creative work contemplated his own example as suggestive of man’s
Sabbath and was shaped accordingly. This accounts for dividing the work
of creation into six special periods, correlated to God’s day of rest
from creative work.――――(b.) It will also be urged that each of these
days is said to be made up of evening and of morning――“The evening
and the morning were the first day,” etc. But the strength of this
objection comes mainly from mistranslation and consequent misconception
of the original. The precise thought is not that evening and morning
composed or made up one full day; but rather this: There was evening
and there was morning――day one, _i. e._, day number one. There was
darkness and then there was light, indicating one of the great creative
periods.[3]
It is one thing to say――There were alternations of evening and
morning――_i. e._ dark scenes and bright scenes――marking the successive
periods of creation, first, second, third, etc.; and another thing to
affirm that each of these evenings and mornings _made up_ a day. The
point specially affirmed in the two cases, though somewhat analogous,
is not by any means identical.――――Let it be considered moreover, that
while in Hebrew as in English, _night_ and _day_ are often used for the
average twelve-hour duration of darkness and of light respectively in
each twenty-four hours, yet in neither language are the words _evening_
and _morning_ used in this sense, as synonymous with night and day.
Indeed “evening” and “morning” are rather points than periods of time;
certainly do not indicate any definite amount of time――any precise
number of hours; but are used to denote the two great changes――_i. e._
from light to darkness and from darkness to light; in other words,
from day to night and from night to day. Therefore to make evening and
morning added together constitute one day is entirely without warrant
in either Hebrew or English usage and can not be the meaning of these
passages in Genesis.[4]
(2.) _The showing of the narrative itself_, considered apart from the
bearing of geological facts.
(a.) Here vs. 3–5 demand special attention, this first day being the
model one.――――I understand “evening” to be the chaotic state of v. 2,
when “darkness was on the face of the deep,” and “morning” to be that
first “light” which God spake into being. The reason for using these
words――“evening and morning”――in this sense I find in the universal
sentiment of mankind that light is pleasant and darkness is not. This
sentiment is indicated here; “God saw the light that it was good.” The
state of chaos was in contrast with this――dismal, dreary, awakening no
sense of beauty or order; no emotions of joy. The light of day brings
joy, and the freshest and best sensation of it comes with the morning.
Hence these words were fitly and beautifully appropriate to the two
great creative states――first chaos; secondly, light――which together
marked off the first of the six creative days.――――But we can not for
a moment think of this chaotic state as being only twelve hours. We
can not rationally think of the word “evening” applied to it as having
any reference to time, duration. It was an evening only in the sense
of being dark, desolate, any thing but joyous like the morning. The
word “evening” may be chosen rather than night for the sake of a more
perfect antithesis with “morning.”
(b.) Throughout at least the first three of these creative epochs
there was no sun-rising and setting to mark off the ordinary day.
These therefore were not the common human day; but, as Augustine long
ago said, these are the days of God――divine days――measuring off his
great creative periods. God moved through these six great periods by
successive stages of labor and of rest. Beginning with the long evening
of chaos; then advancing to a glorious day of light; then, after a
cessation analogous to man’s rest by night, he proceeded to the work of
the second day――the joyous and beautiful development of the firmament
in the heavens. So onward by stages of repose and of activity, these
figurative evenings and mornings continued through the six successive
epochs of creation.
(c.) In some at least of these creative epochs, the work done demands
more time than twenty-four hours. For example, the gathering of the
waters from under the heavens into one place to constitute the seas
or oceans and leave portions of the earth’s surface dry land. Nothing
short of absolute miracle could effect this in one human day. But
miracle should not be assumed here, the rule of reason and the normal
law of God’s operations being never to work a miracle in a case where
the ordinary course of nature will accomplish the same results equally
well. We must the more surely exclude miracle and assume the action of
natural law only throughout these processes of the creative work
because the very purpose of a protracted rather than an instantaneous
creation looked manifestly to the enlightenment, instruction, interest,
and joy of those “morning stars,” the “sons of God” who beheld the
scene, then “sang together and shouted for joy” (Job 38: 7).――――
The greatness of the work assigned to the fourth day stringently
forbids our compressing it within the limits of one ordinary human day.
Especially is this the case if we understand the verse to speak of the
original creation of these light-bearers――the sun and the moon and the
stars also, and of their adjustment in their spheres for their assigned
work. Think of the vastness of the sun and of the numbers, magnitude,
and immense distances of the stars; and ask how it is possible that the
creation of these bodies could be either instructive or joyful to the
beholding angels if it had been all rushed through within twenty-four
hours of human time.――――This difficulty is in a measure relieved if we
suppose the fourth day’s work to have been, not the original creation
of these heavenly bodies, but only the bringing of them into the
view of a supposed spectator upon the earth――_i. e._ by clearing the
atmosphere so as to make these heavenly bodies visible. The question at
issue between these two constructions of the fourth day’s work must be
examined in its place.――――The amount of creative and other work brought
within the sixth day should be noticed. First, God created all the
land animals; then Adam; then he brought “every beast of the field and
every fowl of the air” to Adam to see what he would call them――which at
least must assume that Adam had attained a somewhat full knowledge of
language, and that he had time enough to study the special character
of each animal so as to give each one its appropriate name, and time
enough also to ascertain that there was not one among them all adapted
to be a “helpmeet” for himself. Then the “deep sleep” of Adam――how long
protracted, the record saith not; and finally the creation of Eve from
one of his ribs――all to come within the sixth day; for the creation of
Eve certainly falls within this day, being a part of the creative work,
and accomplished, therefore, before God’s seventh day of rest from all
his work began. These labors of the sixth day, moreover, were precisely
such as should not be rushed through in haste. The importance, not to
say solemnity, of these transactions and the special interest they must
be supposed to awaken in the first-born “sons of God” most stringently
preclude precipitate haste. It is not easy to see how Moses or his
intelligent readers of the early time could have supposed all this to
have transpired within the twelve hours of light in a human day.――――We
may say, moreover, in regard to each and all of these six creative
periods that if the holy angels were indeed spectators of these scenes
and if God adjusted his methods of creation to the capacities of these
pupils――these admiring students of his glorious works――then surely
we must not think of his compressing them within the period of six
human days. Divine days they certainly must have been, sufficiently
protracted to afford finite minds scope for intelligent study, adoring
contemplation, and as the Bible indicates, most rapturous shouts of joy.
Against the theory of indefinitely long periods, it is objected that
_the law of the Sabbath demands the usual sense of the word “day.”_
The record in Gen. 2: 2, 3, is――“On the seventh day God ended his work
which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work
which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,
because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had created
and made.” The words of the fourth command are――“Six days shalt thou
labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the
Lord thy God, etc.――for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth:
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”――――The
real argument here rests on the analogy between God’s working and
resting, and man’s labor and rest. In each case the period of labor
is six out of seven; of rest, one in seven. This argument does not
require that God’s six working days and one resting day should be of
twenty-four hours each. If it did, we should be hard pressed to show
that God’s seventh day of rest from creation’s work was a merely human
day from sun to sun. No; it suffices if we make God’s days of creative
energy and of creative rest each and all _divine days_――all alike
periods of indefinite length――all of the same sort; and on the other
hand man’s days of labor and his day of rest, all human days, of the
same sort with each other, from sun to sun. As God’s resting day is
plainly of indefinite length――a period known by its character and not
by its duration, so should his days of creative labor be: not only
so _may_ they be, but so they _ought_ to be according to the analogy
and argument in the case.――――We come therefore to the conclusion that
entirely apart from the demands of geological science, the creative
days must be periods of indefinite length, called “days” with reference
to the peculiar work done in them and to their peculiar character, and
not as being the ordinary human day of twenty-four hours. It may be
admitted, moreover, that the phraseology and the whole shaping of the
narrative in respect to days may have contemplated the institution
of the Sabbath――to be founded as shown above upon the analogy of
God’s labor and rest with man’s permitted labor and enjoined rest in
commemoration of God’s work of creation.
(3.) We are to consider _the geological facts bearing on this point and
the weight legitimately due to them_.
If the point last put has been sustained, it will be seen at the
outset that even should geology make large demands for time, far
beyond the ordinary human day, we shall have no occasion to strain
the laws of interpretation to bring the record into harmony with such
demands.――――We open this inquiry therefore into the facts of geology,
not so much to make out if possible a harmony between them and Genesis
by toning down the facts of science or by toning up the inspired record,
as to show how readily and how beautifully the facts just as they are
(so far as known) accord with the legitimate sense of the sacred record.
Preliminary to the main inquiry before us is the question as to the
primary original state of matter. Was it brought into existence in
its primordial elements――those molecules which not only defy all human
effort at analysis, but which seem to be in their nature the simplest
forms of matter?――――Chemistry has shown that many of the most familiar
substances, long supposed to be simple, are really compound. Were
they brought into existence in the state in which we commonly see
them, or in their ultimate, most simple elements? For example, did
God originally create water, or the two gases (hydrogen and oxygen) of
which it is composed, which were subsequently combined chemically into
water?――――On this point the Scriptures are silent. If Science has any
thing to reveal about it, the field is open to her and she may proceed,
nothing in the sacred Scriptures dissenting or restricting. If she
succeeds in proving or half proving that the first state of matter
was nebulous――a “fire-mist”――gaseous in form, very well. I do not see
that the record of Moses contests this theory. It passes this point
with no dogmatic statements whatever, not even a fact which necessarily
implies either the affirmative or the negative. The record in Genesis
does assume that at the point where the second day’s work begins, the
atmosphere was heavily charged with vapor, and that a part of this
was precipitated upon the earth in water and a part borne upward into
the higher strata of the atmosphere. The third day’s work gathered
the waters then upon the earth’s surface into the ocean beds and left
portions of the land dry. Consequently the state of the atmosphere, and
in general the condition of the waters of our globe were not arranged
at first just as we have them now. So much we are told.
There are yet other preliminary questions.
On the shores of lakes, seas, oceans, we find pebbles rounded and
smooth, mineralogically of the same elements which are found in rock
formations. Were they created in this rounded and worn state, or were
they once portions of these rock strata, but subsequently broken up by
natural agencies and worn by the action of flowing water?
Another case. Coal beds often contain what seem to be whole trees and
huge vegetables (ferns, etc.) apparently charred and converted into
coal. Were they created just as we find them, or were they indeed trees
and vegetables before they became coal?――――Yet another case. The rocks
nearest the surface contain almost universally more or less of what
seem like fossilized plants and animals. They have the form of the
plant or animal in wonderful perfection. Were these fossiliferous
rocks, containing apparent fossils, created as we see them, or were
these fossils once real plants and animals?――――I see no reason whatever
to hesitate over these questions. We can not suppose that God created
these worn and rounded pebbles, these charred trees and ferns, these
prints of animal footsteps――these _fac-similes_ of his creative work
in the vegetable and animal kingdom, for the sake of puzzling or
misleading, or, in plainest words, deceiving his intelligent offspring.
He never could have meant to baffle all scientific inquiry into his
works of creation. Rather we must assume that he lays his works open
to such inquiries, and invites men to study and learn his ways. If this
be admitted, it follows that these stratified and fossil-bearing rocks
open to us a great volume of Pre-Adamic history of our globe, revealing
its processes of rock-formation; to some extent its climatic and
various conditions for the support of life, vegetable and animal, and
for its successive populations of plants and animals.
Grouping comprehensively some geological facts bearing on the
duration of the great creative periods, I note (1.) Vast strata of
rock-formations, widely diverse from each other, too diverse to have
been formed under the same circumstances and conditions of our globe.
Some――the lowest in relative position――appear to have been once in a
state of fusion under intense heat, while others――in general all the
higher rocks――seem to have been deposited under water. Mineralogically,
these rocks differ from each other very widely and also from the fused
rocks.――――(2.) Again, some are manifestly composed of fragments of
pre-existing rocks, broken off and worn by long-continued attrition
and then compacted――known as pudding-stone――the breccias.――――(3.) Yet
again; immense strata of these intermediate and higher rocks contain
fossil organic remains, some of vegetables, others of animals or of
both, and also in very great variety. More marvelous still; they are
found occurring in groups, bearing a well defined relation to each
other, so that one strata of rock contains species of vegetables and
also of animals in a measure adapted to each other, and adjusted to
the condition of the earth’s surface and climate at one and the same
time. Another strata shall contain a different group, to some extent
new and yet not altogether so, but lapping on with some of the earth’s
old inhabitants reproduced, and omitting other species.――――(4.) Again,
immense beds of coal are found, undoubtedly of vegetable origin,
differing somewhat widely from each other as having been formed from
diverse vegetable and forest material, and under various degrees
of heat and pressure. No small amount of time must be given for
the growth and deposition of these mountain piles of tree and
fern.――――The charring of these coal-pits of nature was provided
for in the “fervent heat” of the earth just below the surface,
coupled with pressure brought upon them it would seem by convulsions
and upbreakings, to which the earth’s crust has been many times
subjected.――――(5.) Limestone, largely of animal origin, demands in
like manner time for the growth of the animals whose shelly incasements,
accumulating age after age, have made such ample provision of limestone
and of lime for the use of man.
This list of nature’s facts as the practiced eye reads them from the
crust of our earth does not claim to be exhaustive. If it were all,
however, it would still be amply sufficient to sustain the demand for
long creative periods as opposed to ordinary human days. It should not
be forgotten that this demand, coming forth from the facts developed in
the crust of the earth, falls in most fully with what we have seen to
be the legitimate construction of the Mosaic record.
_Prominent points of harmony between Genesis and Geology._
(1.) Creation was a _gradual process_, spanning from beginning to
end long periods of time. I use the word “creation” to comprehend not
only the original production of matter, but its subsequent changes and
transformations till the earth was fully prepared for the abode of man.
(2.) _The earth was for a considerable time under water._ The record of
Moses is decisive to this point. The current theory in respect to the
formation of most if not all the rocky strata of the earth’s crust is
equally so.
(3.) _There was light on the earth before the appearance of the sun._
Genesis dates the light from the first day; the appearance of the sun,
from the fourth.――――The theory that the primitive state of created
matter was gaseous (or nebulous) provides for this, since it is well
known that the chemical combination of the two gases that form water
(for instance)――a combination produced by electricity, evolves light.
But we are not restricted to this hypothesis to account for light
before the sun was visible. The state of the atmosphere may furnish
all the causes needed. See below, page 32.
(4.) _Vegetables were created before animals._ So Moses, for he locates
the former on the third day; the latter on the fifth and sixth. This
is of course the order of nature since the animals are to subsist on
vegetables. Geology finds vegetables in fossil state below the earliest
animals.
(5.) Among the animal tribes, those of the water are before those of
the land. Genesis gives us fish and reptiles and even fowl before the
mammals――land animals――the former on the fifth day; the latter with
man on the sixth. Geology indorses this order, showing that fish and
reptiles lie in rocks lower and older than quadrupeds.
(6.) Man is last of all. The testimony of the rocks is here at one
with that of Genesis――other animals and the vegetables also, long ages
before man.
Now how has it happened that this record, coming to us through Moses,
harmonizes so wonderfully with the main results of a science yet in
its infancy――almost utterly unknown until the present century? Is it
due to the scientific attainments of Moses? Is it not rather due to
inspiration――“holy men of old”――Moses himself or the fathers before
him――being taught by the same Being who “in the beginning created the
heavens and the earth?” The marvel is that this record should be so
constructed as to present a very intelligible view of the processes of
the six days’ work to the average mind of the race before geological
science was born, and yet when this science begins to develop the
constitution and composition of the earth’s surface, the inspired
record is found to harmonize with these developments in all important
features. So it is wont to happen. Truth rejoices in the light. A
truthful Bible and all true science meet in loving communion, evincing
their common parentage――offspring of the same Infinite Father.
4. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Was this
the original production of matter; or was it only the modification of
pre-existent matter into new forms? (1.) That this was the original
production of matter is probable a priori _because it is true_, and
because it is a truth very important to affirm in this first revelation.
Matter is _not_ eternal and self-existent. Those who intelligently
believe in one Supreme God――an Infinite, Intelligent Spirit, will need
no words wasted to disprove the assumption that matter existed from
eternity, the Author of itself; for this assumption ascribes to matter
the distinctive qualities of God himself.――――It is moreover important
that God should declare himself to be the author of all existing matter
in the universe. This is one of his great and distinctive works――one
which human speculation has been prone to deny him, and which therefore
it is of the utmost consequence that he should affirm. (2.) The passage
(Ps. 90: 2) ascribed to Moses, expressly declares that God existed
“_before the mountains_.” “Before the mountains were brought forth,
even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” Moses did not think
matter to be eternal. He knew and taught that God existed from eternity
and that matter did not. The obvious sense of his words is that God
“brought forth” (_i. e._ into existence) the mountains of this earthly
globe.
(3.) The writer to the Hebrews affirms that this doctrine――God the
original Creator of matter――is accepted _by faith_, _i. e._ upon the
credit of God’s own testimony. “By faith we understand that the worlds
were framed by the word of God so that things which are seen were not
made of things that do appear” (Heb. 11: 3). Not being constructed out
of matter previously apparent, they must have been made by the direct
production of matter not before existing.
(4.) This is the natural and obvious sense of the words and this the
place to affirm this first fact in the work of creation. This is the
point to start with. How came the matter of the universe into being at
all? Whence came this material substance composing the heavens and the
earth? In the beginning God created it.――――It may be said truthfully
that if God had purposed to reveal himself as the Author of matter――the
real Maker of it all――he could have found no words more fitted to his
purpose than these. Hence to deny that this is their sense is the next
thing to denying to God the right or the power to reveal this fact at
all.
(5.) It is objected that the primary sense of the word bara[5] (used
here) is not to bring into existence what had no existence before,
but “to cut, to cut out, to carve” (Gesenius); “to cut, form, fashion”
(Fuerst). But this objection, though plausible to a merely superficial
view, is really of very little force. Usage, not etymological relation,
gives law to language. The etymological, primary sense of _barak_, the
common Hebrew word for _bless_, is to break; then to bend as the knee,
to kneel and to cause one to kneel; and then, perhaps from the custom
of kneeling to receive the patriarchal benediction, or to implore
blessings from God, comes the ultimate and by far the most common
significance――to bless. Usage in every case must determine the most
common and therefore most probable sense; then the context and the
known opinions of the writer come in to aid toward the true sense in
any given instance.
In the Hebrew verb regard must be had to its form, technically
called its “conjugation,” since the sense of the several conjugations
from the same root may vary widely. In this verb (bara) the sense of
Hiphil conjugation is to _fatten_――which is very remote from the sense
of “Kal” and of its passive “Niphal.” In Piel only do we find the
etymological sense to cut, to carve out (five times only) and these
spoken of human operations exclusively (Josh. 17: 15, 18 and Ezek.
23: 47 and 21: 19). But in Kal and its passive Niphal, we find the word
used forty-eight times, and _always of divine operations_――always of
some form of creative work wrought by God himself and never by man.[6]
The testimony therefore from usage is entirely conclusive to the point
that this word in this form of it was specially appropriated to signify
God’s creative acts――the exertion of his creative power.――――There are
two other Hebrew words having the sense to make, to form, [asah and
yatsar], which are sometimes used of God as creating but by far most
often of _man’s_ work in forming and molding material things. Now note
the argument. The Hebrews had these three words for _making_, out of
which one only is used exclusively of God――never of man――as a maker.
Now there is one special sense in which God can make and man can not,
viz. that of bringing into existence what had no existence before.
Over against this, place the fact that their word “bara” is used of
God’s making forty-eight times and of man’s making never, and we must
conclude that they expressed by this word that distinctive power of God
which man never can even approach――viz. the power to _give existence to
matter, to mind and to life_. In passages where this sense of “bara” is
appropriate, there can be no question that it is the real meaning.
5. _The relation of v. 1 to v. 2 and to the rest of the chapter._
Some have maintained that v. 1 is only a statement in general terms
of the contents of the chapter, a heading, stating no particular
fact distinct from what follows.――――Others take it to be one fact in
the series――the first step in the process of the creative work――the
successive steps then following in due order. This latter construction
I accept; and urge in its support,
(1.) That this is the most obvious sense of the words. The word “And”
(v. 2) “_And_ the earth was without form,” etc., must be taken as
_continuing_ the subject――not as _commencing_ it. It should give us
another and succeeding fact, and not be taken to _begin_ a detailed
history.
(2.) This is the natural order of the facts. First, matter must be
brought into existence. Nothing can be done with it, nothing can be
said about it, until it _is_. The first verse therefore is the natural
beginning of the narrative――the first fact to be stated. The second
verse gives naturally the next fact, viz. the condition of this matter
immediately prior to the six days’ creative work upon it. Deferring
the little he has to say upon the “heavens,” he calls our attention to
the earth as being of chief interest to man, and makes this the main
theme of the chapter.――――An observer would have seen the earth mantled
in darkness, its atmosphere laden with murky vapors and dense mists;
the surface (if indeed the waters below could be distinguished from
the waters above) one wide waste of waters, all formless, vast, dismal;
with nothing of order or beauty on which the eye could rest. Above and
upon this shapeless mass the Spirit of God was hovering, or shall we
say _incubating_, for such may be the figure involved in the Hebrew
verb. Moreover it seems to be implied that this action of the creative
Spirit was protracted. The Hebrew participle (used here) expresses
continued action――was brooding over, incubating, this wild, waste,
desolate mass.
Some scientific men suppose they find in this second verse, not
water, but the gaseous matter which ultimately became water and
solid earth. This construction originates in a theory in regard
to the primal form in which the matter of our world came from the
Creator’s hand, which theory may or may not be true, but if true is
too remote from the common mind and too foreign from the scope of
divine revelation to allow us to suppose that God would refer to it
in his revelation.――――Carrying out this scientific theory, some have
held[7] that not only the “waters” of v. 2 but those of vs. 6, 7,
were gases, not waters. The fatal objections to this theory are――that
these “waters” are the same which in vs. 9, 10, are “gathered into
one place” and “called seas;” also that the common people for several
thousand years could not have understood Moses if he had spoken of
gases――certainly could not have understood their common word for
waters to mean gases.――――It is not well to strain and force this simple
narrative to speak so scientifically as to be unintelligible to those
for whom it was primarily written.――――The first state of created matter
may have been gaseous. The record in Genesis has said nothing to forbid
this. It certainly could not come within its province to teach it.
Suffice it that time enough may be found between verses 1 and 2 for a
portion of this gaseous matter to form water――not to say also to form
the more solid portions of this globe.
The connection of v. 2 with v. 1 is such that an indefinitely long
period may have intervened. The first verb of v. 2 implies no close
connection with v. 1. But in v. 3 the form of the first verb――“And
_then_ God said”――does make a close historical connection with v. 2.
6. The work of the fourth day. Were the light-bearers (“lights” in the
sense of luminaries) in the heavens, viz. the sun, moon, and stars also,
“made,” created, on this day, or simply brought forth to the view of a
supposed observer upon the earth?――――The latter theory that they were
not first brought into being then, but only brought into view from the
earth――seems to me most probable, because――(1.) To suppose them created
then would be out of all proportion for one day’s work among the six.
Throughout the other five days’ work a beautiful proportion obtains:
it should therefore be expected in this.――――If it be said that this
consideration draws its great strength from our astronomical knowledge
of those heavenly bodies――much more enlarged than those of the age
of Moses, I answer (a.) Moses, “learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians,” was not altogether a novice in astronomy――(b.) Modern
astronomy is essentially true, not overrating the relative magnitude
of the heavenly bodies; and this record in Genesis comes from one who
knew all the truth.
(2.) If these verses be understood to speak of their original
creation, it would seem to be out of place here between the creation
of vegetables (third day) and of the earliest born animals (the fifth).
But in the sense of bringing these heavenly bodies to view and the sun
into its normal action upon vegetables and upon animal comfort, it is
precisely in place.
(3.) According to the interpretation given to v. 1 (above) the matter
composing these heavenly bodies was brought into existence “in the
beginning” when “God created the heavens” as well as “the earth” and
before the six days’ work began. If so, then the intervening processes
of modification must naturally have been going on from that time until
this fourth day.
(4.) Some expositors and scientists account for the light on the first
day without the sun by means of electricity or other chemical agents;
but it is scarcely possible that Moses and his first readers could
have thought of any thing but the sun as the source of that light,
especially because “God called it Day,” and the darkness alternating
with it then (as ever since the earth began its diurnal revolutions)
“he called Night.” This reference to day and night must naturally carry
every Hebrew mind to the _sun_ as the source of that light and to its
well-known withdrawal at evening as the reason for the darkness and
the night.――――It need not be supposed that the body of the sun was then
visible. The state of the atmosphere might have admitted a portion of
his light and yet not have disclosed his face. In our times we have
seen cloudy, dark days, with no sun visible, yet with a manifest
distinction between day and night.
7. The true sense of the record as to the origin (1) of vegetable
life (vs. 11, 12), and (2) of animal life (vs. 20, 21, 24, 25.)――――The
important words are, “Let the earth bring forth grass” (v. 11); “and
the earth brought forth grass” (v. 12). “Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving creature,” etc. (v. 20); “and God created every
living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly”
(v. 21). “Let the earth bring forth the living creature” (v. 24); “and
God made the beast of the earth,” etc. (v. 25).――――Here note that the
_historical statements give the true sense of the imperatives_, and
show plainly that the earth and the waters are not creative but only
sustaining powers, and that they bring forth and sustain only under
the fiat of the Almighty――only _when_ and _as_ God said, Do it. For the
whole tenor of these chapters (Gen. 1 and 2) presents to us God himself
as sole and supreme Creator. In the closest connection with the earth’s
bringing forth the living creature, we are told that _God made_ the
beast of the field. Though the waters brought forth abundantly, yet it
was still God himself who created “every living creature that moveth.”
The agency of the earth in producing grass is presented in a popular
way――the precise, fundamental thought being, that God made the earth
his instrument in bringing forth all things that grow; and in like
manner in sustaining animal life.
If we will, we are at liberty to push our queries and ask not
only _who_ gave life, vegetable and animal, but _how_? In just
_what way_ did he impart that something――be it quality or power or
substance――which we call _life_? and deeper still――What _is_ life? Is
it some subtle form of matter, or only some indefinable force given
to matter; and if this be it, To what special form of matter is it
given? If it be matter, did God sow the tiny germs thereof in the
waters and on the land and leave them to be developed under auspicious
circumstances? Or did he breathe forth from his own infinite life these
life-forces into material things to make plants or animals?――――And
yet again; What was the status of that lump of dead matter (small or
great) at the point when God put into it the life-force and it became
living matter, vegetable or animal? Was the first form of the living
animal the egg, or its microscopic cell; or was it the fully developed
animal, prepared for all life’s functions, and ready to furnish other
life-bearing cells for reproduction? On these points what says the
record? Not much at the utmost. It does seem to assume that Adam began
existence, not an infant in the normally helpless condition of human
birth, but with fully developed powers. Beyond this we look in vain
to the record for light. We only know that the life-force――that subtle
entity which always eludes the most vigilant search――which distances
all the strides of scientific scrutiny――which mocks at chemical
analysis and never comes to our call;――this life-force we simply know
is _from God himself_ and _from God alone_. The original gift of it is
his prerogative and the secret thereof is for evermore with him.
8. In the passage――“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”
(v. 26) there are two special points to be considered:――(a.) In _what
sense_ is man made in the image of God? (b.) The explanation of the
plural pronouns, “_us_” and “_our_”――“Let _us_ make man in _our_ image.”
(a.) Inasmuch as God is a spirit and never to be thought of as having
a corporeal nature――material, tangible to our bodily senses, we are
at once shut off from all reference to man’s physical, corporeal
nature and shut up to his spiritual nature to find in it the points
of this resemblance. Consequently man is made in God’s image as being
gifted like his Maker with intelligence and with capacities for moral
action――beyond comparison the noblest possible elements of being. He
has the sense of moral obligation and the voluntary powers requisite
to fulfill such obligation. He can find his supreme joy in voluntarily
seeking the good of others, even of all other sentient beings, and
in laboring even to the extent of self-sacrifice to promote their
welfare. This is the pre-eminent perfection of God――the very point
ultimately in which man is made in his image, and capable of becoming
more and more Godlike, forever approximating toward his holiness and
blessedness.――――His intellectual powers are only the servants of these
highest and noblest activities of his being.――――(b.) The use of the
plural pronouns――“Let _us_ make, in _our_ image”――has been accounted
for variously. Some would make this plural intensive, corresponding
to the emphatic plural in Hebrew nouns. But there seems to be no
real analogy in the two cases.――――Some make it the plural of dignity
(“pluralis excellentiae”), as an oriental monarch puts forth his edict,
saying “we,” not I. But the great simplicity of this whole narrative
goes against this explanation. Moreover, this usage, so far as it
appears in literature, sacred or profane, is later by many ages than
Moses. Besides, there is no apparent reason why God should assume more
dignity in saying――“Let us make man,” than in saying, Let us make light,
or the sun in the heavens. Indeed, the form of the divine behest――“Let
there be light,” seems to our ideas the more sublime and the more
expressive of God’s supreme dignity.――――I see no explanation of this
plural that is at all satisfactory save that which assumes a reference
to the persons of the Trinity. As one reason for such reference it
may be suggested as certainly not improbable――that the idea of man,
God’s chief work in creation, was coupled with his future history
(all present to the divine mind)――as fallen, yet also as redeemed, and
specially as redeemed _by means of the incarnation of the Son of God in
human flesh_. Supposing this incarnation present to the divine thought,
the significance of this plural would be――Let us proceed to make in our
own image this wonderful being whose nature the eternal Son shall one
day assume――this man who is to bear relations to us so extraordinary,
so wonderful before the angels, so signal before all created minds,
so glorious in its results to the whole moral universe! Have not
_we_――Father, Son and Holy Ghost――a most surpassing interest in the
creation of this being, man!
9. _The relation of Gen. 2: 4–25 to Gen. 1._
Here are two points of some importance to be considered.
(1.) Are the two passages by the same author?
(2.) Do they both speak of the creation of the same first man, _i. e._
the same Adam, or is the Adam of Gen. 2 another and different first
man, brought into being long subsequent to him of Gen. 1: 26–28?
(1.) That the two passages are from different authors has been
maintained on the following grounds.――――(a.) That v. 4――“These are the
generations[8] of the heavens and the earth”――appears like the heading
of a new and distinct portion of history.――――But nothing forbids
that it should be the heading of a new section or chapter of the same
continuous history by the same author, resuming his subject with only
a very comprehensive allusion to the great facts of creation which he
had given in chap. 1, as fully as his plan required. This done he may
proceed to a more full account of the creation of man and the events
of his early history.――――(b.) That the account here differs somewhat
from that in Gen. 1, _e. g._ as to the creation of man, and yet more
especially, the creation of woman.――――But these differences are not
♦discrepancies and are fully accounted for by the scope and design of
this portion, viz. to give the history of the first man and woman in
much more detail.――――(c.) But especially this diversity of authors has
been argued from the different names of God which appear in these two
passages. In chap. 1 and 2: 1–3, the name is simply and exclusively
God (Elohim). In chap. 2: 4–25 and in chap. 3, the name is “the Lord
God” (Jehovah Elohim).――――This difference is indeed a palpable fact,
and has been the theme of an indefinite amount of critical speculation
based for the most part on the utterly groundless assumption that the
same author can not be supposed to have used both these names for God.
Those critics (mostly German) who have flooded their literature with
disquisitions on this subject assume in the outset that none but a
“Jehovist” ever used the name Jehovah, and none but an “Elohist,”
the name Elohim, it being in their view impossible or at least absurd
that the same author should use sometimes one of these names and
sometimes the other――which assumption seems to me supremely arbitrary,
irrational, and uncritical. Authors now use at their option the various
names for God, either for the mere sake of variety, or because in some
connections one seems more euphonious or more significant than another.
Why may not an equal license of choice be accorded to Hebrew writers?
It is unquestionable that the same Hebrew author _does_ use both of
these names for God.――――They made far more account than we of the
various senses of the several names for the Deity. The names Jehovah
and Elohim, were not precisely identical in their suggested ideas,
although both are legitimately used of the one true God. Elohim
suggests that he is the Exalted, Eternal One, the Infinite Creator of
all. This name is therefore specially appropriate in chap. 1. “Jehovah”
conceives of him as the Immutable and ever faithful One, coming into
covenant relation with his people as the Maker and the Fulfiller of
promise. (See remarks on this as God’s memorial name in my Notes on
Hos. 12: 5). Hence as the narrative in Gen. 2 and 3 brings God before
the mind in these special relations to the first human pair and to
the race, this name is here specially appropriate. But lest some
might suppose that this Jehovah is thought of as another God than the
Elohim of chap. 1――the writer uses both names――the Elohim who is also
Jehovah to his rational creature man and especially to all his obedient
trustful people.
(2.) That Gen. 2: 7 relates to the creation of the same first man
as Gen. 1: 26–28, and not of another man ages later, seems to me to
admit of no rational doubt. The inducements to make out two distinct
creations, _i. e._ of two different first men, come from the supposed
proof of the existence of man on the earth ages before the Adam
of antediluvian history. I propose to treat below this question of
_the antiquity of man_. Let it suffice here to say that we must not
mutilate the record or disregard the laws of philology for the sake
of making the sacred narrative conform to theories which are yet
rather assumptions than scientifically proven facts.――――As to the
correspondences and variations in the two narratives of the creation
of man, the first makes prominent his being created in the image of
God: the second assumes this in the fact that God gave him law in Eden;
in the knowledge of the lower animals which his naming them assumes;
in the superior dignity which the Lord’s bringing them before him for
names implies; and in the fact that among them all no helpmeet for
him could be found. His nature ranked far above theirs.――――The earlier
narrative says briefly that God “created them male and female.” The
later one expands this fact much more fully and makes it the foundation
for the law of marriage. The later record treats with the utmost
brevity the main part of the six days’ work and must have been written
with the previous record before the mind, to be a supplementary and
continuative history, designed to bring out prominently the creation of
woman and the scenes of the garden, its moral trial and ultimately its
results.――――The supposition of a different Adam from that of the former
record could never have occurred to the Hebrew mind, and therefore can
not be accepted as the sense of the passage.
10. _Invariability of “kind”_ in the vegetable and animal kingdoms.
The record in Genesis sets forth that God created grass, herb, and
then fruit tree; “each after his kind;” also reptiles, fish, fowl and
land-animals, each “after his kind;” and finally man “in the image
of God.” Over against this the modern theory which bears the name of
Darwin holds that all the animals of our globe “have descended from at
most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser
number;”[9] and moreover, that man has in this respect no pre-eminence
above the beasts, but has descended in the same line with them from
some one of the four or five progenitors of the great animal kingdom.
More still he says in the same connection――“Analogy would lead me one
step further, viz. to the belief that _all animals and plants_ have
descended from some one prototype.”――――These four or five progenitors
of the whole animal kingdom correspond substantially with what Webster
calls the five sub-kingdoms, viz. Vertebrates, Articulates, Mollusks,
Radiates, and Protozoans. The technical classification under these
sub-kingdoms into Classes, Orders, Families, Genera, and Species
becomes of little or no account in any discussion of Darwin’s system,
for his theory of “descent with modifications” is reckless of all
these lines of demarkation, traveling over and through them all without
finding the least obstruction.――――Let it be distinctly understood
therefore that though Mr. Darwin makes frequent use of the word
“species,” and entitles one of his volumes――“_The Origin of Species_,”
yet his theory takes a far wider range than the question whether
“species are variable.” In his view not only are species variable,
intermixing at will and passing from one into another, but genera also
and families and orders and classes――not to say also each of the great
sub-kingdoms of the animal world;[10] even the distinction between
animals and vegetables fades away under his analogical argument. Hence
the issue between Darwin and Moses is relieved of whatever uncertainty
hangs over the dividing line between species and varieties, and may
fitly be limited to these two points; the invariability of “_kind_”
in the sense of Moses in Genesis; and the distinct origination of man.
Under Mr. Darwin’s system “community of descent” and not “some unknown
plan of creation” is “the hidden bond” which unites together all living
existences of our globe. “Looking to some unknown plan of creation”
(in his own words) has prevented the truly scientific classification
and history of the forms of life in our world. The Bible has stood
in the way of the growth of science.――――Under his system the changes
by natural descent from any given parent to its offspring, taken
individually, have been exceedingly small. Hence the theory requires an
indefinitely long time from the point of the original creation of the
four or five primordial forms to the present status of living things,
vegetable and animal, in our world.――――The above remarks will suffice
for a very general introduction to Mr. Darwin’s system.
Wishing to bring this discussion within the narrowest possible limits
and yet do justice to Darwin, to Genesis, and to the truth, I propose
to state briefly his main arguments; then comprehensively my rejoinder
to them severally in their order, and then subjoin some general
considerations bearing upon his entire theory.
1. Darwin holds that by natural law the offspring vary, though slightly,
from the parent, and hence, that, given an indefinitely long time, he
has any desired amount of variation.
2. When animals multiply beyond the means of subsistence, there
ensues a struggle for life in which the strongest and most favored
in circumstances are the victors and survive. This law which he calls
“Natural Selection” (or “the survival of the fittest”) works a gradual
improvement in the race. A twin argument with this comes from “sexual
selection,” the amount of which is that in the case of some at least
of the animal races, there arises a struggle among the males for
the possession of the females, in which struggle the most attractive
in beauty or in song, or the champions in fight, being the victors,
perpetuate the race and thus improve it. This law of the animal races
(“sexual selection”) works precisely in the same line with the law
called “natural selection.” It may serve therefore to provide a little
more of the same thing, but no new or different product whatever. Hence
it does not seem to call for a distinct refutation.
3. Homologous anatomical structure is found to obtain very extensively
among widely diverse races, _e. g._ in the arm of man, the fore-leg of
the monkey and indeed of all quadrupeds, in the wing of the bird and
the fin of the fish. This indicates a common parentage.
4. Some animals which, fully grown, differ from each other widely, are
scarcely distinguishable in the embryo. Hence he infers their common
origin.
5. The fact of rudimentary organs is assumed to be _historic_,
proving that some ancient progenitor used them, and that they have
gradually passed out of use. This is held to prove that great changes
of structure come of genealogical descent.
BRIEF REPLIES.
1. To Darwin’s first law, viz. that the offspring always vary though
slightly from the parent, and therefore, given indefinite time, he has
any desired amount of variation, I reply that this law of variation
becomes practically worthless for his theory, because these variations
from parent to offspring run in all conceivable directions and not in
the one definite direction required for his purpose, _i. e._ toward a
higher grade of perfection, or [which his argument requires] toward a
new form of animal life. For example, there is always some change in
the human countenance from parent to child. Yet who does not know that
those changes run in every possible direction and not in one uniform
line of progress or advance, as from monkey toward man and from man
toward angel? For another example we may take the shape of the skull
and of the brain――evermore differing slightly from parent to offspring
yet not by any means on one given line. The skulls of Egyptian mummies
entombed three thousand years ago do not differ appreciably from those
of the Copts (their lineal descendants) of to-day, _i. e._ are no more
pithecoid――ape-like. On Darwin’s theory three thousand years backward
ought surely to approximate toward the ape; otherwise these variations
are fruitless. This law of successive genealogical changes amounts
to nothing for his argument unless the changes consent to _come into
line_ so that their results shall actually _accumulate_ with the lapse
of ages. The fatal lack in the argument is――no husbandry of these
infinitesimal changes――not the least perceivable accumulation.
A second branch of my reply suggests that Mr. Darwin _misinterprets
this law of nature_, viz. perpetual variation from parent to offspring.
It is doubtless a law, but Darwin has quite missed its divinely
ordained purpose――which is to indicate the relationship between parent
and child on the one hand, and yet maintain individual identity on
the other. The resemblances answer the former purpose; the differences,
the latter. Beings constituted to bear personal responsibilities so
momentous as those of man must be so organized that every one can
identify his own individuality, lest one man be hung for some other
man’s crime.
2. His second argument comes from the law of “natural selection”――“the
survival of the fittest”――with which it is convenient to couple the
precisely similar law of “sexual selection”――the ascendency of the
smartest over their inferiors, to perpetuate the race. Here a specific
case will suffice both to illustrate and to refute. The principle of
“natural selection” has a fair chance for itself in the spawn of the
shad. It is no doubt true that none but the smartest out of the many
thousand spawned at once survive so as to become parents in their turn.
Yet who believes that these smartest shad are becoming sturgeon or
sharks or whales by this law of progress? Are they actually found to
be any thing but shad after never so many hundred generations? It may
seem superfluous to push the still more pertinent question――Are these
smartest and most ambitious shad really found to be working up out of
their watery element, I _i. e._ working up into ducks or geese, or into
blackbirds and crows? For just this is Mr. Darwin’s theory――the line
of ascent running up from fish to fowl; from fowl to mammal and so on
up to man. The questions here suggested are therefore only the fair
and scientific test and touchstone of his argument. A law which has
not made its results even perceptible since the birth of the first shad
known to human history must be regarded as scientifically worthless.
My second remark here is that Darwin errs not in finding these to
be laws of nature――“natural selection,” “sexual selection”――but in
interpreting them, I _i. e._ in detecting their divinely ordained
design and their actual working and product. I suggest that these
laws, apparently made for the improvement of races, may be requisite
to enable them to hold their own against the ever present tendency
to degeneracy. Life is a perpetual struggle against death. The
life-principle finds an antagonist force in chemical law which is
evermore hurrying organized matter back to its inorganic state. Still
further, be it considered, races excessively prolific would rapidly
lose vitality but for these laws of natural and sexual selection. We
may therefore rationally assume that these laws are simply forms of the
general principle of _self-preservation_, and not a purposed provision
for lifting a lower race up to the plane of a higher.
3. As to homologous anatomical structure, _e. g._ of the arm, fore-leg,
wing, fin, paddle――there are abundant reasons for its existence aside
from the assumption of Darwin that it proves a common ancestry for
man, monkey, calf, bull-dog, eagle, toad and whale. The ball and socket
joint at man’s shoulder is the perfect thing for use. Equally so is
the same kind of joint for the fore-leg of a horse, the wing of an
eagle or the fin of a fish. God made the anatomy of man’s arm perfect.
What forbids that he should make an equally perfect machinery for the
motions and various uses of other animals? The reason of this uniformly
perfect machinery is found in the wisdom and benevolence of the Great
Maker, and proves nothing in favor of a common descent from some one
parent, _i. e._ it proves nothing _unless_ you may assume that God
could not have made two kinds of animals with homologous anatomical
structures――two kinds, each with machinery perfect for its purposes.
4. As to the similar appearance of the embryo in very dissimilar races,
there may be differences in the embryo which no microscope and no human
test have yet discovered. The force of this argument seems to me to
come rather from ignorance than from knowledge.
5. As to rudimentary organs, their history is very obscure and their
design also. I suggest that Mr. Darwin begin with the history and the
reason for the rudimentary organs which appear on the bosom of the
male in the species man. When he shall have mastered this problem――the
history and the reason――we can afford to consider his argument
therefrom in proof that man has a common ancestry with whatsoever
other animal he may find having this male organ, not rudimentary but
in full activity. Probably he will prove that man must have come down
by descent from that class of animals which economically combine the
two sexes in one and the same individual!
* * * * *
_Some objections of a more general bearing upon Darwin’s scheme._
1. His system requires indefinite, almost infinite, ages of time back
of the Silurian strata, _i. e._ back of the oldest known remains of
life, vegetable or animal, on our globe.[11] That is, he requires for
the development of his system an almost infinite extension of time
back beyond the earliest traces or proofs of life, vegetable or animal,
on our globe. And this, he would have men believe, is the perfection
of modern Science!――a science which pushes its sphere _in time_ back
indefinitely beyond all known facts upon the bare evidence of theories
and assumed analogies!――――But even this gives not the full force of the
objection made by true Science to his system. It is not merely that he
builds upon assumed facts where no known facts are――which is building
upon nothing――but where no facts _can be_, which is building not merely
upon negatives but upon impossibilities. There is no room for his
assumed facts where he locates them. If Geology proves any thing it
proves that vegetable and animal life commenced on our planet as soon
as the planet was ready and _not sooner_, and that we have the remains
of the earliest living organisms in the oldest fossil-bearing rocks.
His scheme is therefore conditioned upon impossibilities and must be
false.
2. His system requires a close succession of animal races, differing
from parent to offspring by only the least possible amount, with no
leaps, no gaps whatever. Thus from monkey up to man the system calls
for at least a few scores not to say hundreds of intermediate links.
Where are they? His suffering theory cries out for their support: there
is no answer. The earth’s surface responds not to the call; even “the
depths say――They are not in me!” From the original monad up to man
all the way through at least the long line of the vertebrates――reptile,
fish, bird, mammal――that is to say, through the serpent tribe; the
fish kingdom; the swallow, blackbird and eagle, and especially through
the quadruped family――the horse and camel and particularly the monkey
household――through all this remarkable line of ancestry, Darwin’s
system demands a very gradual upward march by the shortest possible
stages of progress, so that the intermediate links must be barely
less than infinite. It certainly ought to be very easy to trace a
genealogical line so well represented. It is estimated that thirty
thousand fossil species have been recognized. How many of these
can be formed into this genealogical line from the aboriginal
vertebrate――supposed to be aquatic and Ascidian――up to man? Has
Mr. Darwin set himself to marshal this proof-line of witnesses to his
system? No. Not only has he not _done_ this very appropriate thing, but
he has _said_ little, quite too little on this most vital point, in the
way of showing what could be done. He reiterates that the geological
records are very imperfect. Doubtless they quite fail to come up
to meet the demands of his system. It is the fatal weakness of his
theory that just where it should find facts in animal history for its
support, they are not there! He himself admits that if you believe in
a tolerably full showing of animal history in the geological records of
our globe, you must disbelieve his system.[12] He needs quite another
geological record for his proofs.
3. His argument is essentially _materialistic_. In his reasonings and
assumptions, all there is of mind in man or any animal is _of the_
brain and the nervous organism. All animals have wants and are moved by
a sense of want to supply them. This begets self-originated activity,
and this activity involves thought――yet only as a function of the
material brain. Most of the animals are social by nature: hence another
member in this family of wants and enjoyments, begetting another class
of impulses and activities. But whether it be man or monkey, dog or
kitten, these activities and these plans and thoughts underlying them,
come of the nervous organism, of which the brain is the center. On
his theory and in his words (Origin of Species, pp. 93, 94) “the moral
sense is fundamentally identical with the social instinct.” Hence it
becomes the burden of his argument that the brain in man and in monkey
is homologous――almost perfectly the same in shape, in quality, and in
its bony incasement. He seems to be quite unaware that there may be
something in the human brain that a twelve-inch rule will not measure,
nor the nicest made scales weigh, nor the sharpest chemical tests
discern. It seems never to have occurred to him that even if the brain
of man and of monkey weighed in the same notch, fitted into the same
cast, responded alike to the same chemical tests (which, however, is
a good way from being the case), yet there might be material qualities
in the human brain too subtle and ethereal to be appreciable under any
known physical test; and much more still might be a spirit inhabiting
the human brain and working through it which the monkey has not.
“That the breath of the Almighty hath given to man understanding” is
a fact higher than the range of Darwin’s philosophy. The _prima facie_
probability thence arising that God would fit up a special material
organism for the one only mind made in his own image seems to have
entirely escaped Mr. Darwin’s notice. The record by Moses on this
point――that God created man by a special act, entirely independent of
all other forms of life, vegetable or animal, commends itself to the
good sense of most men as more than probable, as indeed supremely
rational and unquestionably true.
4. It is but a natural result of his materialistic system that he
should have no adequate conception of the pre-eminent glory of _man’s
intellectual and moral nature_. With great ingenuity he labors to make
it appear that Tray feels shame and guilt and even the moral sense of
oughtness――all the same in kind with those of man. He does not say in
definite words that the best developed dog is capable of knowing his
divine Creator and of rendering to Him the obedience, love, and homage
of an adoring heart――is capable of becoming consciously a trustful
child of God and a temple of the Holy Ghost. He does not quite say this;
indeed he does not seem to appreciate these exalted functions of a soul
made in God’s image, or to think them worthy of particular notice. It
is a capital fault in his reasoning that he ignores almost entirely
these highest, noblest activities of man’s nature. Thus ignoring these
most vital points which lift man so high above all the lower animals,
how can it be expected that his reasoning upon the material relations
of man and beast should be otherwise than lame and fallacious?
5. Scientifically it is a sufficient condemnation of this system that
it is compelled to fritter away the fundamental law of species which
God fixed, not upon its surface but deep in its nature, viz. that
hybrids shall be infertile――incapable of propagation. The crossing
and consequent interblending of distinct species, genera, families,
and orders, if by their nature possible, would long ages ago have
thrown the animal world into inextricable confusion, effacing every
line of distinction. Such a result must have been simply fatal to all
scientific classification. If Mr. Darwin’s theories had been taken as
the divine plan, the world would have had more grades and orders of
animal life than there have been days since the first monad came into
being.
6. The scheme is in many points revolting to the common sense and sober
convictions of men. Some of its assumptions lie close upon the border
of the ridiculous. Think of the stride upward from vegetable life to
animal――the plant pulling its roots out from the soil and beginning to
use them for legs! And of the very analogous aspirations and endeavors
of the fish to live out of water――to push out his fins into wings;
convert his superabundant fat into muscle; expand his lung and soar off
in mid-heaven――the very eagle himself! The effort to tone down these
absurdities within the limits of sober sense by simply taking it little
by little, spreading the change over a few thousands or millions of
years and subdividing the work among a vast number of generations may
help to confuse some minds and blunt the edge of its absurdity; but
soberly considered, the absurdity is still there. Hence we may note the
fact that most writers seem to find themselves quite unable to discuss
this theory to any extent without sliding, perhaps unconsciously, from
sober argument into ridicule and irony.
I am well aware that, to abate if not nullify the force of this
apparent absurdity, it will be said that along the actual line between
plant life and animal life, the vegetable and animal kingdoms are
actually brought closely side by side; that plant life shades off by
almost imperceptible stages till it comes so near to the lowest forms
of animal life that the dividing line is scarcely if at all perceptible.
This fact no scientist disputes. The real question turns upon its
purposed object or ultimate reason. Is it, as Mr. Darwin’s theory
assumes, to bridge over this dividing line and facilitate the march of
“genealogical descent with variations” across what else would be a bad
if not an impassable gulf?
This being the claim set up by Mr. Darwin, I answer――
(a.) The proper test of this theory is simple: Is there any “_march_”
here at all――_i. e._ any _progressive movement_ from one form of
vegetable life to another, from lower forms to higher, or as this case
seems to demand, from higher forms to lower, for along this dividing
line we have the lowest known forms of both vegetable life and animal?
Is this army of the lowest vegetable species and of animal life-forms,
down in this dark microscopic valley, really _on the march_, or is it
absolutely moveless and fixed? Are the flora on the vegetable side of
the line really, doffing their plant-life uniform and regalia, and
emerging on the other side of the line into fauna to swell the hosts
of animal-life forms? This it would seem must be the test for the proof
or disproof of Darwin’s theory.
(b.) But again, I would reply in this as in other points; Mr. Darwin
misses not so much the facts of nature as the ultimate reason of those
facts. What is the ultimate reason for the remarkable fact that the
plant kingdom crowds itself so closely upon the confines of the animal?
Not, I answer, to facilitate the transit of generations from the one
province to the other. Of such transit there is not the first shade
of evidence. But the reason is that the Great Author of nature out
of his infinite resources has _filled both kingdoms perfectly full
of life-forms_ so that no territory between their respective domains
lies unoccupied. It is simply a fecundity of life-forms or species,
analogous to the fecundity of living representatives under most of
these species――all alike traceable to the infinite resources of the
Creator’s wisdom and power.
7. Finally, this theory is reckless of the authority of revelation. It
makes no effort to reconcile its doctrines with the testimony of the
Scriptures. Especially on the great points of the creation of man――as
to his body, independent of all other animals; as to his spirit,
made in the very image of God; and as to woman, formed from man――this
system stands in absolute antagonism with God’s word.――――It should
not surprise us, therefore, that the common sense of mankind (with
rare exceptions) revolts from its absurdities. It should not surprise
us that Science――the true Science which builds, not on unsupported
assumptions but on ascertained and incontestable facts――should disown
these theories and speculations. True Science, here as elsewhere, now
and forever, is at one with Revelation; and these pillars of the great
temple of Truth are in not the least danger of being shaken.
CHAPTER II.
THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN.
UNDER this head several questions arise:
1. _Is the human family older than the Adam of Scripture history?_
2. _How far back really is the date of Adam?_ _i. e._ How many years
intervened from Adam to the flood and how many to the Christian era?
Subsidiary questions are――
(a.) Were there one or more races of primeval men pre-Adamic but now
extinct?
(b.) Have there been various “_head-centers_” of the existing human
family; or only one and that Adam? Or (the same question in another
form) are all the living varieties of race lineally descended from Adam
and all from Noah?
The special interest of these questions will hinge upon their relation
to the Scriptures――_i. e._ their supposed or real bearing upon the
truth of the Scripture history――the friends of the Bible desiring to
know whether any well sustained facts exist to affect its credit, or
to modify its currently received interpretation: and on the other hand,
men whose sympathies are not with the Bible, being inquisitive to see
if by any means its authority can be impugned or impaired.――――It is
obvious that this sort of special interest, for or against the Bible,
is liable to affect the candor and fairness of the investigation on
either side. The friends of the Bible, however, have really not the
least occasion to fear for its stability. It is indeed possible that
our interpretation of its chronology may require modification――but
always and only toward truth. Also we may have erred in supposing the
Bible to have taught what it never intended to teach. But the real word
of God can have nothing to fear from the advance of human science――that
is to say, from the real knowledge of actual facts.――――With the utmost
composure, therefore, we welcome all candid investigation, subjecting
every new theory to appropriate scrutiny, sifting the evidence on which
it rests with no prejudice for or against the conclusions to which it
may compel us.
1. _The high antiquity_ claimed for man is fitly the first question in
order. Here the evidence comes and of necessity must come
(1.) From _traces of man_ upon the crust of the earth, _i. e._ in the
rock-strata, the drift-deposits, or in caves and lake-dwellings, or in
monuments of human labor and skill:
And (2.) from the traditions of the most ancient nations and the high
antiquity of their existence, civilization, and monuments.
Under the first head the traces are either
(A.) _Remains of the human skeleton_; or
(B.) _Remains of man’s work and of his tools._
(A.) As to the _remains of the human skeleton_.
By universal admission these remains are not found in the rocks that
bear in abundance the fossil vegetables of the third great epoch of
creation; nor in those yet higher strata that contain the oldest forms
of animal life whose home is in the waters; nor is man found with the
reptiles, say of the fifth day of creation; nor indeed until we come to
deposits of the most recent date, of a kind at least similar to those
which are known to be forming within the historic age of man.
From these admitted facts I make this special point, viz. that if man
had lived on the earth contemporary with the oldest animal species,
we ought to find not merely one skeleton or half a skeleton buried
along-side of myriads of fossil sea-shells and fishes, but a fair show
of specimens, so many at least as to leave no question as to his being
a joint occupant with them of the earth as it then was. One or two,
or even a dozen skeletons, gathered from every explored portion of the
earth’s surface, are too few for the base of a theory like this because
such scattered cases, in number so meager, are always subject, more or
less, to abatement from the following possibilities:
(a.) The human family in all ages have buried their dead, and often,
during the earlier ages, in rock-hewn sepulchers or in natural caves;
(b.) In all ages of the world men have been liable to fall into
rock-fissures and ravines and to die there; and to leave their
skeletons to become fossil there, particularly in calcareous and
similar rocks where decomposition or solution in water and new deposits
are in progress;
(c.) Men have been wont to frequent caves for shelter, for safety
in war or from persecution, and consequently might leave their bones
there; or
(d.) Their bones may have been dragged into caverns by flesh-eating
animals or borne into strange positions by underground currents of
water; or again,
(e.) Since the historic Adam, drift deposits have in some circumstances
been forming under water, in which waters men have been liable to be
drowned and their skeletons to become imbedded in those deposits.
Changes of elevation may bring such deposits to view.
Such possibilities must practically nullify confidence in the proof
of man’s high antiquity from his bones so long as the specimens are so
exceedingly few and even these few found only quite near the surface.
This argument will be appreciated by those who duly consider, on the
one hand, that if man were on the earth in those pre-Adamic ages, it is
in the highest degree improbable that his population ranged at a dozen
for the area of all France, and a few hundreds only to a continent――for
what should forbid him as well as the lower animals to “be fruitful and
multiply and replenish the earth”? Besides, a population so sparse and
consequently weak could have made no stand against armies of hyenas,
leopards, bears and lions.――――On the other hand, the occurrence of
human bones, in numbers so very few and so remote from each other,
will be much more rationally accounted for by the possibilities above
indicated.
Yet let it be understood:――The way is open for any extent of further
investigation. We have no occasion to fear the result of the search.
Let the rocks be torn up and examined; let mountains be tunneled and
canals be dug; let railroad grading go where it will; if the human
skeleton should be found where none of these or similar possibilities
admit its date since Adam, we will certainly give the case all due
consideration and weight.
(B.) Next is the argument _from man’s work and from his tools_.
Here a larger field opens. My limits scarcely allow me to do more
than indicate briefly the present state of the question.――――Thus far
explorations have been mostly restricted to Northern and Western Europe,
say north of the Alps and of ancient Greece, in the regions anciently
known as Gaul, Germany, Scandinavia and Britain. The supposed remains
of man’s tools and work are found chiefly in caves and lake-dwellings,
or under drift, and only to a small extent in monuments above the
present surface. The lake-dwellings specially referred to are in
Switzerland, where during the very dry winter of 1853–4 several
remarkable villages were found built on piles below, the present
average watermark, which were once without doubt the abodes of men,
with quite abundant traces indicating their modes of life, civilization,
implements, and the contemporary animal races.[13]
The various stages of civilization developed in these ancient remains
have been usually classified under three heads:
1. The _Stone age_, in which man’s cutting implements, working tools
and weapons of war, were of stone. This age is sometimes subdivided,
the older part being called “Palaeolithic” [old stone], and the more
recent, “Neolithic” [new stone].
2. The _Bronze age_, its implements being chiefly of copper or brass.
3. The _Iron age_, where iron first appears.
Now the great question――the only one that comes within our range of
inquiry――is the _date_ of these traces of ancient men. When did the men
of the Stone age and of the Bronze and the Iron age live?
In the outset, it can not be assumed reasonably that this stone-age
civilization, apparent in Northern and Western Europe, was _necessarily
universal at that time over all the earth_. It may have been coeval
with the very high civilization of Egypt and even of Babylonia,
Phenicia, Etruria. We must consider that large portions of the world in
those early times were unknown to each other, even as interior Africa
has been unknown to the civilized world almost to this very hour. It
is therefore entirely an open question――Was this stone-age civilization
pre-Adamic? Was it anterior to Noah; or shall its place in the ages be
found contemporaneous with the early civilized nations of known history?
It is important here to premise yet further that the earth’s surface
has at no very remote period experienced considerable elevations and
depressions and changes of temperature. Especially there are proofs
of an extraordinary period of glaciers and icebergs, by means of
which huge bowlders have been transported from their ancient beds
and scattered afar, and vast masses of debris, rocks ground down and
pulverized, mixed with sand, gravel, and small stones, have been heaped
up along the line of the glaciers and spread over their track. It is
not easy to conceive the full measure of _utility_ resulting from this
great ice-flood and glacier movement, in grinding the surface of the
rocky strata and mixing this finely pulverized matter with decomposed
vegetable elements to prepare soil for our earth’s surface.
The opinion is becoming general that man was not placed upon the earth
until _after_ this glacial and ice-bound age. He could not have lived
here then: certainly not in portions reached by glacial action and ice
floods; the earth was not ready for him till afterwards. No decisive
traces of his presence at an earlier period have been found. Such
traces appear shortly after.
The problem of the _time_ of man’s first appearance upon the earth
is for the most part one _of estimates_; and these estimates in the
department of geology are comprised, at least chiefly, under these five
heads:
(1.) The time required for the _alluvial deposits_ underneath which his
remains or implements have been found.
(2.) The time required for the _growth of the peat_ under which we find
man or his works.
(3.) The time required for the succession of forest growths since his
first appearance.
(4.) The age of the animal races, extinct or living, whose remains are
found associated with his.
(5.) We have next and last another source of testimony which is mainly
free from the uncertainties of estimate, viz. the question of
commercial relations between the barbarous stone-age, bronze-age, or
iron-age tribes, and the civilized nations of the early historic ages.
The estimates on these several points demand distinct consideration.
(1.) The estimate of the time required for the alluvial deposits along
the banks of rivers, has been extremely various. Lyell, having visited
the delta of the Mississippi river in person, estimated its time-period
of accumulation at one hundred thousand years.[14] But a careful
examination made by gentlemen of the Coast Survey and other United
States officers, reduces this time-period to four thousand and four
hundred years.[15] Again, Mr. Lyell estimates that 220,000 years are
necessary to account for changes now going on upon the coast of Sweden.
Later geologists reduce the time to one-tenth of that estimate. A piece
of pottery was discovered deeply buried under the deposits at the mouth
of the Nile. It was confidently asserted that the deposits could not
have been made during the historic period, until it was proved that
the article in question was of Roman manufacture.[16] Such diversities
suffice to show at least that somebody has blundered. Some of these
high estimates are gratuitously extravagant. All estimates from the
drift deposits, bearing on the antiquity of man, ought in reason to be
made with careful reference to these two modifying considerations:
(a.) That drift deposits may have been, and with the utmost probability
were, much more rapid in the earlier ages than at present. At the close
of the glacial and ice period vast masses of loose matter were ready
to be swept rapidly as drift by river freshets. Any farmer may have
an illustration of this if he will plow his side-hill field, running
his furrows up and down the hill. He will find that the first powerful
shower will bring down far more drift than the fortieth. It would be
very short-sighted in him to take the drift of the tenth year after the
said plowing for his rate of annual deposition and estimate the whole
period from this data. But on this mistaken principle some geologists
have made their time estimates for the drift simply monstrous.
(b.) Human remains and tools may in many ways get far below the
surface of the drift. They may have been buried under it after
its deposition. While the drift lay under water, (soft and pliable
therefore,) flints, arrow-heads, knives, or human bones, may have
sunk in the mire.――――These and similar considerations may demand large
abatement from the time-estimates built upon the amount of drift found
above the remains of man.
We may apply these modifying considerations to the case given by Lyell
(Antiquity of Man, pp. 27, 28) of the drift deposits near the Lake of
Geneva. Here are five inches in thickness deposited since the Roman
period (known by its enclosed memorials) which we safely put at 1800
years. Next below is a strata of six inches depth, marked by bronze
implements, which he estimates to reach back from the present time,
3000 to 4000 years. Similarly, the next strata (seven inches) indicated
as the Stone age, he counts at 5000 to 7000 years old. But if the
depositions were much more rapid in the early than in the later ages of
our world, these estimates for the ages of bronze and of stone must be
materially shortened, and may reasonably be brought within the historic
period of man.
(2.) The time required for the formation of _peat beds_ has been
usually estimated upon its observed growth and accumulation at
the present day. Yet in the case of peat-growth as in the case of
drift-deposits, it is at least possible and would seem highly probable
that its growth and deposition were much more rapid during the
earlier ages of our race than at present. The virgin soil was richer;
the climatic influences may have been more propitious. It should
be considered also here (as in the case of drift) that the remains
of man and his implements, instead of resting invariably upon the
surface of the peat, may by various means have gone down much below
the surface. The time of man’s presence, therefore, as measured by the
time estimated to be necessary for the deposit of the peat found above
him, may be quite overestimated.
The peat beds of Denmark are put by Lyell (Antiquity of Man, p. 17) at
a minimum of 4000 years. In the valley of the Somme (France) they are
found 30 feet deep; and in its upper strata there are Romish and Celtic
memorials, showing that its depositions continued a considerable time
after the historic age of Rome.
(3.) The time required for the succession of forest growths since the
appearance of man.
Geologists find in Denmark, earliest, a growth of Scotch fir; next,
of oak; last, coming down to the present, of the beech. The age of
civilization known as the Stone age synchronizes nearly with the fir;
the Bronze age with the oak; the historic period with iron implements
answers to the beech.[17] Now the problem is――How much time is
required for one species of forest growths to run its course and become
supplanted by another?――――Obviously this problem must depend not on
time alone, but on climatic changes. Moreover, one kind of trees may
require less time than another to exhaust the soil of the elements
specially congenial to its health, vigor and stability. I do not see
that any reliable measure of time can be found for estimating the
life-period of different species of forest growths.
(4.) Attempts have been made to estimate the antiquity of man from
the animal races with which his remains have been found associated.
The animals brought into this estimate have been chiefly the mammals,
quadrupeds, most nearly related, by anatomical structure, to man. Great
account has been made of the fact that the remains of man (his bones
or his tools) have been found in connection with the remains of land
animals now extinct. The uncertain element in all such calculations
is the date at which the said animal species became extinct. This is
perhaps fully as doubtful as the age at which man began to live on
the earth. So far as is known, some species have disappeared within
the present century; _e. g._ the Great Auk, or Northern Penguin
(alca impennis), last seen alive in 1844. Several species, once quite
prominent for their hugeness or other qualities, are supposed to have
disappeared within the historic period of man; _e. g._ the mammoth,
the mastodon, the woolly rhinoceros, the cave-bear, etc. But precisely
_when_ they severally became extinct, no existing data suffice to show.
Of course it avails little to prove that man was coeval with a few
animal races now extinct.
(5.) Far more important in my view is the light thrown upon the
antiquity of the Bronze and Iron ages of civilization in Northern and
Western Europe by the traces of commercial relations between those
respective peoples and the civilized nations of the known historic
ages. In this case, the elements of uncertainty common to the preceding
estimates are mostly if not wholly eliminated. When among the relics of
the Bronze age, say in Switzerland or in Denmark, we find art-specimens,
valuable for use or beauty, which manifestly came from Phenicia,
Etruria, or Egypt, bearing unmistakably the stamp of their civilization,
and specifically, of their art, we need no further proof that the
old Bronze age lay _in time_ along-side of the reign of Etrurian or
Egyptian art and civilization. On this subject the British Quarterly
(Oct., 1872) on “The present Phase of Pre-historic Archeology”
discusses the question whether the Bronze civilization in Central and
Northern Europe was introduced by an invading people from the East, or
by peaceful commerce with the peoples contiguous to the Mediterranean,
viz. the Phenicians of Palestine, the Etrurians of Italy, and the
Egyptians. The argument is strongly in favor of the latter alternative.
“The beautiful bronze swords, spear-heads, axes, knives, razors, etc.,
which lie scattered over Northern and Central Europe are remarkable
for the singular beauty of their form and ornamentation”――all bearing
so much unity of design as to prove a common origin from the same
source. “The double spirals, and dotted circles and spirals and zigzag
ornaments which are so common on the bronze articles of France, Germany,
Britain, Ireland, and Scandinavia _are identical with the designs which
are found in Etruscan tombs_. Some of the bronze swords and spear-heads
are also identical; and the peculiar spuds and bronze axes, used by the
Etruscans, are similar to those which are found in Northern Europe.”
(pp. 247, 248).――――The limits of my plan forbid a full presentation
of this argument. Suffice it to say briefly that very great progress
has been made within the last fifty years toward disentombing the
pre-historical ages of Central and Northern Europe, and bringing out
their relation to the early historic civilization of Egypt, Phenicia,
and Etruria. The results thus far seem to identify the oldest race of
man as known by his remains (_i. e._ they of the earlier Stone age)
with the Esquimaux of Lapland; the men of the later Stone age, with
the Iberian or Basque people of Spain; after whom were the Celts
and the Belgæ who were on the field at the period where Roman history
touches Britain and Gaul.――――How far back in time those Esquimau
tribes lie, it seems yet impossible to determine; but the next wave of
population――they of the later Stone age――falls far within the period
of scripture chronology――not necessarily older than the Phenicians,
Assyrians, and Egyptians. Inasmuch as Phenician art and commerce were
in their glory during the reigns of David and Solomon, we may at least
provide a considerable interval of time for the Esquimau tribes of
the older Stone age before we encounter the deluge of Noah, and much
more still, before we come up to Adam. It is a fact of no trifling
importance that the oldest race detected by the explorers of the
earth’s crust can be so clearly identified with the Esquimaux now
occupying the highest northern latitudes inhabited by man.
More abundant still are the proofs which bring the Bronze and Iron ages
of Northern Europe within what were the historic times of the nations
on the borders of the Mediterranean.――――The estimates made by some
geologists and antiquarians which carry the later Stone, the Bronze,
and the Iron peoples back into the mighty Past anywhere from 10,000 to
100,000 years seem to me extremely fanciful and unscientific. Thorough
investigation into all the facts bearing on the case coupled with sober
estimates of the time which they indicate, will at no distant day bring
this problem of the antiquity of man to a satisfactory solution. It
does not become us to fear any revelations which come legitimately from
well ascertained facts.
* * * * *
Another argument for the high antiquity of man has been drawn _from the
traditions of the most ancient nations_――China and India; also _from
the great population, the early civilization, and the art-monuments of
Egypt_.
On the point of the traditions and chronologies of the ancient nations
of the East, the first problem is to ascertain what they are and what
they claim. If they run up their figures (as sometimes said) to 20,000
years, the extravagance of the claim vitiates its credibility.[18] We
put it to the account of fancy and fiction, or of national pride, and
rule it out from the realm of historic science. But if as estimated
by Bailly (Kitto; Chronology, p. 434) the years from the Christian
era back to the creation are put in Chinese chronology at 6157; in the
Babylonian, at 6158; and in the Indian (by Gentil) at 6174, we give
these chronologies our respectful attention. The fact that the extreme
difference in these three is but seventeen years is certainly striking,
and indicates either a common origin of authority or an approximation
toward the truth; perhaps both. We shall soon have occasion to compare
these figures with the latest and most approved results of Biblical
chronology.
* * * * *
As to the age of Egyptian art, civilization, and political power, the
time allowed for its development in harmony with Usher’s chronology
(the one usually indicated in editions of the English Bible) must
be admitted to be short――almost incredibly short. Here I submit that
the primary question should be――the correctness of Usher. Let the
Bible system of chronology be rigidly scanned――not for the purpose
of making it tally with Egyptian claims, or with any other system of
chronology not sacred; but for the purpose of arriving at the truth
as ascertainable from the Bible itself.
CHAPTER III.
HEBREW CHRONOLOGY.
_From the Birth of Christ to the Creation._
BY general consent the birth of Christ is made the central point
of all sacred chronology, the Christian ages being reckoned forward
from that point (A. D.) and the Jewish or earlier ages being reckoned
backward (B. C.). We treat of the latter only.――――Going backward from
the Christian era, there is general agreement and no reasonable ground
for diversity till we reach the period of the _Judges of Israel_. The
cardinal points are:
B. C.
The decree of Cyrus for the restoration of the Jews. 536
The duration of the captivity, from the fourth year of
Jehoiakim, 70 years. 606
(But counted from the fall of the city under Zedekiah,
52 years only.)
From the revolt, first year of Rehoboam to the fall of
the city, 388 years. 976
To the founding of the temple, beginning of Solomon’s
fourth year, 37 years. 1013
This last epoch has chronological importance――the foundation of the
temple laid――A. D. 1013.
The first disputed, diversely estimated, point is the _period of the
Judges_; yet the proof texts and authorities cover the period from the
Exodus to the temple. Usher makes the period of the Judges 339 years;
Jahn and many others, 450. Usher relies on 1 K. 6: 1: “In the 480th
year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt,
in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel ... he began to build
the house of the Lord.”
His computation runs thus:
YEARS.
Hebrews in the wilderness. 40
Hebrews under Joshua. 17
Samuel and Saul together.[19] 40
David (2 Sam. 5: 4, 5). 41
Solomon up to the founding of the temple. 3
Judges――to fill out 480. 339
―――――
480
The long period for the Judges rests primarily on Acts 13: 20, which
states that “after having divided to them the land of Canaan by lot,
God gave them judges 450 years until Samuel the prophet.” Placing 450
in the above computation in place of 339――an excess of 111 years――we
find the date of the Exodus B. C. 1604 instead of Usher’s figures
♦B. C. 1491.
In support of this long period for the Judges may be urged――
(1.) The authority of Paul as above (Acts 13: 20) which makes this
period 450 years.
(2.) Josephus makes the interval from the Exodus to the founding
of the temple 592 years, and not 480. The Jews of China also make
it 592――facts which favor the supposition that the Hebrew text of
1 K. 6: 1, is in error. It can not be supposed that either Josephus
or the Chinese Jews adjusted their figures to harmonize with Paul.
(3.) The internal dates in the Book of Judges demand the long period
and can not be harmonized with the short one:――――Thus Judges 11: 26
shows that the Hebrews had then dwelt in Heshbon, Aroer and along the
coast of Arnon 300 years. These years lie between the entrance into
Canaan and the beginning of Jephthah’s judgeship. We have then this
computation:
YEARS.
300 years, minus 17 years for the term of Joshua, is 283
Add for Jephthah (Judg. 12: 6) 6
For Ibzan 7 years; for Elon 10; for Abdon 8 (according
to Judg. 12: 8, 11, 14) 25
Servitude to the Philistines (Judg. 13: 1) 40
Sampson (Judg. 15: 20 and 16: 31) not less than 20
Eli (1 Sam. 4: 18) 40
A period without dates (narrated Judg. 17–21) estimated
at 40
―――――
Makes a total of 454
It is entirely impossible to bring these internal dates in the history
within the short period of 339 years for the Judges. We must therefore
accept the long period――450 years――and place the Exodus in 1013 + 591
= B. C. 1604.
* * * * *
The next period of conflicting authorities is the _Sojourn in Egypt_.
The issue lies between the long period, 430 years, and the short one,
215 years.――――The first proof text is Ex. 12: 40: “Now the sojourning
of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years.” Next is
Gen. 15: 13: “Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs and
shall serve them; and they shall afflict them 400 years”:――which
is quoted substantially by Stephen, Ac. 7: 6.――――On the other hand
stands Gal. 3: 17, which makes the giving of the law on Sinai 430 years
_after_ the covenant made with Abraham. The interval from that covenant
to Jacob’s standing before Pharaoh is readily computed thus: From the
covenant with Abram, he being then 75 years old (Gen. 12: 4) to the
birth of Isaac, Abraham 100 years old (Gen. 21: 5) is 25 years.――――From
birth of Isaac to birth of Jacob (Gen. 25: 26) 60.――――Jacob standing
before Pharaoh (Gen. 47: 9) at 130, the sum of which numbers is 215.
According to Paul, this would leave for the sojourn in Egypt but 215
years.
A distinct class of proofs came from an estimate of the generations
between the fathers who went down into Egypt and the sons who entered
Canaan. Of this, presently.
Reverting now to the obviously conflicting proof texts above cited,
we may note that Ex. 12: 40 is read variously――the Septuagint (Vatican
text) adding after “dwelt in Egypt,” the words――“and in the land of
Canaan;” while the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint adds also――“they
and their fathers.” Both these additions appear also in the Samaritan
text and in the Targum Jonathan; while the Masoretic Hebrew is
supported by the more reliable Targum of Onkelos; also by the Syriac
and the Vulgate. These additions as in the Septuagint are clumsily
made. The dwelling in Canaan, referring to Abraham and Isaac, should
come in _before_ the dwelling in Egypt if at all, and not _after_. The
diversity between the two texts of the Septuagint is suspicious. The
authority of the old Hebrew text stands unshaken.
The passage Gen. 15: 13 is strong to the same purport, since it was
“in a land _not his own_” (_i. e._ not Canaan), and was a state of
tyrannous oppression which was to continue 400 years――points which
forbid us to include in this 400 years the life-history of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.――――As to Paul (Gal. 3: 17) his readers had before them
only the Septuagint; he would therefore naturally follow its authority,
and the more readily because the difference between that and the Hebrew
in the length of the interval was a point of no importance to his
argument.
* * * * *
The evidence from the lapse of generations during the sojourn in Egypt
is of great, not to say decisive, importance to our question. Here,
however, opinions as to its bearing differ totally. One of the test
passages is Ex. 6: 16–20, which makes the whole age of Levi 137 years;
of Kohath, his son, 133; of Amram――apparently his son and the father
of Moses, 137. The age of Moses when he stood before Pharaoh (Ex. 7: 7)
was 80. Kohath was born in Canaan; his father was older by several
years than Benjamin; presumably, therefore, his children were older;
yet Benjamin had ten sons when he went down into Egypt (Gen. 46: 21).
If we suppose that Kohath was 25 when he went into Egypt, then he lived
there 108 years. Amram lived there 137, and Moses at the Exodus had
lived 80. With these given generations and ages, this computation is
stretched to its utmost extent since it supposes Kohath’s death at 133
and Amram’s birth to have occurred in the same year; also Amram’s death
at 137 and the birth of Moses to be in the same year; yet the sum is
only 325, which is less by 105 years than the long period. With these
data the short period (215) might be readily provided for.
But several circumstances combine to show that there must be several
omitted links between the Amram here spoken of, and Kohath. For in this
genealogical list (Ex. 6: 16–20) we have but two names between Levi,
the tribe-father, and Moses, viz. Kohath and Amram. But between Joseph,
a younger tribe-father, and Zelophehad, a contemporary of Moses, there
are four intervening names (Num. 26: 28–33); between Judah and Bezaleel
there are six (1 Chron. 2: 3–5, 18–20); between Joseph (through Ephraim)
and Joshua, there are nine (1 Chron. 7: 22–27).――――Again, we have in
Num. 3: 27, 28, a census of the four Kohath families. The males, from
one month and upward, are 8600. If we set off one-fourth of these to
Amram (_i. e._ 2150) and remember that the Amram who was father to
Moses had but one other son, Aaron, (known to this genealogy) with four
sons, and that Moses had but two, we shall see it utterly impossible
that the male offspring of Moses and of Aaron could number 2150.
Therefore Amram, the immediate son of Kohath, must have been several
generations back of the Amram who was father of Moses.――――The genealogy
of Jochebed, the mother of Moses, might also be explained, but space
forbids.――――The vast increase of Hebrew population, from the 70 souls
who went down into Egypt to the 600,000 men of age for war who went out
(Ex. 12: 37), suggests a longer time than 215 years. The evidence on
the whole preponderates decisively against the shorter and in favor of
the longer period, 430 years.
* * * * *
The third doubtful period in Hebrew chronology lies between Abraham
and his father Terah, the question being the age of Terah at Abraham’s
birth. Some authorities make it 70 years; others, 130. The proof texts
are――(a.) Gen. 11: 26; “Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram, Nahor,
and Haran.”――――(b.) Gen. 11: 32; “The days of Terah were 205 years; and
Terah died in Haran.”――――(c.) Acts 7: 4; “Abram came out of the land
of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran; and from thence, _after his father
was dead_, he removed into this land wherein ye now dwell.”――――(d.) Gen.
12: 4; “Abram was 75 years old when he departed out of Haran.”――――The
difficulty is that if Abram was born when his father was 70 and lived
with him till his death at the age of 205, he should have been 135
and not merely 75 when his father died and he went into Canaan.――――To
surmount this difficulty some construe the text (a.) to mean that Terah
lived 70 years before the birth of his first son; that Abram was not
his first-born but is named first on account of his greater prominence
in history and in character; and that Abram was not born till his
father was 130.――――Others assume that Stephen made the slight mistake
of supposing that Terah was dead when Abram left Haran for Canaan,
misled by the circumstance that the historian, in order to dispose
of his case, narrated Terah’s death _before_ he spoke of Abram’s
emigration to Canaan, although (as they assume) it in fact occurred
60 years afterwards.――――Others assume an error in the number of years
assigned as the full age of Terah, making it 145 instead of 205――the
Samaritan text giving these figures.
The assumption that Stephen was mistaken is to be rejected; partly
because it was vital to the purposes of his speech that his historic
points should be accurately made――at least in harmony with current
Jewish opinion――to say nothing of the further fact that he is before
us as one “filled with the Holy Ghost” and specially inspired; partly
because the history represents Terah as sympathizing fully in the
spirit of the removal from Ur to Canaan, and apparently prevented
from going only by the infirmities of age.――――The choice seems,
therefore, to lie between the first named explanation and the last.
The first――making the passage (Gen. 11: 26) mean only that Terah lived
70 years before the birth of his eldest, but became the father of
three sons――leaving us at liberty to fix Abraham’s birth at his 130th
year――is a possible construction, but is rendered somewhat improbable
by Abram’s question (Gen. 17: 17) “Shall a son be born to him that is
100 years old”? How could he have thought this strange if in fact he
himself had been born when his father was 130?――――There may be an error
in the number of years of Terah’s life; the Samaritan text may be right
in making it 145. This is below the average age of his fathers; but
in those as in all other days, men were subject to die before they
reached the maximum age of their generation. It would seem that he set
out from Ur with the reasonable expectation of going to Canaan. Hence
a probability that he died unexpectedly, and at an earlier age than his
fathers. I can express no positive opinion upon this case.
* * * * *
Two other doubtful periods remain to be considered, viz. _The interval
from the creation to the flood; and the interval from the flood to the
call of Abram._ The question upon these two intervals is substantially
the same, so that they may properly be presented together. It hinges
in both cases upon the authority of the texts――viz. for the former
interval, Gen. 5: 3–32; and for the latter, Gen. 11: 10–26.――――In
form these tables are not chronological but genealogical. They do
not reckon from any given era, as if (_e. g._) to show the interval
from the creation to the flood, but give the age of each member of
the genealogical line when his son of the same line was born. It is
therefore by adding together these measured portions of each man’s life,
viz. the years he lived before the next member in the line was born,
that we obtain the entire interval.――――The tables give three facts
as to each man’s life; (a.) how old he was when his son in this line
was born; (b.) how long he lived afterwards; and (c.) the sum total
of his years. If the chain is perfect, with neither missing nor
supernumerary links, and if the numbers of the first class are all
correct, the result must be reliable. But plainly the result will be
changed at once by changing the first set of numbers and the second to
correspond,――without changing the third at all.
In the present case from Adam to Noah inclusive are ten generations.
The sum of the first class of numbers as it stands in our Hebrew text
is 1656, to the year of the flood. The only question of difficulty
is upon the _authority of the text_. The Septuagint makes the same
interval 2262――an excess above the Hebrew of 606 years.――――In like
manner from the birth of Arphaxad to the call of Abram (ten generations
inclusive) the Hebrew text makes a total of 365 years; the Septuagint
1015, or by another text of the Sept. 1115, making an excess of 650 or
750 years. The sum of excess in the two periods is 1256 or 1356.――――The
following tables will serve to show how these diverse footings are
produced. The numbers given by Josephus have some interest: I therefore
place them in the table for the period before the flood. The numbers
given in the Samaritan text are frequently brought into this comparison.
They differ considerably from either of the other authorities, but seem
to me of no particular value, and are therefore omitted.
A.
HEBREW TEXT. SEPTUAGINT. JOSEPHUS.
――――――――――――――――― ―――――――――――――――― ―――――――――――――――――
Age Age Age
at Rest at Rest at Rest
Son’s of Son’s of Son’s of
NAMES birth. life.Total. birth.life.Total. birth.life. Total.
―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ――――
1. Adam 130 800 930 230 700 930 230 700 930
2. Seth 105 807 912 205 707 912 205 707 912
3. Enos 90 815 905 190 715 905 190 715 905
4. Cainan 70 840 910 170 740 910 170 740 910
5. Mahalaleel 65 830 895 165 730 895 165 730 895
6. Jared 162 800 962 162 800 962 162 800 962
7. Enoch 65 300 365 165 200 365 165 200 365
8. Methuselah 187 782 969 *187 782 969 187 782 969
9. Lamech 182 595 777 188 565 753 182 595 777
10. Noah 500 450 950 500 450 950 500 450 950
To the flood 100 100 100
―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ――――
Total 1656 2262 2256
* The Vatican text of the Seventy makes this number 167.
Comparing the Hebrew figures with those of the Septuagint, it seems
plain that one set or the other has been altered _by design_. It should
be borne in mind that the Septuagint is a translation from Hebrew into
Greek, made about 285 B. C., which is not far from 1500 years prior
to the date of our oldest Hebrew manuscripts. Also that Josephus wrote
in the latter part of the first century after Christ, giving Jewish
history quite faithfully _as then understood_.――――In the first table
Josephus sustains the Septuagint with only the one slight exception of
making Lamech 182 instead of 188 at the birth of Noah――his total being
thereby six years less.
The reader will note carefully how these main differences between the
Hebrew and the Septuagint stand. In the first five names and in the
seventh, the years in the first column――_i. e._ the age of the father
at the birth of his son, are less by 100 in the Hebrew than in the
Septuagint, or (what amounts to the same thing) greater by 100 in the
Septuagint than in the Hebrew. To correspond, the years in the second
column are greater by 100 in the Hebrew than in the Septuagint, so
that the totals as they appear in the third column come out the same
in both texts.――――These are the only important variations. The other
is a slight one――the Septuagint adding six years to the age of Lamech
at Noah’s birth, or the Hebrew taking six years off from the number as
in the Septuagint. In this case Josephus is with the Hebrew text.――――It
may be noted also that in the cases of Jared and Methuselah, the
figures agree.――――Now the question is――_Which text is pure, and which
has been corrupted?_
A better view perhaps of the whole question will be obtained if at this
point we study the corresponding table for the period from the birth of
Arphaxad (two years after the flood) to the call of Abram, made up from
the Hebrew text, from the Septuagint and from the Samaritan text of
Gen. 11:10–26:
B.
HEBREW TEXT. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN.
――――――――――――――――― ―――――――――――――――― ―――――――――――――――――
Age Age Age
at Rest at Rest at Rest
Son’s of Son’s of Son’s of
NAMES birth. life.Total. birth.life.Total. birth.life. Total.
―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ――――
1. Shem 100 500 600 100 500 600 100 500 600
2. Arphaxad 35 403 438 135 400 535 135 303 438
3. Salah 30 403 433 130 330 460 130 303 433
4. Eber 34 430 464 134 270 404 134 270 404
5. Peleg 30 209 239 130 209 339 130 109 239
6. Reu 32 207 239 132 207 339 132 107 237
7. Serug 30 200 230 130 200 330 130 100 230
8. Nahor 29 119 148 179 125 304 79 69 145
[or 79]
9. Terah 130 135 205 130 135 205 70 75 145
[or 70] [or 70]
10. Abram,
his call 75 75 75
―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ――――
Total 365 1015 1015
Here it will be noticed that the important differences are of the same
sort as in the corresponding table before the flood. In a series of six
names (Arphaxad to Serug inclusive) the Hebrew has 100 years less in
each life than the Septuagint _before_ the dividing point. In the first
(the important) column, the Samaritan agrees with the Septuagint. The
years in the second and in the third columns are quite irregular. In
the case of Nahor the Septuagint exceeds the Hebrew either 50, as in
the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint, or 150 as in the Vatican text.
On the question――Which of these texts, the Hebrew or the Greek, has
been corrupted? it may be said in favor of the integrity of the Hebrew:
(a.) That it is the original.――――(b.) That in general it has been
preserved by the Jews with extreme care and guarded against corruption
with the greatest vigilance.
* * * * *
In favor of the integrity of the Septuagint on the points now in
question may be urged――
(a.) As to the period from Adam to Noah, the general concurrence of
Josephus――an independent and reliable witness as to the state of all
the Jewish authorities of his time. In regard to the period after the
flood, the corresponding concurrence of the Samaritan text in all vital
points.
(b.) The fact that there is no known reason for intentional corruption;
while over against this it has been supposed (with how much probability
it is difficult to say) that the Jews during their controversies with
the Christians on the great question of the Messiah (A. D. 150–400)
found it for their interest to shorten the period from the creation to
the Christian era in order to prove that the Messiah had not yet come.
This presupposes it admitted on both sides that he was to come within
some given number of years after the creation――perhaps 4500 or 5000.
We have already seen reason to suppose that the Hebrew text of 1 Kings
6: 1 is in error――perhaps corrupted. It is manifestly less than the
truth by the difference between 480 and 591.
(c.) The accuracy of the Septuagint chronology on these contested
points does not appear to have been called in question until at least
400 years after the translation was made――never before A. D. 150, about
the date when the controversy arose respecting the Christian Messiah.
(d.) It was in use and fully accredited before the Christian era.
(e.) It was used and its authority fully admitted by the fathers of
the Christian church.――――This fact and the next preceding render it at
least probable that the Hebrew text _at that time_ was in harmony with
the Septuagint.
(f.) The Chaldean and Egyptian annals seem to demand more time back to
the flood or to the creation than the present Hebrew text admits, and
therefore lend their influence (to be taken for what it is worth) in
favor of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew because of its longer
periods.
(g.) In table A it will be readily seen, comparing the figures of
the first column in the Hebrew with the corresponding figures in the
Septuagint, that the latter are very uniform while in the Hebrew there
is a wide diversity between the highest and the lowest, four standing
considerably below 100 and two above 180. The probability seems to be
somewhat against so wide diversity.――――In table B the Hebrew figures
in the first column are sufficiently near each other. Out of seven in
succession the extremes are 29 and 35. We have an equal uniformity in
the first column of the Septuagint and of the Samaritan, six of these
figures being the same as in the Hebrew with only the addition of 100.
The Hebrew figures seem low relatively to the total years; and on the
other hand the Septuagint figures seem too high. Especially is this
objection formidable when we remember Abram’s surprise that God should
promise him a son when 100 years old (Gen. 17: 17). “Shall a child be
born to him that is 100 years old?”――as if it were a thing unknown in
then recent history. But if all Abram’s ancestors back to the flood
begat their respective sons in this line at ages ranging from 135 to
130 (or all but Terah) it is somewhat difficult to account for his
surprise. The best we could say would be that the average human life
was fast lessening. I regard this as the most serious objection of
internal character against the integrity of the Septuagint text.――――On
the whole the chronological questions at issue between the Hebrew text
and the Septuagint, turning upon the authority of their respective
texts, are very much complicated and not a little doubtful. I have laid
before the reader what I regard as the main arguments, and rest the
case here, hopeful that greater light may yet arise, leaning, however,
toward accepting the authority of the Septuagint.
* * * * *
Reviewing the points made in this examination of Hebrew chronology,
it will be seen that we extend the time beyond Usher’s system,
(a.) In the period of the Judges at least 111 years; (b.) In the
sojourn in Egypt 215 years; and (omitting the interval between Terah
and Abram as uncertain), (c.) In the interval from the flood to the
call of Abram (if the Septuagint be followed) at least 650 years, and
perhaps 750; and (d.) In the period from the creation to the flood, 606
years――a total of 1582 or 1682 years.――――Or, to put the case in another
form, we put the Exodus in the year (B. C.) 1603; Jacob’s going into
Egypt, B. C. 2033; the call of Abram, B. C. 2248; and by the Septuagint
the flood, 3265 or 3365; and finally, by the Septuagint, the creation,
B. C. 5527 or 5627.
This approximates toward harmony with the reported results of the
Indian chronology which locates the creation B. C. 6174; also the
♦Babylonian, B. C. 6158, and the Chinese, B. C. 6157――the excess of
the latter above the longest sacred chronology being only 530 years.
The approach toward harmony in these three not sacred chronologies――the
Indian, the ♦Babylonian and the Chinese――the extreme difference being
only 17 years――is certainly a remarkable fact.
CHAPTER IV.
THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN RESUMED.
AS to the antiquity of Egyptian art, civilization and political power,
there are two main questions:
1. _How much time, after Noah, is required?_
2. _How much can be allowed in harmony with the most reliable
authorities of Hebrew chronology?_
1. Under the head of _time required_, it is in place to note the
circumstances which favored the very rapid growth of Egyptian
civilization and also of the numerical and political power of Egypt.
(a) Mizraim, the father of Egypt, who gave his name to the kingdom, was
a grandson of Noah and the father of seven sons (Gen. 10: 1, 6, 13, 14).
Consequently he started _early and strong_.
(b) The fertility of the Nile valley was prodigious; it was capable,
therefore, of sustaining an immense population, and so would attract
other people besides the lineal descendants of Mizraim. Every thing was
propitious for the early and rapid peopling of their country.
(c) Fixed residence, coupled with cheap bread and abundance of it, put
the Egyptian on vantage-ground above any other ancient nation for the
early culture of art and for rapid growth in all that made Egypt great.
(d) It is a capital mistake to assume that the arts and sciences _were
originated_ in Egypt after the flood, and that therefore a very long
time must be allowed for their growth and development up from utter
barbarism. For there was surely no insignificant amount of art and
science among the builders of Noah’s ark. The yet earlier history of
the race names “the father of all such as handle the harp and organ,”
and also “an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron” (Gen.
4: 21, 22).
(e) It is a significant fact that the Chaldean tradition of the deluge
as preserved by Berosus sets forth the special care taken by Noah to
preserve and transmit to the new-born nations after the flood the arts
and sciences which had been developed before that catastrophe. They
say he was admonished to put in writing an account of these arts and
sciences and deposit it in a place of safety until the flood should
be past. This tradition reveals the fact of a current belief that
there was such knowledge to be preserved, and that means were used to
preserve it.
2. Under the head of _time required_ it remains to give a synopsis
of the latest and most reliable results of Egyptologists in regard to
the Egyptian date of _Menes_, their first king, and of the building of
the three great pyramids――these being the most important epochs of the
earliest Egyptian antiquity.
The standard historic authority (not, however, above suspicion) is
Manetho, an Egyptian priest of Heliopolis, of the age of Ptolemy
Philadelphus (reigned B. C. 284–246), who is supposed to have made up
from the ancient records of his nation a list of thirty or thirty-one
dynasties of Egyptian kings, beginning with Menes and ending with the
conquests of Alexander the Great, giving the years of each king’s reign.
Unfortunately it comes down in a somewhat fragmentary condition, as
copied by Julius Africanus (died A. D. 232), who was himself in part
copied by Eusebius (of the fourth century) and by Syncellus (flourished
A. D. 780).
Until recently it has been the current opinion of the best
authorities (still held by many) that these dynasties were at some
points _contemporary_ and not _successive_――some of them reigning
in Upper Egypt, others in Middle or Lower Egypt, _at the same time_.
This would raise the problems――How many and which were contemporary?
How much is the entire period actually shortened by this
contemporaneousness?――――Moreover it has been supposed also that on the
same throne there has been at some points a joint occupancy of two or
more kings――father and son perhaps, or of some rival claimants; so that
the entire duration of a given dynasty may be less than the sum of the
reigns of its enumerated kings.[20]――――The problem of whole duration
being complicated by these elements of uncertainty, it has been the
great aim of recent investigation to gather in all possible aid from
the monuments and bring their testimony to bear upon the tables of
Manetho. The results are variously estimated and the problem can not
be regarded as yet fully settled.
I place together the opinions of some of the best authorities:
I. _For the date of Menes, reputed the first king._
B. C.
Bunsen’s latest revised recension of Egyptian Chronology
locates him[21] 3059
J. P. Thompson at least as far back as 3000
R. S. Poole (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 682) 2717
Sir Gardner Wilkinson (see “Aids to Faith,” p. 294) 2690
Wm. Palmer (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 687) 2224
The “Old Chronicle” (very valuable authority) 2220
Eratosthenes and ♦Apollodorus, original authorities,
in no respect inferior to Manetho 2793
Other estimates from less reliable authorities carry him back yet
further.
For convenience of comparison we place here our corrected Bible
Chronology for the call of Abraham――viz. B. C. 2248; and for the
flood, by the longest Septuagint text, B. C. 3425, and by the shortest,
B. C. 3325. These dates afford ample time for Mizraim, grandson of
Noah, to make a home and found a community in Egypt, in which Menes
might presently reach the dignity of being the first king.
II. _The date of the Pyramids._
B. C.
Bunsen in his latest recension, about 2600
Prof. C. Piazzi Smith, by astronomical calculations 2170
George Rawlinson (in “Aids to Faith,” p. 297) 2400
These dates may be compared with the call of Abraham――B. C.
2248.――――J. P. Thompson (Genesis and Geology, p. 86) says――“The three
great pyramids by the common consent of Egyptologers are assigned to
the fourth dynasty of kings of the old empire, as given by Manetho.”
It will be seen that these dates for Menes, the first king, and for the
oldest pyramids are amply provided for within the extension of sacred
chronology as above indicated.――――Other points in Egyptian antiquities
will be treated of in their place.
* * * * *
On the general subject of the _antiquity of man_, it only remains to
touch briefly the subsidiary questions stated above, p. 49.
(a.) _Were there one or more races of primeval men, pre-Adamic, but now
extinct?_
So far as reliable facts have yet come to light there is no sufficient
evidence of the affirmative. Our investigations into the antiquity
of man do not seem to demand a longer time than the extended sacred
chronology above presented affords. It is perhaps too soon to say that
no evidence will yet appear of a pre-Adamic race not in existence now.
But it will be soon enough to recognize the fact when the evidence
shall have been adduced. Till then, it is more scientific to believe
only so far as we have knowledge based on evidence.
(b.) _Have there been various head-centers of existing human species,
or only one, and that Adam?_――――Or (the same question in different
form) Are all the living varieties of race lineally descended from
Adam? and all from Noah?――――These questions contemplate the well known
diversities of race in the existing human family.
The classification of _race_ is made somewhat variously by different
authors; but the more common one makes _five_ classes: The Caucasian,
or white; The Mongolian, or yellow; The Ethiopian negro race, or black;
The American, or red; and the Malayan, or brown. (See Webster.)
Let it be premised in the outset that this distinction of race is
one of _variety_ and not of _species_. It sits upon the surface and
does not penetrate to the inner nature. All these races have the same
anatomical structure; the same physical organs; and what is far more,
the same intellectual and moral nature. Every-where they exhibit the
common effects of the fall of Adam; the same depravity of moral nature;
the same common need of redemption by Christ.――――These are cardinal
traits and tests. What is the color of the skin compared with the stamp
of God’s image upon the very nature itself?
That these races intermingle and cross indefinitely is sufficient
proof that they are only _varieties_, and by no means distinct
_species_.――――Yet this of itself does not prove that all men have
descended from one first man――Adam. For the Lord had power to create
five or ten Adams, each the head-center of as many distinct races,
yet all, of the one species, _man_. So far therefore as respects the
creative power of God or the constitution of man, this is an open
question: _What then are the facts_?
1. The Scriptures imply with the strongest form of implication that
the Adam of Genesis is the father――the one only father――of the whole
human race. The narrative of the creation; of the fall; and of the
first promise of redemption――all imply this. Paul implies it in those
passages in which he compares the ruin of the race through the one
man Adam with the salvation provided for the race through the greater
second _Man_, Jesus Christ. The strong passages are Rom. 5: 12–19 and
1 Cor. 15: 21, 22.
2. The diversities of race may be accounted for as produced by either
or both of two causes; (a.) Climatic influences; (b.) Sporadic,
abnormal peculiarities, appearing suddenly, and perpetuating themselves
by inheritance.
3. The geographical distribution of the race from one head-center,
Adam, is certainly possible. There is some reason to suppose that the
relative position of the seas, oceans, and continents at their points
of nearest approach may have been different in the earlier ages from
the present.
4. The proofs of a common language from which all known human languages
have been derived conspire to sustain the common origin of all the
human family.
This list of proofs might be extended and the argument from these
points greatly expanded.
On the subordinate question whether Noah was the common ancestor of all
the races living since his day, the answer turns mainly on the point of
the universality of the deluge; or rather, on this precise point――Did
the deluge destroy all the living men except those saved with Noah in
the ark?
This question will be considered in its place.
CHAPTER V.
THE SABBATH.
IT has been already suggested that the division of the creative
work into six days rather than into five or ten or any other number,
contemplated the weekly Sabbath and was designed to connect this
Sabbath for man with God’s rest from this creative work so that the
Sabbath should be at once a memorial of the creation and should bear in
itself the force of God’s example in his relative periods of labor and
of rest. God created this beautiful earth for man’s abode, and man to
dwell upon it; therefore let man remember his Great Creator and Father,
thoughtfully contemplating his works, admiring and adoring, worshiping
and serving the Glorious Author of both his being and his blessings.
God wrought six days and rested one; so let man throughout all the
ages of earthly time. Such is the relation of the Sabbath to God and
to man.――――Note therefore
1. _God ordained and enjoined it._ It is precisely a divine
institution――not man-made but heaven-born; an outgrowth of God’s wisdom
and love for his offspring man――for that one of all his creatures whom
only God “made in his own image.” “God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which
God created and made” (Gen. 2: 3). “Blessed and sanctified”――not _as
to himself_ but _as to man_; _i. e._ not to make the day a blessing to
himself but a blessing to man; not to make the day holy _to himself_
but holy _as to man_. It was a day for man to keep holy and a day
laden with blessings for man on condition of his sacredly observing
it in its true spirit and intent.――――In accord with this view are our
Savior’s words (Mk. 2: 27), “The Sabbath was made for man”――to become a
blessing for man, one of the great and sure channels of mercy from the
Great Father to his obedient children. Thus the Sabbath was instituted
for man when the race existed in Adam and Eve alone――one of the
institutions revealed from God and enjoined in Eden――good for man
before his fall, and surely not less needful to the race fallen than
to the race sinless. Let it be distinctly considered that this Sabbath
was instituted with no limitations of time or race or nation――not for
Eden alone; not for the race before their fall only――to become defunct
when man began to sin; not for the Jews alone to be only a Jewish
national observance and to become obsolete when the ceremonials of
Judaism “waxed old and vanished away.” It was indeed prescribed anew
to the Hebrew nation and enforced with new sanctions, especially by his
obligations to his covenant-keeping God for national deliverance from
Egyptian bondage; but this weighs not a feather against the doctrine
that the Sabbath was made _for man_. While the Sabbath obligation,
thus heightened by new mercies, might be said to become more sacred and
obligatory upon the Jewish nation, this fact could by no means make the
day less sacred to the Gentiles of every land and of all time.
2. As sustaining scripturally this argument for the divine appointment
of the Sabbath for the race of mankind, let it be noted that the
seven-day division of time is unquestionably traceable to this primeval
institution. It did not originate in the revolution of the earth on
its axis which makes the common day, nor in its revolution in its orbit
round the sun which makes the year, nor in the changes of the moon
which mark off lunar months. It is an abnormal――we might say unnatural
division of time――one which comes not of nature but from a source above
nature――from God directly and from God alone.
Historically we find this seventh-day period in existence during the
flood. Noah observed it and sent out the raven and the dove after
seven-day intervals of time.――――It becomes most distinctly apparent
in the recorded history of the manna (Ex. 16: 22–30). By the natural
law of the manna, each next day’s supply was distilled each night
upon the adjacent grounds, ready for the labor of gathering it in
the early morning. This would normally make labor a necessity for
their subsistence _every day_, leaving them no Sabbath. Therefore God
arrested the normal law at the Sabbath point and provided a double
supply on the morning next preceding, giving none on the morning of the
Sabbath. Moreover by another special provision, this double supply was
kept two days from putrefaction――in this case only, so that it sufficed
perfectly for their wants till the Sabbath was past. Some of the people,
oblivious of the Sabbath, “went out on the seventh day to gather, and
found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep
my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you
the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two
days; abide ye every man in his place; let no man go out of his place
on the seventh day” (Ex. 16: 27–30). Most decisively therefore does
this narrative assume that the Sabbath was not then a new institution
but an old one. This scene and these words, be it remembered, were
before (not after) the giving of the ten commandments from Sinai.
To the same purport is the form of the fourth commandment; “_Remember_
the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” The Lord does not say――I now
introduce a new and special precept. His words, “Remember” etc. do not
imply this but imply the very opposite of this. So also do the reasons
assigned; viz. God’s creative work finished in six days with rest on
the seventh. If this were a reason for the Sabbath, it was certainly
good for Adam in Eden and for all of Adam’s children to the end of the
world. Corresponding to this we may note that in this fourth command
God does not say――I appoint each seventh day for a sign between me and
thee and a memorial of your national deliverance from Egyptian bondage
(as many have maintained――to make out that the Sabbath was nothing but
a Jewish institution) but this is not the form in which the Sabbath
stands in the immortal decalogue. These points――a “sign” between the
Lord and Israel and a memorial of deliverance from Egypt, came in fitly
afterwards as a supplement――an appendix to this fourth command _in its
special relations_ to the children of Israel. See Ex. 31: 12–17 and
Ezek. 20: 12, 20, with my Notes on the passage in Ezekiel. But these
special and superadded relations of the Sabbath to the Hebrews can
not possibly in reason diminish the obligation of the original Sabbath
ordained for man as a race in Eden.
4. To complete the argument for a perpetual Sabbath, it is only needful
to add that our Lord re-endorsed it and gave it the whole weight of
his sanction for all future time; and in these several ways: (a.) By
re-endorsing the entire decalogue――“I am not come to destroy the law
but to fulfil” (Mat. 5: 17). The scope of the sermon on the mount――(of
which these words are a part) proves that his eye was on the great
moral law of ten commandments. Plainly he could not have spoken of the
Mosaic ceremonial law, and therefore must have spoken of that special
code of precepts of which the Sabbath was the fourth.――――(b.) He
endorsed the Sabbath as perpetual and universal by solemnly
declaring――“The Sabbath was made _for man_” (Mk. 2: 27).――――(c.) Also
by affirming it to be his own prerogative to enforce the Sabbath and to
set forth its spirit and expound its obligations. “Therefore,” because
the Sabbath was made for man, for all men of all time, “therefore,
the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath” (Mk. 2: 28). It was in
order to relieve the law of the Sabbath (as then currently expounded)
from burdensome, excessive and injurious constructions which human
nature could not bear and which were alien from its true spirit, that
our Lord confronted the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees and
sought to place this great institution upon its true and eternal
basis.――――(d.) Finally as showing historically that our Lord had never
a thought of terminating the obligation of the Sabbath at his death but
designed its obligation to be perpetual, we have this very incidental
word――“Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
Sabbath day” (Mat. 24: 20). When the Roman armies should bring down
the judgments of the Almighty upon the doomed city of the murderers of
Jesus, his followers must flee to the mountains across the Jordan; yet
let it be their prayer that they might not be compelled to flee either
in the severity of winter’s cold, nor on the holy Sabbath. Flight for
life might be morally admissible even on this sacred day; yet it would
be most appropriate to pray that God would spare them this moral trial
and not subject them to the necessity of labor on this holy day.――――In
these various ways our Lord most fully and undeniably re-endorsed the
Sabbath as for all time.
CHAPTER VI.
THE EVENTS OF EDEN.
THE first human pair have their first earthly want met by their Maker
in a _home_――a quiet, beautiful spot (precisely _where_ we know not,
but near the source of the great Euphrates) in which trees of beauty
for the eye and of nutritious fruitage for subsistence supplied some
pleasing occupation for the mind and wholesome labor for the hand;
where, happy in each other’s love and blessed with the freest communion
with their Maker, not a thing was lacking to fill their cup of joy.
_If_ it might only _last_――and for this, nothing more was needful
save that their moral nature should be cultured, their faith and love
and obedience strengthened up to the point of being thoroughly, fully
confirmed: then their lot would have been most blessed. As a requisite
means for such culture, God subjected their faith and obedience to
one gentle test――to one point of moral trial. To have endured this
successfully would have made them morally stronger and have drawn them
yet nearer in love and trust to their Great Father; but to fall before
it――Ah! this is the experience of human life, but too well known in its
fruits of sin and woe!
The history of these scenes is before us in this third chapter of
Genesis. Our leading inquiries may fitly take the following order:
I. Is this description _symbolic_ or _historic_; _i. e._ symbolic of
all human sinning; or historic as to this first sin, its antecedents
and immediate consequents?
II. _The moral trial_;
III. _The temptation_;
IV. _The fall_;
V. _The first promise_;
VI. _The curse_, being the first installment of the great penalty upon
transgression.
I. The preliminary question as to the character of this record
demands a brief notice. In my view it is not to be taken as a symbolic
representation of the universal fact that the race yield to temptation
and fall before it, but as a historical account of the first human
sin――including the person of the tempter and his methods; the working
of his temptations upon Eve and then upon Adam and the first group of
immediate results.――――Under this construction of the narrative, I find
here a real serpent, and a real, not a merely symbolical, Satan――the
serpent supplying the external guise, the sense-medium; but Satan, the
intelligent mind, the malign purpose. The narrative seems to indicate
that Satan chose the serpent for his service because of his well known
subtlety. It is of small account to push our conjectures on this point
beyond what is written (here and elsewhere); but it is supposable that
the serpent was Satan’s fittest instrument as being less likely to
excite surprise by his uttered words.
That this record speaks of a real serpent and of a personal devil I am
constrained to believe, because,
1. This is the obvious sense of the narrative――is the construction
which the mass of readers most naturally put upon it, supposing them to
be unsophisticated, holding their minds in harmony with the simplicity
of the Scripture narrative and so in a mood to take most readily its
obvious sense.
2. This construction is implied and thereby endorsed in subsequent
scriptures: _e. g._ Isaiah (65: 25) having said――“The wolf and the
lamb shall feed together”――peace and love supplanting violence and
cruelty――adds, “And dust shall be the serpent’s meat”――with manifest
reference to this primal curse on Satan’s special agent. See also a
similar reference in Solomon’s Messianic Psalm (72: 9): “His enemies
shall lick the dust.” Also Micah 7: 17.――――These allusions presuppose
a real serpent in the scenes of Eden.
That the real personal devil was there, the responsible agent, is
surely implied by our Lord (Jno. 8: 44): “Ye are of your father the
devil; _he was a murderer from the beginning_ and abode not in the
truth because there is no truth in him.” So also John (1 Jno. 3: 8):
“He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from
the beginning,” _i. e._ ever since that first great sin in tempting
our common mother. “For this purpose was the Son of God manifested
that he might destroy the works of the devil”――according to that first
promise――“I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy
seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel.” Paul incidentally gives his construction of this narrative: “The
God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Rom. 16: 20);
and our Lord also in Luke (10: 18, 19): “I beheld Satan fall as
lightning from heaven; and I will give you power _to tread on serpents_
and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy.” In 2 Cor. 11: 3,
Paul gives us a plain, historic version of this narrative――“But I
fear lest by any means, _as the_ serpent beguiled Eve through his
subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that
is in Christ.”――――But Satan is perhaps most sharply identified in the
descriptive points made by John (Rev. 12: 9 and 20: 2): “And the great
dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil and Satan,
who deceiveth the whole world.” ... “And he laid hold on the dragon,
that old serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand
years.” Our Lord, as also Paul and John, saw in this narrative a real
Satan and also the veritable serpent, made his instrument.
3. That Satan should use such an instrument is manifestly within
and not beyond his power. It has in certain points its analogy in the
demoniacal possessions recorded by the Evangelists. As to power he
is spoken of as the god and prince of this world, “the prince of the
power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of
disobedience.”
The Scriptures attribute to holy angels great power over material
agencies; and with scarcely less fullness to Satan and his legions also.
In the case of demoniacal possessions, nothing can be more obvious than
the manifestations of _Satanic mind_, mind speaking through human lips
indeed, yet giving utterance to Satanic thought. “We know thee who Thou
art.” “What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Art thou
come to torment us before the time”? (Mat. 8: 29 and Mk. 5: 7 and Luke
8: 28. See also Acts 19: 15.)
4. Other points in this narrative are recognized in the Scriptures
as historic and not merely symbolic. Paul wrote to Timothy (1 Tim.
2: 13–15): “For Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not
deceived; but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in child-bearing,” etc.――all
referring very definitely to this narrative as fact and not merely
drapery illustrating some universal truth.――――To the same purport is
Paul in Rom. 5: 12, 19: “As by one man sin entered into the world and
death by sin.” “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,”
etc. So also 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22.
5. The sin of the first pair stands in its appropriate historic place
here (not a merely symbolic place), being immediately connected with
the curse upon the serpent (and under him upon the devil); upon the
woman also, and the man and the ground; also with the expulsion from
Eden and man’s changed life, from the ease and the delights of Eden to
sweating labor upon a stubborn soil, in perpetual conflict with noxious
growths.――――These considerations suffice in my view to prove that this
narrative must be taken as simple history, and not as symbolic drapery
employed to set forth, not these specific events, but only the general
truth of human depravity.
II. _The Moral Trial._
Provision was made for this trial by one simple prohibition, forbidding
to them the fruit of one tree in the midst of the garden. Of all else
they might eat as they pleased. All they could need for subsistence
or enjoyment was freely permitted them; but the fruit of this one
tree they might not eat on pain of death. This was the test of their
obedience. This was to discipline their faith and their love toward
their divine Father. There the tree stood before their eyes in the
midst of the garden――every sight of it suggesting their Great Father’s
word――not to be eaten at all on penalty of death. Will they cheerfully
and even joyfully deny themselves so much for the love they bear their
Father? So long it shall be well with them. Every time they put down
the temptation to eat of it they will become stronger in their spirit
of obedience and more happy in God. It was a means of continual culture
in holiness, ever leading onward and upward into deeper communion with
God and more assured and joyous submission to his will, more strength
of purpose in obedience, more delight in whatever self-denial obedience
might involve. Surely it is not too much to say that they might make
this means of moral culture a priceless blessing to their souls. How
could paradise meet the greatest of all their wants――the want of their
new-born souls――without this one provision for proving and invigorating
their loving obedience to their God?
Need we then raise the question――_What was God’s purpose in this
prohibition?_ The answer is at hand――To accomplish precisely this
result; to give the first human pair a test of obedience which should
be naturally a means of moral culture and of growth in holiness.――――The
horrible thought――that God meant and sought to make them sin――how
can we say less of it than that it is born of Satan! For it assumes,
as Satan did in the garden, that God sought, not their good, but
their hurt; is not benevolent but malevolent! Our souls recoil from
this assumption. Doth not the Scriptures say truly (Jas. 1: 13),
“Neither tempteth he any man”? Never, for the purpose of drawing him
into sin!――――Is it replied:――God certainly knew they would eat that
forbidden fruit; the answer is, Undoubtedly he did; but this proves
nothing as to his purpose and aim in placing them under this moral
trial. If it be yet said――He might have made the trial so much less
that they would have borne it successfully: the proper answer is,
Who knows that? Who is wiser or more loving in such an emergency than
God?――――Consider also that while God knew they would fall, he also
knew that he could redeem the race through his Son, gloriously; and
so could make the wrath of both wicked men and devils subserve his
praise. We may account this to be his reason for subjecting the first
pair to a form of trial (every way good and wise in itself and well
designed)――although he foresaw they would fall before it. It was still
(as he saw the case through to its remotest end) better than any other
form of trial; better than no trial at all, supposing such a thing in
their case possible.
Thus may we vindicate God’s ways in this transaction. It was kind in
him to grant for their free use every other fruit in the garden――all
they could need. It was right that he should impose some test of their
obedience and love. Indeed it was a natural necessity of their moral
nature that this question of obeying God, always and every-where,
should come to issue. As surely as they were moral beings, capable of
knowing duty and of doing it, born into being with susceptibilities
to happiness which sometimes must be virtuously denied at the demand
of God and of the greater good, so surely they must meet this trial
sooner or later, in one form or another, until they become so strong
in their holy purpose, so fixed in the spirit of love and obedience
to God that temptation to sin is of course spurned away and duty is
done for evermore without a question. Moral trial, therefore, if not in
this precise form, yet in some analogous form, is the necessary means
of developing moral strength and confirmed holiness; is therefore the
natural pathway to the blessedness of heaven. Thus, with no wavering of
doubt, we may vindicate God’s ways toward man in this first great moral
trial brought on our race.
In what sense was this called, “The tree of the knowledge of good and
evil”? (Gen. 2: 9, 17 and 3: 5)――――It brought the knowledge of evil by
fearful experience; the knowledge of good to a certain extent by the
freshened sense of contrast with the experience of evil. Sin gives to
moral beings _such_ knowledge of good and of evil――knowledge it were
better far for them they should never have!
_Was the fruit of this tree a natural poison?_ We do not know. God
has not told us. It may have been or it may not. God does not base his
prohibition on this ground. There are other grounds, all-sufficient,
without this. It might perhaps be urged with some plausibility that the
analogy of this earthly life favors the affirmative inasmuch as for the
most part, God’s prohibitions of food and indeed of animal indulgence
in general, are based on this principle――Abstain from poison; do
thyself no harm. God is not wont to prohibit aught that is good for
food or pleasurable to any sense, except because it is pernicious,
poisonous.
What was this threatened penalty? _Death, in what sense?_
In the same sense in which it actually falls upon all who reject
Christ and fail of his salvation. Upon such the curse of the law falls
without abatement or modification. Their doom must surely be taken
as the exponent and measure of the meaning of this threatened death.
Of course it includes the loss of God’s favor; the incurring of his
frown.――――That eternal death did not begin instantly was due to arrest
of judgment for a new probation under the scheme of redemption; and to
nothing else.
_Was natural death a part of this penalty?_――――Plainly natural death
became the doom of the race, equally of the redeemed and of the
unredeemed, under the scheme of redemption――a scheme which carried with
it more or less of earthly life before the death of the body. But this
proves nothing as to the breadth of the original threatening――“Thou
shalt surely die.” What would have been in respect to natural death
if no scheme of redemption had intervened and the original threatening
had been executed at once, we have no means of knowing. Mortality as at
present resting on the race and terminating in natural death is one of
the incidents of the new probation under mercy, and gives us no light
on the other question, viz. What if no mercy had come in? In general,
it is of small account for us to ask, What would have been if something
else had happened otherwise than it did? _e. g._ What would have taken
place if the first pair had endured all temptation? How long would the
trial have continued? Would it have terminated by removing the tree,
or by taking off the prohibition, or only by such complete victory
over temptation that its presence could have been only a joy and a
triumph?――――What part would have been borne by “the tree of life”? And
after their sin, what if they had put forth their hand to take and eat
of this life-tree?――――Speculations of this sort never make men wiser.
III. _The Temptation._
On this point the history is remarkably full and distinct. To those who
have given attention to what may be called _the law of temptation_――the
way it works and gains its object――little explanation of the narrative
is needed.――――We may note that Satan took care not to be recognized as
an enemy; that he made his first approaches with subtlest caution and
skill, bringing up the case of the prohibited fruit as a question――Is
it _indeed so_ that God hath said, Ye shall not eat of every tree? As
if he would say――What do you think about this prohibition? Is it quite
pleasant to be put under such restraint?――――When Eve recited the words
of God’s prohibition and added something more――viz. “neither shall
ye touch it,” it is at least supposable that Satan had already sprung
in her mind the feeling that the injunction was indeed very stringent,
perhaps unreasonably and unkindly so. It is plain that Satan is
emboldened and now ventures to strike out squarely against God. Putting
his word unqualifiedly against God’s word, “ye shall _not_ surely die,”
he became “the father of lies,” “a liar from the beginning,” and threw
all the weight of his influence into the scale to break down Eve’s
confidence in God’s veracity as well as in his real kindness. Then with
Satanic cunning he took advantage of the name given to this forbidden
tree to make Eve think that knowledge, great and enviable like that of
the gods, would come from eating this fruit. Artfully he charges that
God knew this, and sought by the prohibition to debar them from this
boon of knowledge so desirable. The gilded bait was swallowed but too
soon and too thoughtlessly! Eve had listened; she had more than half
believed these lies; she still dallied with the temptation; she looked
again at the tree and its fruit; she saw it beautiful and seemingly
good for food; and, far beyond this, it appealed to her imagination
as giving her that unknown wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods――so she
took of it and _ate_!――――Then she brought of it to her husband. Her
words to him are not on record. We are left to imagine how her example
may have wrought upon him, and sympathy also with her doom if Adam
thought of that; how the feeling――I must stand or fall, live or die,
with this only human friend I have on earth――may have overcome every
scruple. So far as appears he yielded without a word of question, much
less of reproof. He yielded――and the awful deed was done!
IV. _The Fall and its Immediate Effects._
The first human pair are in sin; they have risen against God their
Maker in rebellion. Instantly “their eyes are opened.” They realize how
strangely different are the sensations that come _after_ sin from those
that are before. The false hopes, the fascinations, the bewildering,
bewitching charms of temptation’s hour give place to the awful sense of
folly and of wrong――a sense of passing suddenly into a world of solemn
and dread realities pertaining to God, duty, and doom. “They knew
that they were naked”; an awful sense of being unfit to be seen; a
consciousness of being ugly, loathsome, as if the inner guilt of their
souls stood out visibly over their whole bodies――this seems to have
been their first sensation, and they set themselves to sewing fig-leaf
coverings. As evening drew on they heard the voice of the Lord God
walking in the garden. That voice which up to this day had been their
sweetest music now fills their very souls with shame and terror.――――It
is remarkable that Adam’s words and his acts also make so much account
of his nakedness, apparently of person. Was it that his convictions
of sin and guilt were yet superficial, so that his sense of shame for
his sin turned his thought first to his personal nakedness? Had he yet
to learn that “God looketh on the heart”? If so the Lord’s searching
question must have met his case――“Who told thee that thou wast naked”?
How camest thou by this sense of shame, this dread of the eye of thy
divine Father? “Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee
that thou shouldest not eat”?――――Adam could not do otherwise than
confess his sin, yet with an apology which almost or quite reflected
upon God; “The woman whom _thou gavest_ to be with me, she gave me, and
I did eat.” The woman too sought to screen herself somewhat under the
apology of a subtle temptation. “The serpent beguiled me and I did eat.”
The secondary results of the fall appear in the curse severally
pronounced of God upon the serpent, upon the woman, and upon the
ground for his sake.――――As to the serpent, since he stands before us
in this entire transaction as a double character, so the curse upon
him comes in a sort of double meaning. The most obvious sense of the
passage assigns a measure of this curse to the literal serpent――the
animal under the guise of whom Satan beguiled his victim. But the
responsibility and guilt being upon the very Satan, this curse falls
chiefly on him. He is degraded, doomed to eternal shame; and in his
great conflict against God and goodness, to disgrace, defeat and
damning ruin. Words of telling significance were these;――“I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.” The serpent
guilefully assumed to be your friend. I tear off his mask and expose
him in his true nature; I ordain eternal enmity between serpent and
woman, and pre-eminently between the serpent’s seed――the children
of the devil――and the great, distinguished Personage known as “the
seed of the woman.” This enmity underlies the mighty conflict of
the ages――Christ and Satan each leading on his host to battle and no
peace or even truce arresting hostilities till the victory of the
King of Kings shall be complete and ineffably glorious. Thus the first
relation between serpent and woman――that of assumed but treacherous
friendship――develops into everlasting enmity――God, her real friend,
becoming in the person of his incarnate Son, born of woman――her
champion and the mighty antagonist of Satan and all his offspring.
Here and thus mercy breaks in upon this scene of sin and ruin, and God
begins the wonderful process of making the wrath of Satan the occasion
of his own infinite glory.――――The words which put so tersely the result
of this great conflict take their shape and borrow their drapery from
the guise under which Satan here appears――that of the crawling serpent.
He shall wound the heel of his opponent――the natural place for the
serpent’s bite; but his own head bruised and crushed, shall end the
fight.――――This first promise of God to our fallen race sweeps the eye
over the whole vast field of moral conflict between Christ and Satan,
and testifies of glorious victory over Satan as the sublime result. It
was inexpressibly kind in the Lord to bring in these gleams of light
and hope upon the trembling souls of the first sinning pair before
he proceeded to speak of the specific forms of suffering that must
righteously come upon them and their offspring as the testimony of
God’s displeasure against sin. Having said this, he proceeds to the
curse upon woman――sorrow in the birth of offspring; and the curse upon
man――toil and struggle for subsistence on a soil prolific in noxious
growths and demanding labor as a condition of fruitfulness.
Yet let the minor points of this scene sink into the shade in the
presence of the sublime glory of the great first promise. In the light
of this we see that though Satan plotted the ruin of the race, yet
God counter-plotted the ruin of Satan and the salvation of the masses
of mankind. When it might have seemed that all was lost, it proved
that this extremity was God’s great opportunity, for his strong arm
was made bare for help and real victory. This is the birth-hour of
most momentous issues. Sin came in upon Eden and upon earth; and many
a bitter sorrow, many a cup of suffering and woe, must needs follow
in its train; but _Redemption comes in also_; it enters upon its
co-ordinate work to save the soul from sin and from eternal death and
to bring in everlasting righteousness. The history of our world in its
most vital aspects is foreshadowed here in this first short meeting of
their Maker with this sinning pair. The spoken recorded words were few,
but their significance was momentous; the sweep of their bearing, the
issues of the divine policy here indicated, were destined to fill up
the ages of time with stirring and strange conflict, and to send their
influence down through the endless ages of man’s being and of God’s
kingdom.
CHAPTER VII.
FROM THE FALL TO THE FLOOD.
1. _Notes on special passages._
In Gen. 4: 1 our English version stands――“I have gotten a man _from_
the Lord.” Some critics construe these words of Eve to mean――By the
help or blessing of the Lord; but the more direct and obvious sense
of the original is this: “I have gotten a man, the Lord”――as if she
assumed that this, her first-born son, was really the promised divine
“seed of the woman” who was to bruise the serpent’s head. The current
objection to this construction is that it is too far in advance of
Eve’s theology:――to which however the obvious reply is――Who knows how
far advanced Eve’s theology may have been? Her imagination may have
outrun the actual revelation at that point made. All we can say is that
these words are recorded as indicating her thought, and that this is
the most natural sense of her words.
In the Lord’s expostulation with Cain (4: 6, 7) we read: “If thou doest
well, shalt thou not be accepted?” but better――Would there not be an
elevation――_i. e._ of countenance, a cheerful _looking up_, instead
of that fallen, sullen look spoken of in the previous verse.――――“And
if thou doest not well, sin lies crouching at the door”――sin being
personified and thought of as some animal, perhaps the serpent, ready
to allure him on to deeper, more damning crime: “And _its_ (not _his_)
desire is toward thee”――its Satanic purpose is to ensnare and ruin
thee: “but thou shouldst rule over it”――in the sense of mastering its
temptations, commanding them down and ruling them out from thine heart.
The speech or rather song of Lamech to his two wives (4: 23, 24) must
be assumed to have a close connection with the occupation and skill
of Tubal-Cain, “a workman in brass and iron.” Consciously strong and
boldly overbearing in view of this new invention and production of
death-weapons, he proudly sings: “I have slain (or could slay) a man
for wounding me――a young man――for any hurt inflicted upon me; and”
(there being in this case some real provocation; Cain had none) “if
Cain would be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and seven.” The
lenity shown to Cain was bringing forth its fruits; the invention of
improved death-weapons was also contributing to fill the earth with
bloody violence.――――These little facts indicate the state of society
which culminated in so filling the earth with violence that God was
compelled to wash out its blood-stains and its degenerate race with
the flood.
* * * * *
2. _Abel’s offering, and the origin of sacrifices._
Abel kept sheep; Cain tilled the ground. “In process of time” (Heb.
“at the end of days”)――the stated time for worshiping God with
offerings――Cain “brought of the fruit of the ground”――an unbloody
offering: Abel “brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their
fat.” The reference to their “fat” proves that these animals, lambs
of the fold, were slain in sacrifice.――――The record informs us that
God looked with favor upon Abel’s offering, but not upon Cain’s. It
does not concern us to know _how_ God signified his approval of Abel’s
sacrifice, whether by fire from heaven consuming it, or otherwise; but
it does concern us to ascertain if we can _why_ he approved it.
We have some rays of light on this point from the writer to the
Hebrews who says: “_By faith_ Abel offered unto God a more excellent
sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,
God testifying of his gifts.” Now the simplest idea of faith, the
one element always present in it, is _bowing to God’s authority with
implicit confidence in his word_. But in this case bowing to God’s
authority implies that God had given some word in reference to bloody
sacrifices――the offering of a lamb by shedding its blood upon the altar.
And if God had given any such word of command, it is certainly to be
presumed that he had also given at least this general idea, that the
blood of the innocent lamb took, in some sense, the place of the blood
of the guilty offerer, so that the sacrifice would imply the confession
of guilt, and also faith in a bloody substitute of the Lord’s own
providing.――――Prosecuting our investigations we find this broad fact
of history bearing on the case, viz. that Noah, Abraham and Isaac
built altars wherever they were sojourning and offered bloody
sacrifices thereon. Further, God directed Noah to preserve in the ark
clean animals by sevens, but animals not clean only in pairs――two of
a species――a fact which can not be reasonably accounted for save with
reference to their customary use in sacrifice. We have then before
us the well-established fact of the early custom of bloody animal
sacrifices.
* * * * *
_How came this custom into existence?_
It did not originate _with men_――certainly not with _good men_. Apart
from divine suggestion, they could not have supposed that the slaughter
of an innocent animal would be pleasing to God. The presumption would
be utterly against this. They could not have thought out the divine
idea of atonement for sin by the death of Christ, God’s own incarnate
Son: the very supposition is absurd, for it supposes that men were
able to sound the infinite depths of God’s wisdom and of his love,
and to grasp the relations and bearings of his vast moral government
with a reach of thought, not human but divine. Yet further; it is
not supposable that, having excogitated and discovered the grand idea
of atonement, they could have devised the plan of prefiguring this
atonement by the bloody sacrifice of the most innocent, harmless
and lovely of the animal races.――――And further, if they could have
thought out this miracle of God’s wisdom and love――both the divine
idea of atonement, and the expediency of illustrating it for ages by a
foreshadowing system of bloody sacrifices――it would still have been the
height of presumption in them to have started this system of sacrifices
without God’s special and sanctioning appointment.
We are therefore shut up to this alternative: Either the whole system
of altars and bloody sacrifices, as practiced by Abel, Noah, Abraham
and Isaac, was an unmeaning farce――a thing of no significance, a mere
amusement or fancy, meaning nothing and good for nothing; or, God
himself originated the system and enjoined it, and these good men
were observing it in obedience to special revelation from God.――――Here
it will be readily seen that the first side of this alternative is
perfectly precluded by the fact that God approved their sacrifices. God
“had respect to the offering of Abel.” He “smelled a sweet savor” in
the sacrifices offered by Noah (Gen. 8: 20, 21.) The other alternative
therefore, viz. that bloody sacrifices originated in a direct
revelation from God――is the only supposition left us. We must adopt it.
It can not be necessary to draw out an argument to prove that in
instituting this system of bloody sacrifices God gave his people some
notion of its significance. The whole record shows that he was on most
familiar terms with them and therefore can not be supposed to have left
a point of so much importance utterly blank. It is not too much to say
that unless some light were thrown by the Lord himself upon the meaning
and purpose of these bloody offerings, the command to make them would
require some apology; for apart from their expiatory significance,
they are most revolting to even human benevolence――most foreign to all
just notions of what is due treatment of innocent lambs, bullocks and
doves from our hand. It should also be considered that their moral
value depends on their significance. All these bloody sacrifices must
have been practically valueless unless their expiatory significance
was in some good degree understood. That God ordained them for the sake
of their moral value, who can for a moment doubt?――――The conclusion,
therefore, seems inevitable that God not only enjoined these bloody
sacrifices, but gave his people to understand in general their
significance to the extent of fulfilling that unconscious prophecy of
Abraham (Gen. 22: 8): “My son, God will provide for himself a lamb for
a burnt-offering.”
These views, if just, are of vast historic value as showing _how much_
God taught his people at that earliest day, pertaining to his great
thoughts of redemption for a lost race.
* * * * *
3. _The great moral lessons of the antediluvian age._
(1.) It may be regarded as God’s experiment of a very long
life-probation for man. Of course this experiment is not to be thought
of as made to satisfy himself as to its wisdom, but to satisfy created
finite minds in this and in every other world. In a case where issues
so momentous were pending on the results, it must be vital to the honor
of Jehovah before all created minds that he should fix the average
period of human probation in this earthly life at the best possible
point. If he had begun with the same average limit which has obtained
since the days of Moses (three-score years and ten), he must have
anticipated the general impression that this is much too short for
the decision of destinies so vast as the welfare of an immortal
existence. It was therefore eminently wise that God should begin
(as we see that he did) with a much longer, even a tenfold longer
average life-period.――――This very long life, moreover, carried with
it an extraordinary physical vigor, apparently a very great exemption
from sickness, frailty, suffering, save as induced by the violent
and murderous passions of man toward his fellows. The discipline of
suffering seems to have been at its minimum for all human history. The
experiment of almost unimpaired physical well-being was afforded the
freest scope for its manifestation.
What was the result? The words of Solomon express it well: “Because
vengeance against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the
heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8: 11).
The mass of those generations sunk down morally to the lowest point
possible, short of a general and promiscuous destruction. “All flesh
had corrupted its way.” “Every imagination of the thought of man’s
heart was only evil continually.” “The earth was filled with violence.”
Human life had no sacredness; society, no safeguard; murderous passions,
no restraint. The race were fast becoming too corrupt to live. If the
Lord had not swept them by a flood, the earth would fain have opened
her jaws to swallow them from the face of the sun.
(2.) This social and moral degeneracy becomes a very instructive lesson
for all time upon the results of the non-punishment of murder. It was
doubtless wise for God to begin as he did with Cain; but it was not
wise to continue that policy after such results had been brought out
before both this world and the whole intelligent universe. What men
socially related must needs do for their mutual protection in order not
merely to make society a blessing but to make the existence of men in
society a possibility, was precisely the problem to be solved; and to
its solution this first period of human life――the antediluvian age――was
definitely adapted. It brought out the solution perfectly. No other
experiment can ever be necessary. When the race started anew after the
flood, the Lord advanced to the true doctrine and enjoined on social
man the solemn duty of shielding human life by taking the murderer’s
blood. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed”
(Gen. 9: 6). This was one step of manifest _progress_ in the revelation
of God’s will as to the responsibility and duty of men in their social
and governmental relations. It was progress in the origination of
society――progress built on the great lessons of human history.
(3.) Here are also lessons of faith and of heroic virtue in the godly
lives of the small and it would seem constantly diminishing group of
pious men living among the multitudes of the ungodly. Here was Enoch,
“the seventh from Adam,” who preached a righteous God and a coming
judgment to a hardened generation, but seems to have met with only
resistance, to the extent apparently of relentless persecution. The
remark of the apostle (Heb. 11: 5)――“He was not _found_ because God
had translated him,” may perhaps imply that his enemies sought him for
purposes of bloody violence, from which the Lord took him away in his
chariot of fire by translation to heaven!――――Here too was Noah, also
“a preacher of righteousness,” who “walked with God”――and was warned
by him of the impending deluge of waters. He warned his fellow men of
their threatened doom, but warned them only in vain. “They ate, they
drank; they bought, they sold;” they revelled and scoffed――till the day
that Noah entered into the ark――no longer!――――But we speak now of the
example of Noah’s faith in God. He saw no portents in the sky; heard
no muttering thunders in the distant heavens; yet he held on year after
year till the ark was ready――himself preaching and warning; fearlessly
and heroically witnessing by his labors upon the ark to his positive
faith in the forewarnings of God. Thus his faith rebuked the godless
unbelief of his generation, and testifies to us of the wisdom and
blessedness of taking God at his word and of adjusting our life to his
command, though in the face of a scoffing world.
(4.) Yet another point in this cluster of great moral lessons
is indicated for us by Peter (2 Pet. 2: 4–9); “For if God spared
not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth person, a preacher
of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the
ungodly:――the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation
and to preserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.”
That awful word, _retribution_, gathers into itself the fearful
significance of these stupendous events. They are God’s foregoing
judgments, brought out in this world to foreshadow the sorer
visitations of that coming day when God shall bring every work into
judgment with every secret thing, good or evil. God surely does take
note of the sins of men, how long soever he may stay his uplifted hand
and delay to smite. If wicked men were wise _they would believe God’s
words of warning_, and take care not to live over again the life of
that doomed generation and meet a final judgment more awful even than
theirs!
(5.) Let us not fail to notice those wonderful and beautiful ways
of God with his children, coming down in such condescending and most
familiar communion, talking with them apparently almost as man talks
with his dearest friend; and this not in Paradise only before the fall,
but after the fall scarcely less; and onward as the narrative indicates
in the case of Enoch and of Noah. What more could he have done to
reveal a _personal God_ to mortals? Surely the God who thus revealed
himself in the fresh morning of our race is no dim abstraction, no
impersonal Nature or Essence, diffused and diffusible throughout space,
the ideal soul of all matter. This effort to dispose of a God with whom
it is man’s privilege to walk in positive personal communion, but who
also takes cognizance of man’s iniquity, and to transmute him into an
empty, forceless ideality, finds not the least countenance in these
earliest manifestations of himself to our race. Note how he dwells with
men; how he walks with them and lets them walk with him! What is this
but free and loving communion? What less can it imply than just what
the narrative of man’s creation witnesseth, viz. that God “made man _in
his own image_”――capable therefore of real and most intimate communion
of spirit with his Maker? This lesson is written all the way through
the Bible. It stands out here with beautiful prominence in this first
great chapter of God’s revelation of himself to man.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE FLOOD.
1. FIRST, let us note its _moral cause_――the reason why God swept off
the living from the face of the earth by a deluge of waters.――――It was
essential to the moral results which God sought that this reason should
be given very definitely. So we find it given (Gen. 6: 5–13): “God
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually.”
“The earth was corrupt before God; and the earth was filled with
violence.” These points are reiterated in most distinct and emphatic
terms, showing that, outside of the household of Noah, the whole living
race had deeply apostatized from God and were boldly and even defiantly
irreligious. Eliphaz in Job (22: 15–17) gives the tradition current in
his time, thus: “Who said unto God, ‘Depart from us,’ and, ‘What can
the Almighty do for them’”――_i. e._ for Noah and his godly associates?
Despite the words of Noah who bore to them God’s awful forewarnings
and preached the righteousness of repentance, they pressed on in their
sins unmoved and reckless――“till mercy reached its bound and turned to
vengeance there”! It was a whole generation hopelessly corrupt, daring
the Almighty to make good his awful words of warning! The result is
on record that all sinners of every age, tempted to like hardihood and
defiance of God, may study it with profound consideration.
2. The _antecedent occasions_ of this deep apostasy from God as given
in the narrative, next demand our attention. They are
(1.) _The pious families intermarry with the godless._――――
(2.) _The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is withdrawn._
(1.) “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and
they took them wives of all which they chose.” The “sons of God” were
his professed children of the godly race of Seth, Enos and Enoch. The
“daughters of men” were of the Cainites, cultured probably in music
(Gen. 4: 21); attractive in person, fascinating in manners――but alas,
all corrupt in heart as toward God!――――The Jews have a tradition
that these “sons of God” were fallen angels, once first-born sons of
God, who by intermarriage with man’s fair daughters, intensified this
fearful corruption of the race. This tradition we must reject for the
following as well as other reasons:
(a.) Nothing is said here about angels. The record gives us no word
which legitimately designates angels――least of all, the fallen angels.
(b.) According to the Scriptures, angels “neither marry nor are given
in marriage.” The tradition is therefore not only _without_ Scripture
authority but _against_ it.
(c.) If this extreme demoralization had been caused by the marriage
connection of fallen angels with the daughters of men, those
angels should certainly have come in for their share of the visible
retribution. God gave Satan his share of the curse for his agency in
the first great sin. The same justice would have made the fallen angels
visibly prominent under this curse of the flood.――――Either of these
reasons singly would be sufficient ground for rejecting this tradition;
much more must they suffice, combined.
(2.) The withdrawal of the divine Spirit is the second assigned
antecedent of this fatal degeneracy. In our English version we
read――“And the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not always strive with
man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and
twenty years.’”――――As to the meaning of “My Spirit,” we must reject the
sense――_animal life_――that which God breathed into man to make him “a
living soul” (Gen. 2: 7), as being incongruous with the verb “strive”:
also the sense――_rational soul_――that which makes man a rational being;
and must accept the sense so amply sustained by Scripture usage――the
divine Spirit, sent by Christ to transform human hearts.――――The word
“strive” to translate the Hebrew verb[22] is not bad. We must reject
the construction of some of the old versions, _dwell_, as not in the
original, and as too tame: also the turn given it by Gesenius――to be
humiliated, put down――as not borne out well by the original; and say
that the verb is currently used of judicial transactions――searching
out, convincing, convicting; and seems to have a striking analogy
in that leading word given us by Christ; “When he is come, he shall
_reprove_ the world”――enforce conviction upon the world――as to sin and
righteousness.
The next clause is more difficult and perhaps more controverted: “For
that he also is flesh.” Why is the word “also” here? And what is the
logic indicated by “_for that_”? Can it mean that God withdraws his
Spirit because man is _human_――with a body of “flesh”? Our translators
separated the main Hebrew word into three――the preposition meaning
_in_, the relative written elliptically, and the particle meaning
_also_. The construction of Fuerst is better――“In their wandering, he
is flesh,” _i. e._ their degeneracy has brought flesh completely into
the ascendant: warring against the spirit, the flesh is absolute victor
in the fight. Henceforth all further conflict is hopeless. Hence God
may righteously say――nay must in honor to himself say――My Spirit shall
not plead my cause in man forever. He is utterly gone over to the flesh,
and nothing remains but that he must perish. One hundred and twenty
years of merciful respite[23] for patient warning and exhaustive trial
must suffice:――then, if no penitence appear, judgment must fall, and
that without remedy!――――Thus God places on record the moral causes and
antecedents of this fearful visitation, that its moral lessons may go
down to distant ages for their admonition to the end of time.
The hour of doom draws nigh. The Lord gave Noah definite notice to
enter his ark (7: 1) and allowed him seven days time (7: 4) to gather
in all whom the ark was provided to save. Then “the fountains of the
great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened.” Of
small avail for safety then was the gigantic frame of the giants of
those days or the defiant heart of unbelieving scoffers!
It is scarcely needful to speak of the physical means which God
employed to produce this flood. The agencies which appear in the
volcano and in the earthquake and which God holds imprisoned at no
great depth below the earth’s surface, are all-sufficient for these
results. We may suppose that they lifted the bed of the adjacent seas,
upheaving their waters into the atmosphere to descend in torrents
of rain, and sinking for the time the inhabited lands――and the work
is done. Such alternate upheavals and depressions are, we may say,
chronic to the crust of the earth. The ancient records of geology bear
this testimony. It was not strange therefore but was merciful that
God should allay human fears by his promise to drown the earth no
more. His bow in the cloud, seen when the sun shone forth after the
shower, became by God’s special appointment the sign and pledge of this
covenant.――――I see no good reason to suppose that the rainbow never
existed before. It must have existed by the laws of nature, unless
those laws were greatly changed at the flood――a change which should not
be assumed without sufficient reason. No such reasons are apparent. It
is better therefore to construe the promise――The well known bow in the
cloud I give and ordain to be my sign and pledge that the earth shall
be deluged with water no more.――――Beautiful symbol, kindly and lovingly
ordained; and as we look upon it, delighted with both its beauty and
its significance, let it heighten our joy that God says of himself,
“I will look upon it and remember my covenant.”
* * * * *
_Was this flood universal?_
1. Was it universal _geographically_, overspreading the entire globe?
2. Was it universal as to all _living men_, leaving absolutely none
alive on the face of all the earth, except those in the ark?
1. That the deluge was of limited extent geographically, and not
universal, may be fairly assumed on the following grounds:
(1.) The moral reasons for a deluge do not seem to require it to be
universal, since obviously that corrupt generation whose sins demanded
such a judgment did not overspread all the continents and lands of the
globe, but appear to have been confined within a quite limited area in
Western Asia.
(2.) While on the one hand we may not limit the miraculous power of
the Almighty; on the other hand, it is not legitimate to assume an
expenditure of miraculous power indefinitely beyond what the occasion
demands.――――This objection is designed to apply, not specially to the
supply of water requisite to flood the whole earth at once, for there
is water enough in the oceans and seas to submerge the continents,
provided only that the ocean beds be temporarily uplifted and the
continents relatively depressed: but it does apply with great force to
the preservation of the living animals and plants of the whole world.
The narrative assumes that the deluge will destroy the land animals
and the fowls of the air unless they are protected in the ark. It
also gives us the dimensions of the ark, and leaves us to estimate
proximately how many could be saved alive in it. The narrative,
therefore, does not authorize us to resort to miracle for the
preservation of these animal races.――――Now it is entirely certain that
only an exceedingly small part of all the land animals, insects and
birds of the whole world were saved in the ark. Men versed in natural
science estimate the living species of vertebrate animals at 21,000;
of articulates, 300,000――numbers by far too great to be provided for
in Noah’s ark.――――Yet again: To a great extent the “fauna” (as they are
called)――the animal species of the several continents――differ widely
from each other. South America has its families, many of them unknown
to other continents; Australia has its special group, and Africa its
own. It is simply incredible that all or even the mass of these animals
came to Noah and were preserved in the ark. If they had been destroyed
by the flood, there should be traces of their sudden annihilation
in the drift of that flood, and geological research might trace
the introduction of new races by special creation to repeople those
continents. No such line of proofs for a universal deluge is found.
The absence of such traces of destruction and of new creation makes
it far more than probable that the flood was limited in extent and not
universal.
Still further it is urged against a universal deluge――and for aught
that appears conclusively――that volcanic cones exist――of Etna in Sicily
and of Auvergne in Southern France――which, being composed of loose
scoriæ and ashes, must have been washed away by any deluge that should
reach them. The cones of Etna are estimated to be 12,000 years old.
(3.) The apparently universal language of the narrative may be readily
explained as other similar language must be in the Scriptures, without
assuming a range of meaning beyond the writer’s personal knowledge. The
writer of this narrative (Gen. chaps. 6–9) speaks _as an eye-witness_,
especially of the great rain; of the ark borne up upon the waters; of
the surging back and forth of the billows, and of their covering “the
high hills under the whole heaven,” _i. e._ as far as the eye could
reach. The same style of universal language appears frequently in the
Scriptures, yet subject to limitations from the known nature of the
case; _e. g._ Deut. 2: 25: “This day will I begin to put the fear of
thee” [Israel] “upon the nations _that are under the whole heaven_;”
Acts 2: 5――“There were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out _of
every nation under heaven_.” Mat. 3: 5: “Then went out to him Jerusalem,
and _all Judea_, and _all_ the region round about Jordan.”――――It is
in point to notice also that the word “_the earth_,” so frequently
used in this narrative, very often has the sense――_the land_. It should
manifestly have a meaning as broad when used of the extent of the
judgment as when used of the extent of the sin, and not necessarily any
more broad. Of the sin it is said repeatedly――“The _earth_ was corrupt
before God;” “the _earth_ was filled with violence.” Obviously this
same “_earth_,” to the same geographical extent and not apparently
any thing more, was destroyed by the flood. It may be noticed also
that the word “ground” [Heb. adamah] is used (Gen. 7: 23) as a synonym
for “earth”――“every living substance which was upon the face of the
_ground_”――but this carries with it no sense of universality as to this
globe.
There is every reason to suppose that at this time both the righteous
descendants of Seth and the wicked descendants of Cain were living in
the great basin of the Euphrates and the Tigris――with great probability
not reaching out beyond the area bounded by the Indian Ocean, the
Persian Gulf, the Caspian, Black, Mediterranean and Red Seas. This,
therefore, we may assume to have been the area submerged by this deluge,
and we have no occasion to look for its traces beyond these limits.
2. Whether the deluge destroyed all living men from the face of
the whole geographical earth except those in the ark, it is perhaps
impossible to decide with absolute certainty. If any were not reached,
they must have been such as had wandered early, far from their native
home, suppose into China or Africa, where neither the corruption which
became the moral cause of the deluge nor the deluge itself reached
them. The question is one of probabilities only, for we have no certain
knowledge on the subject and can not have. The probabilities are in my
view quite against the supposition.
_Traditions of a Great Deluge._
All the great nations of history have traditions more or less definite
of a vast deluge in the days of their fathers. As should be expected,
these traditions compared with the Bible record are variously modified,
corrupt we might say, mixed with fable, magnified as great stories
are wont to be in passing from lip to lip through many generations.
In general those are most pure which are found nearest the locality
of Eden and which were earliest committed to writing. Some authors
classify them into the _West Asiatic_, including the Babylonian, that
of the Sibylline books, the Phrygian, the Armenian, and the Syrian,
some of which are remarkably close to the truth. The _East Asiatic_,
including the Persian, the Chinese, and the Indian; the _Grecian_,
found in Plato, Pindar, Apollodorus, Plutarch, Lucian and Ovid; and
those of _peoples and tribes outside of the old world_――the Celts of
Northern Europe, the Mexicans, the Peruvians, the Indians of America
and the tribes upon the Pacific Islands. Lange remarks that the ethical
idea of the flood as a judgment upon men for their sins is every-where
apparent. The Chaldean traditions, brought down in the writings of
Berosus (wrote B. C. 260), are singularly minute and quite in harmony
with the scriptural account in its main outlines, some of which are as
follows:
Giving the name of Xisuthrus to the last of the primitive kings, it
sets forth that he was warned of the flood in a dream; was commanded
to write down all the sciences and inventions of mankind and preserve
them; to build a ship and save therein himself and his near friends,
and take in also animals with suitable food. After the flood had
somewhat subsided, he let fly a bird which came back; a second which
returned with slime on its foot; a third which never returned. Then
seeing land visible, he opened his vessel and came forth with his wife
and children; built an altar and offered sacrifice to the gods. They
found the country to be Armenia. Portions of the ark were long in
existence, sought for as amulets and charms.
The Chinese story may be taken as a sample of those more remote from
the locality of Noah. As given by the Jesuit, M. Martinius, the Chinese
date this great flood B. C. 4000; say that Fah-he, the reputed author
of Chinese civilization, escaped the flood, and together with his wife,
three sons and three daughters, repeopled the renovated world.
Dr. Gutzlaff communicated a paper to the Royal Asiatic Society (as
in their Journal xvi: 79) in which he stated that he saw in one of
the Buddhist temples in beautiful stucco the scene where Kwanyin, the
Goddess of Mercy, looks down from heaven upon the lonely Noah in his
ark amidst the raging waves of the deluge, with the dolphins swimming
around as his last means of safety and the dove with an olive-branch in
his beak flying toward the vessel. Nothing could exceed the beauty of
the execution.[24]
Those which are found among the ancient people of the Western
Continent――the Cherokees, Mexicans and Peruvians――have special interest
as proving that, remote as these tribes were from the locality of Noah,
they must have had a common origin and must have received this common
tradition of the flood from the valley of the Euphrates.
CHAPTER IX.
FROM THE FLOOD TO THE CALL OF ABRAHAM.
1. _The law against murder and its death-penalty._
When the waters of the great deluge had subsided and Noah and his
family found themselves once more upon the face of the solid earth――an
unpeopled solitude――that which we read in Gen. 9, was beautifully
in place:――“_And God blessed Noah and his sons._” So long imprisoned
in the ark; so long in the presence of this fearful visitation of
a righteous God upon a hopelessly corrupt generation, how naturally
must their view of human life take on a somber hue, and how refreshing
to be assured that the Great God was still their loving Father! “God
blessed them and said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the
earth,’”――for God would have it filled again with living men. Moreover,
though few and feeble, they need not fear the violence of the animal
creation, for “the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every
beast of the earth; ... into your hand are they delivered.” Then by
special provision, apparently never made before, God sanctioned the use
of animal flesh for human food. Yet lest this sanction should make them
dangerously familiar with the shedding of blood, and tend to lesson the
sacredness of human life, God solemnly forbade the use of blood for
food, and then proceeded to ordain that human blood shed by ferocious
animals should be avenged with their life. Then follows special
legislation against murder by guilty human hands: “Whoso sheddeth man’s
blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he
man.”――――That this is precept and not merely prophecy is so apparent
that argument in proof might seem almost an insult to the common
understanding of mankind. Yet the passage has been wrested in this way
from its obvious significance. It should be construed in harmony with
the scope of the context. Note therefore, that its close connection
with the use of animals for the food of man and with the “requiring”
of human blood shed by the violence of beasts compel us to find here
precept and not prediction. Still more does the historic place of this
precept, standing upon the ruins of the old world and in the presence
of the yet unwasted bones of thousands whose wickedness had culminated
in such recklessness of human life that “the earth was filled with
violence.” In the presence of such gigantic iniquity, grown up under
the experiment of pardoning and not punishing the crime of murder and
giving unrestrained license to bloody passion, it was pertinent to
lay a new and more effectual foundation for maintaining the peace of
society and the sacredness of human life. The solemn lessons of the
past required, not a prediction of retributive vengeance under the
social law of self-preservation, but a divine precept demanding it and
enforcing it with its logical reason――that “God made man in his own
image.” You may take the life of the lower animals for no higher cause
than human sustenance――food for man’s wants;――but let no man put forth
his hand against the blood of man, for he bears the very “image of
God.”――――To make this new law the more solemnly impressive, man must
himself be the executioner of this divine behest――“_By man shall his
blood be shed._” Society itself must commit to some of its members this
solemn function and they must take the murderer’s life. Nothing less
can shield the life of man from bloody violence; nothing less will duly
honor God’s image in man.
* * * * *
2. _The prophecy of Noah._
In Gen. 9: 25–27 we have the first of those patriarchal utterances
of prophetic sort, in various strain――blessing and _not_ blessing――of
which several examples occur subsequently, as in the case of Jacob
(Gen. 49: 1–27); Moses (Deut. 33: 1–29). The form is thoroughly that
of Hebrew poetry――the brief parallelism of sentiment and language
being the prominent feature.――――The circumstances which called out
these prophetic words are given briefly in the narrative. Noah having
come forth from the ark soon commenced the culture of the vine and
experimented (unfortunately) in the free use of its wine. While he
lay overcome and personally exposed in his tent, his younger son Ham,
lost to all sense of filial duty, reported the sad spectacle. Shem and
Japheth, with filial pity and with the most delicate modesty, covered
his shame. When Noah awoke to consciousness and came to know what his
younger son had done unto him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of
servants shall he be to his brethren. Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem,
and let Canaan be servant to them. Let God enlarge Japheth, and let him
dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be servant to them.”――――It
had been previously said (v. 18), that “Ham was the father of Canaan.”
What part, if any, Canaan bore in this transaction, that the curse
apparently due to Ham should fall so specially on him, the narrative
does not say. The offense of Ham lay in the line of his relation as
a son. Perhaps it was for this reason that his punishment lay in the
humiliation of _his_ son. Be this as it may, the words were prophetic
of the future relations of the posterity of Canaan to the posterity
of both Shem and Japheth. The devoted nations of Canaan were terribly
exterminated by the Hebrew people, sons of Shem; the remnant (_e. g._
the Gibeonites) were made hewers of wood and drawers of water; and
in the age of Solomon, were subjected to the most severe labors. See
Josh. 9: 20–27, and 2 Chron. 2: 17, 18 and 1 Chron. 22: 2.
When Noah’s prophetic eye fell on Shem, the blessings that rose
to his view were too rich and grand for description. He could only
give utterance to his grateful emotions and thanksgivings in the
words――“Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem”! Blessed be Jehovah, the God
of the covenant with his professed people, the God of all blessings,
of ever-enduring love and faithfulness! What will he not do for
his chosen people, brought into relations to himself so near and so
dear!――――In this line the sweep of his prophetic eye took in the Hebrew
race――Abraham and the patriarchs; Moses and the pious kings and holy
prophets; and above all, the Great Messiah――to be born of David’s line
and to be the incarnation of God’s mercy to a lost world. No wonder his
soul was moved to devoutest adoration――Blessed be Jehovah who reveals
himself as the God of Shem!
Of Japheth he predicts enlargement in the sense of a numerous
offspring――“God shall enlarge,” _i. e. multiply_ “Japheth,” with a play
on the significance of his name which signifies _the enlarged one_. God
will verify his name and enlarge the enlarged son; in Hebrew phrase,
will _Japhetize_ Japheth.――――In the last clause of this verse, the
original leaves us in doubt whether the subject of the verb is God or
Japheth. Grammatically it might be either――God shall dwell, or Japheth
shall dwell, in the tents of Shem. In favor of making Japheth the
subject are these considerations:――(a.) The verse preceding gives the
prophetic destiny of Shem; this, of Japheth.――――(b.) The expression is
not altogether apposite when applied to God, for although God dwelt in
the Hebrew temple and dwells by his Spirit in the bodies of his people,
yet he is not elsewhere said to dwell _in the tents_ of his people. The
phrase leads the mind to such dwelling as may be said of men but is not
said of God.――――Applied to Japheth it had a most apposite and beautiful
fulfillment when the Gentile races of Japheth came in as proselytes to
the Hebrew communion, but far more when in the Christian age, the Jews
were broken off from the old stock that the Gentiles might be grafted
in, and they were; and may be almost said to have taken possession
of the deserted tents of Shem as their own through all the Christian
centuries to this hour. All Protestant Christendom is this day of
Japheth’s line, fully at home in the tents of Shem.
A very extraordinary case of the wresting of Scripture to make it
justify crime――so great a crime as the enslaving of men――is the attempt
to force from this prophecy concerning Canaan a vindication of the
enslaving of Africans by Americans. The wresting appears in these
two broad facts:――(a.) That the Africans were not Canaanites, and
therefore the prophecy said nothing about the negro race. Admitting for
argument’s sake that it justified the enslaving of Canaanites, it did
not in the least justify the enslaving of African negroes.――――(b.) If
the passage had named the African negro instead of the Canaanite, even
then a prediction _of what shall be_ might fall very far short of being
a command as to what man _ought to do_. Prophetic predictions of war
form not the least justification of war――fall utterly short of a divine
command enjoining man’s duty. Predictions of the Savior’s death could
never justify his murderers.
* * * * *
3. _The genealogy of the great historic nations._
In Gen. 10 the Bible for once departs from its usual method and gives
a chapter of _universal history_――the only one. Elsewhere it traces the
history of the one nation which had “the oracles of God,” and in later
ages, of the Christian church, touching the nations of the outside
world only as they come into relations to the seed of Abraham or to
the kingdom of Christ. But here we see the sons of Noah branching out
to people the countries of the great Eastern Continent and to found
the old historic nations of the earth.――――Japheth whom Prophecy was
to “_enlarge_” (Gen. 9: 27) furnished the tribes from which grew the
great nations of Northern and Eastern Asia and for the whole of Europe.
At first they occupied the maritime regions bordering on the Caspian,
Black and Mediterranean Seas, spoken of here as “the isles of the
Gentiles”――conforming to the Hebrew usage which called all maritime
countries “isles.”――――Next we have the sons of Ham, among whom were
Nimrod, the builder of Babel; Mizraim with his seven sons who himself
gave name to Egypt; Canaan whose posterity long held Palestine, and
several names which appear either in the cities or the tribes of the
valley of the Euphrates and of Arabia.――――Shem seems to have shared
with Ham the possession of the great fertile basin of the Euphrates and
the Tigris――the cradle of the race――together with portions of Arabia
and in general of South-western Asia.
It is a matter of some interest to know that this remarkable record
of the birth of the great nations of antiquity is perfectly sustained
by the universal history of all subsequent ages. Whether Chaldean
or Phenician, Egyptian or Arabian, Greek or Roman, Mongol or Tartar,
Indo-Germanic, Celtic, Belgic or Briton――all find the germ of their
nationality in this wonderful chapter, and all concur to swell and
substantiate the proof that the human race sprang from Noah and that we
have no occasion to look for pre-Adamic men or for tribes that escaped
the flood and have no pedigree among the sons of Noah. While it was
never the purpose of divine revelation to give to any great extent
the universal history of the race, it is proper to note that what
it does give bears the divine stamp of truth. All historic science
does it homage. All the light that comes up from the comparative
study of the languages of the race helps us still to follow the track
of the emigrating tribes as they diverged from the ancient home of
Noah’s family. The Science of Ethnography begins with this chapter of
inspiration, Gen. 10.
* * * * *
4. _Babel and the confusion of tongues._
Gen. 11: 1–9 records a very remarkable event, of far reaching
consequences toward the geographical diffusion of the race. Up to this
point there was but one language――as the record has it――“_one lip and
one set of words_,” “lip” being (perhaps) used for the mode of speaking,
including pronunciation and possibly inflection; while words are the
_matter_ of language, the roots or ground-forms. The fact that the
latter have been far less variable than the former, appearing to some
extent in all subsequent ages throughout all the diversities of human
tongues, favors this distinction.
Migrating from the Armenian hill country where the ark rested, Noah’s
posterity reached the fertile plain of Shinar, halted there, and set
themselves to the building of a magnificent and lofty tower. There
being no stone at hand, they prepared brick, not sun-dried after the
common Oriental method, but thoroughly burned for greater durability.
As both consequence and proof of this durability, the supposed ruins of
this great tower, known as “Birs Nimrood” [tower of Nimrod] are still
extant within the area of ancient Babylon, silently witnessing alike to
the labors of those fathers of the nations before their dispersion, and
to the truthfulness of this sacred record.
This tower was not built for safety in case of another flood (as some
have supposed) for, with such an object, a high mountain and not a
plain would have been chosen for the site; it could at best have saved
but few; and more than all, the record gives a very different view
of the motive. This motive was _consolidation_――the aggregation of
the masses into one vast nationality or kingdom――a thought due to the
ambition of some controlling minds aspiring to power, distinction,
fame. Foreseeing the tendency to dispersion they sought to forestall it,
to find their own glory in having a multitude under their sway and in
building monuments that could not perish. For wise reasons God blasted
this scheme. Precisely what divine influence was interposed to confound
the language of these men, I doubt if it is possible for us to know
certainly. It is supposable that the many became restive under the
domination of the few and the severe labor of this enterprise, so that
diverse counsels and dissolving social bonds had some influence in
blocking the progress of the work. Misunderstandings sprung up and
found expression in diversities of tongue. What could be more natural
when harmony gave place to discord? So this huge tower-building was
arrested and men scattered abroad as they would.――――The new tongues
which took their rise here had ample opportunity to diverge more and
more widely in subsequent ages. The immense variety in language which
the history of the world discloses has been a growth――the product
of subtle causes, of segregation and non-intercourse in part, and in
part also no doubt of diverse mental traits and various influences of
culture.
What the original language was, common to the race up to this point,
has been much debated by learned men without arriving at uniform and
satisfactory results. Whether it was, as some suppose, the veritable
Hebrew tongue; or as others think, the Aramaic, _i. e._ the Chaldee;
or whether it is utterly lost――these are the alternatives; but for
the choice between them we can have no very positive data. Those
descendants of Noah who best preserved the religious faith of the
fathers would stand most aloof from the scenes of Babel, and be
naturally least affected by its many-tongued controversies and its
resulting confusion of speech. That they escaped these influences
altogether is perhaps too much to assume.――――That the Aramaic (Chaldee)
tongue, closely allied to the Hebrew, held its place for ages in the
valley of the Euphrates, strongly favors its claim to be, if not the
very tongue of Noah, at least of the same family.――――These points
suggest probabilities but fall short of certainty.
CHAPTER X.
ABRAHAM.
ABRAHAM is one of the great men in the world’s religious history. Why
he is so can not be well understood and appreciated without at least
a brief view of the state of the world religiously considered at the
date of his call, and the demand thence resulting for the new religious
instrumentalities of which Abraham was in a sort “the head-center.”
In the age before the flood religion had never really flourished. We
read of a time when “men began to call on the name of the Lord,” and
something approximating toward system and concentration appears to
have been introduced. But the record is silent as to any marked result
except so far as it may appear in the piety of individual men, _e. g._
Enoch and Noah. Apparently the religious element failed even to hold
its own against the on-rushing tides of worldliness. Even the sons of
godly fathers formed unhallowed marriage connections, and consequently
were borne rapidly down the broad current of degeneracy and moral
corruption till only one family remained to represent the piety of all
that generation. There was a fatal lack of moral forces.――――The flood
was a vigorous moral lesson in itself; and besides this, the race
started afresh from the seed of this one pious family. Ten generations
bring us to Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees, near the old cradle of the
race. The history of religion during this period from Noah to Abraham
is exceedingly meager. Gathering up the few fragmentary notices which
emerge from the general darkness in the age of Abraham, we find that
his father’s family in ancient Ur “served other gods” (Josh. 24: 2);
that Abraham, journeying toward the south country of Palestine,
sojourned awhile in Gerar and was there drawn into grave temptation
by the apparent godlessness of the people, since he apologizes on this
wise for representing Sarah to be his sister and not his wife: “Because
I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will
slay me for my wife’s sake” (Gen. 20: 10, 11). The same temptation
befell him previously in Egypt (Gen. 12: 10–20)――probably indicating
the same inward thought based on the same apparent public morality.
Then we have the horrible wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah where not
ten righteous men could be found. And sad to say, we see a very low
tone of religious and moral life in the family even of Lot, who as the
nephew and special associate of Abraham should represent the better
elements of society.――――Akin to these special facts is the general one
that the personal history of Abraham through a full century of somewhat
extensive travels and various experience brings him into contact with
God-fearing men in only the single case of Melchizedek. Apart from this
one brief but wonderful interview (Gen. 14: 18–20) the recorded history
of Abraham gives the impression of a godly man working his way for the
most part _alone_, amid godless people on every hand――alone save as the
Lord testifies of him――“I know him that he will command his children
and his household after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord
to do justice and judgment” (Gen. 18: 19).――――The case of Melchizedek,
“a priest of the Most High God” and also “king of Salem”――a man so
venerable in piety, in personal presence apparently, in power and in
years, that even Abraham received his blessing and “gave him tithes of
all”――this is the one sole bright spot on the otherwise dark religious
life of the world as known through the history of Abraham. We marvel
that Abraham, so far as appears, never met Melchizedek before and
never saw him again. It seems strange that two such men, so kindred in
character and spirit, each almost alone breasting the strong currents
of prevailing wickedness, should not have formed at least an infant
Christian Association to stand by each other and bring their joint
light to a common focus in the midst of the world’s deep and far
spreading moral darkness. But God had a certain great plan to bring out
with Abraham and his own way of doing it. It is plain there was need
of this new plan. The cause of piety and truth was in peril and called
for some “new departure”――some yet untried method and power. The world
was waiting for some Abraham――_i. e._ for just the system of which
the great and godly Abraham was the prominent figure and the historic
representative.
* * * * *
The patent points in this new system, put in briefest words,
were――_Abraham the head_ of a great family; the _founder_ of a great
nation; the _representative_ of the family covenant and its first and
illustrious exemplar; the _progenitor_ of the Great, long-promised
Messiah; and coupled with his lineal posterity, the _repositories_
of God’s truth and promises――_his offspring_, the people with whom
God dwelt and was publicly worshiped for ages in the presence of the
idolatrous nations of the earth; over whom God became their visible
earthly Sovereign, their recognized King and God.――――Thus the Lord
laid the foundation for progressive manifestations of himself and for
a growing development of religious truth and of its legitimate forces
from age to age till the Messiah should appear.
* * * * *
Plainly we may recognize among the divine purposes in this new system,
1. In general――to conserve, concentrate, augment and perpetuate the
religious and moral forces of revealed truth.
2. In particular:
(1.) To utilize all the best elements of the family relation, turning
to fullest account parental care and affection and the facilities
furnished by nature to parents for the training and culture of their
offspring. The germinal idea of this great family covenant lies in the
promise, so often reiterated――“I will be a God to thee and to thy seed
after thee” (Gen. 17: 7, 10, 19). A marvellous wealth of significance
lies in these brief words; for what can be more rich and all-embracing
than this――“I will be a God to thee”――thy God; all that a God can
become to man made in his image; his loving Friend, his “Shield and
exceeding great reward”; his hope and joy and trust; and to crown all,
his glorious salvation! Surely this cup of blessings is rich and full
enough to meet the largest wants of any individual human heart. But
when man becomes a father――when woman becomes a mother――a new love is
born in the soul and new wants are thence begotten, for the parental
heart instinctively cries out as the heart of Abraham did――“O that
Ishmael might live before thee”! Even so――responds the great parental
heart of God――I know the heart of a parent; therefore I said “I will be
a God to thee _and to thy seed after thee_”; not to thee alone but to
thee, and also, not less, to thy beloved offspring besides.
* * * * *
The _one comprehensive condition_ for the fulfillment of this great
promise is briefly indicated in the case of Abraham, of whom God
said――“I know him that he will command his children and his household
after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and
judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath
spoken of him” (Gen. 18: 19). The Lord knew that Abraham would fulfill
the conditions so conscientiously and well that he could fulfill
his promise. The conditions are thus incidentally brought out――viz.
parental fidelity and authority; the early culture and training
of his household; consecration, the prayer and the faith which are
legitimately begotten of this covenant and naturally correlated
to it;――these are obviously the fitting conditions upon which the
fulfillment of this covenant on God’s part must depend.――――But, O, the
wealth of blessings garnered up within its bosom for those who walk in
the steps of Abraham with like precious faith and like godly nurture!
How wonderfully does piety become self-perpetuating in the family
line from generation to generation of those who take this covenant to
their inmost heart and find God in it ever faithful and ever true and
evermore “mighty to save” as he hath said!
Here, strange to say, some good men would thrust in a peremptory
limitation, asserting that this family covenant is Abrahamic and Jewish
only; good for them, but not good for the Christian age; good in the
national but not in the family sense and application thereof.――――But
what is the logic of such a limitation? Was the love of parent for
offspring lost out of the human heart at the coming of Christ? Or
did the Lord forget at that point how deeply he had implanted this
love in human bosoms? Or did he think that piety, under the improved
auspices of the gospel age, could thrive without the help of this
family covenant? Or did he reason thus――that the gospel age having
the advantage of the Jewish in so many points, could afford to forego
this family promise, and yet not on the whole fall below the Abrahamic
dispensation?――――Or in another point of view, looking at the evidence
rather historically than logically, it is claimed, as I understand the
argument, that Christ did not renew the promise――“A God to thee and
to thy seed after thee”; and therefore it did not pass over into the
gospel age.――――To which I reply; The real question is――not, Did Christ
_renew_? but, Did he _annul_? Did he say――I have come to make void
the law, not to fulfill? Did he say――That family covenant which the
patriarchs loved so dearly, in the faith of which they trained their
sons and daughters into the love and service of their fathers’ God, has
well done its work and can stand no longer? Did he labor to reconcile
the parental heart of his Jewish disciples――loving their dear little
ones so tenderly――to this sudden withdrawal of divine promise――to
this sore bereavement of hope and slaughter of faith? Was this what
he meant when he said; “Suffer the little children to come unto me
and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven”? Or was
this the meaning of Peter when in the first Pentecostal sermon he
proclaimed――“The promise (of the Holy Ghost) is to you _and to your
children_” (Ac. 2: 39)? Or could this have been the purpose of Paul
when he testified; “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed
and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3: 29)?――――The proof that
the gospel age ruled out the great family covenant is by no means
apparent.――――It should be considered that the covenant is one thing;
circumcision another. The covenant does not of necessity die because
circumcision is discontinued. The covenant existed before circumcision
and could be operative without it; indeed could live without any
visible sign or seal, if so the Lord pleased.――――Nor does the
perpetuity of this covenant turn on the proof that baptism takes in
all respects the place of circumcision. Whether it does fill the same
place or does not, the covenant standeth sure. There is value in an
external rite or seal――else God had never enjoined it. But it falls
exceedingly far short of being the thing of chief value.
Into the argument respecting the change from the old seal to a new one,
it is not in place here to enter.
This class of moral sentiments and social affections looks _forward_
in the line of human generations from parent to offspring. Another
class of no small value looks _back_ reverently, not to say proudly, to
_honored ancestors_. Here also Abraham’s name became a positive power
upon his posterity――not indeed of the very highest efficiency――not
altogether proof against being corrupted to the pampering of national
pride and even of personal self-righteousness, for bad men might learn
to say, “We have Abraham for our father.” Yet still it can not be
questioned that for long ages the name and history of Abraham bore the
precious savor of his faith and of his staunch fidelity as the servant
of the living God. It was the prestige of a name both great and good,
and served to perpetuate his piety among millions of his offspring.
In this direction all those qualities in Abraham which made him truly
great as well as eminently good become elements in this new scheme
for augmenting the spiritual and moral forces of God’s kingdom among
men.――――It can not be amiss, therefore, to linger here a moment and
study this wonderful man. Verily the Lord found the right man for his
purposes in Abram, then living in “Ur of the Chaldees.” He called him
to leave kindred (save the few who joined him in this migration); to
leave also all there was to him in country――the land of his fathers’
sepulchers; and travel several hundred miles to a strange unknown
land. Abram heard and recognized God’s voice; he bowed to his authority
and went. This first recorded illustration of his faith in God and
obedience made its impression upon future ages――as we may see in the
words of Joshua (24: 2, 3); of Nehemiah (9: 7, 8); of Stephen (Acts
7: 2–5); and of the writer to the Hebrews (11: 8–10)――which last may
be taken as a specimen of all. “By faith Abraham, when he was called to
go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance,
obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.”
Not a little might be said of many of the lesser yet really noble
qualities of Abraham’s character――how magnanimous he appears in his
bearing toward Lot (Gen. 13: 5–9); how dignified before the sons of
Heth (Gen. 23: 3–16); how hospitable in entertaining three strangers
who came up as he sat in his tent door in the heat of the day (Gen. 18:
1–16) when he “entertained angels unawares” (Heb. 13: 2); how humble,
reverent yet earnest in his intercession for Sodom (Gen. 18: 23–33);
how fearless, daring and wonderfully efficient in the rescue of Lot
from the plundering hordes of the East (Gen. 14: 13–24); how unselfish
in refusing to participate in the recovered booty:――but all these
qualities fade like stars before the sun when seen in the presence of
his wonderful faith and unflinching obedience to the commands of the
Lord his God.
The most signal manifestations of his faith and obedience cluster about
three several points in his history; viz. his call to go forth from his
ancestral home and country; his waiting twenty-five years for the birth
of his one son of promise; and the command to offer this only son in
sacrifice.
That first call revealed the man. It was but to hear God’s voice; and
forthwith he “conferred not with flesh and blood.” He seems not to
have paused a moment to question the Lord about the conditions, or to
consider the hardships; and he never “looked back.”
Next that promise of a son, standing so long unfulfilled; year by
year the human probabilities fading, dying out, till at length they
are utterly dead, and nothing remained save the naked promise! This
was indeed training Abraham’s faith _to wait_. Inasmuch as God’s
chosen plan of introducing the Messiah involved long ages of waiting
and trusting and living on simple promise, this was by no means a
profitless or uncalled for illustration of the nature, the value, and
the power of _faith_ as in man toward God.
High above either of these cases, in point of the fierceness of
the trial and the wonderful spirit of calm and steadfast faith
and endurance, stands the case of God’s command and his consent
to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22). The record puts this case in
the foreground as to _trial_: “God did tempt Abraham”――not in the
sinful sense――tempting to make him sin; but in a sense appropriate to
God――subject him to a terribly searching trial. First, God called him
by name “Abraham”! Then said――“Take now thy son, thine only son”――that
son of promise in whom all thy hopes and all thy heart’s affections
have been so long concentrated――that son “whom thou lovest”――take him
and go, far away three days’ journey to a mountain which I will point
out, and there “_offer him up for a burnt-offering_”!
Was Abraham shocked? Did he stagger under this stunning blow? Did he
pause to debate the matter with God? Did he beg that the awful agony
might be at least delayed till he could collect himself and prepare
for a trial so unexpected, so sudden, so terrible to bear? The record
gives no hint of any thing of the sort. Abraham had heard God’s voice
many times before and could not have had the first doubt as to its
identity. If the least doubt had crossed his mind he surely would have
said――“Lord, this seems so unlike Thee: Is it not Satan, thine enemy?
I can not move one step until I know of a certainty that this is thine
own voice.”――――But there was no relief in this direction. Yet we almost
instinctively ask――Did not Abraham expostulate? Did he not say――O my
Lord, this Isaac is the son of thine own promise, my only hope for
that great and long promised posterity; and what wilt thou do for _thy
truth_? Besides, the deed is so shocking, so revolting to a father’s
heart! Moreover, hast thou not said――“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by
man shall his blood be shed”? And what an example this will be before
all the tribes of the earth! How it will encourage them on to murder
their children in sacrifice to their gods!
We can readily make up what may seem to us very strong arguments
against obedience to such a command; but it does not appear that
Abraham whispered in his heart the first one of them. The only hint
we have of his deep thoughts in the case comes through the writer to
the Hebrew Christians――“Accounting that God was able to raise him up
even from the dead.” Plainly the Lord meant to show that his command
when made known unquestionably is to be obeyed without debate――with
no misgivings, no faltering, no fear. So Abraham moved firmly on,
saying not a word to Sarah, keeping his counsel even from his two
chosen servants and from his son; holding the strange secret in his
solitary――shall we say, _sad_ bosom?――――No; for there is not the first
note of sadness throughout this wonderful transaction. Look at those
three days of ongoing journey. Ah, was not this a long time to think
over the strange deed! And those intervening nights――was there any
sleep to his eyes while this terrible suspense lay still between the
command and its execution?――――So far as appears Abraham moved on with
unshaken fortitude and undisturbed calmness. Certain it is that he
never lost his self-possession, for he continued to plan carefully
and even sharply against disturbing influences. He could not trust his
servants to stand by; so he halted them at a distance back from the
scene. He kept the awful secret from his son Isaac until he had him
bound and laid on the altar and the uplifted blade was ready to fall!
This was the obedience of faith! The wonderful illustration stands
out before all the ages with God’s seal of approbation broadly stamped
upon it.――――When the trial had fully reached its culminating point
and no room remained for doubt that Abraham would obey God at every
cost, fearless of consequences, or rather committing all consequences
to his God, then God’s angel interposed! A ram was provided for the
sacrifice and the son of promise went back to a more happy home with
a more happy father, doubly blessed in the renewed approbation of his
covenant-keeping God. No wonder that God proceeded then to make that
covenant stronger and broader and richer than ever before! No wonder
Abraham stamped into the very name of this ever memorable locality one
of the grand moral lessons of the scene――“Jehovah Jireh”――_In the mount
of the Lord, himself will provide!_ When you come to the mount of last
and utmost emergency, the Lord will have salvation ready! His angel
will appear; the ram of sacrifice will be there; and Isaac may go in
peace!
* * * * *
According to the common law of Christian experience, God’s methods
with Abraham were _progressive_; his manifestations of himself moved on
by successive stages; much this year but more the next; so much indeed
at the first that it must have seemed to the good man very great, but
more and greater were yet to come. The successive epochs at which God
appeared to Abraham to talk with him of the great covenant are very
distinctly marked in the history――of such sort as many a Christian
might record in his own personal life-history.
1. In the outset of Abraham’s history is that eventful _call_ which
brought him out from “Ur of the Chaldees,” the narrative of which
stands Gen. 12: 1–3. In the promise made to him then the leading
points were――“I will make thy name great”; “I will make of thee a great
nation”; “thou shalt be a blessing and in thee shall all the families
of the earth be blessed”; I will stand by thee to bless all who bless
thee and to curse whosoever may curse thee.――――This must have raised in
Abram’s mind large expectations and assured him that Jehovah was indeed
his own God.
2. Immediately after Abram’s arrival in Canaan (Gen. 12: 7) the Lord
appeared to him specially to identify that as _the_ land which he had
promised (Gen. 12: 1) to show him and to give to his posterity. There,
as in each new home, Abram built an altar and in devout worship called
on the name of the Lord who had thus appeared to him.
3. Next, after his magnanimous bearing toward Lot (13: 7–9, 14–18) in
which he seemed ready to waive all claim to any territory Lot might
choose to occupy. The Lord bade him lift up his eyes toward every
point of the compass, all round about and reiterated his grant of the
whole――“All the land which thou seest to thee will I give it and to thy
seed forever.” Also, that his seed should be as the dust of the earth.
His generous magnanimity toward Lot in nowise damaged his standing with
God or his rights in the goodly land of promise.
4. A yet richer scene of divine manifestation followed Abram’s rescue
of Lot from the plundering horde of the great Eastern kings (Gen. 15).
The first words were significant and precious: “Fear not, Abram; I
am thy shield and thine exceeding great reward.” Abram knew enough
of human nature and of the resentful, lawless spirit of those warlike
kings to see that he was exposed to their vengeance and that they might
return any day with more military force than his household could muster.
It was therefore at once timely and kind in the Lord to meet him at
this point with this comforting assurance: “Fear not; I am thy shield”;
I stand between thee and those vengeful foes: my strong arm shall be
a wall of fire round about thee. Moreover Abram had nobly refused to
appropriate to his personal use even a thread or a shoe-latchet of the
booty brought back from his routed enemies――whereupon the Lord said,
“I will be thine exceeding great reward.”――――Truly when a man’s ways
please the Lord, he not only keeps his enemies at peace with him but
makes all things go well.――――On this re-appearance the Lord promised
him a son more distinctly than ever before, and posterity as the
stars in number. Here it is said definitely――“Abraham believed God and
God counted it to him for righteousness.” His faith pleased God, and
because of it, God accepted him and he stood as one who is “_all right_
before God.”――――Remarkably the Lord at this time identified himself to
Abraham as the same God who had appeared to him in his fatherland and
called him forth into Canaan and said, This is the very land I then
promised to give thee; to which Abraham replied (v. 8), “Whereby shall
I know that I shall inherit it”? At once the Lord proceeded to ratify
his covenant in the usual Oriental manner. A heifer, a she-goat and
a ram――one from each species commonly used in sacrifice――are brought
forward; each is cut into two parts; the parts are laid asunder; a
turtle-dove and a young pigeon, also used for sacrifice in certain
contingencies, were added but not cut in two. Then when night came on,
a deep sleep fell upon Abraham and the Lord gave him in vision certain
prophetic views of his posterity; and ratified the covenant by passing
(in the symbol of fire and smoke) between the severed parts of the
sacrificial animals. Of this method of ratifying covenants we have
historical traces in Jer. 34: 18–20. We have also early and decisive
indications of the same mode in the fact that at least in the Hebrew,
Greek and Latin tongues the word for ratifying a covenant means
primarily to _cut_. The phrase is, _to cut a covenant_. The prominent
thing in the transaction was the cutting of the animal in twain that
the contracting parties might pass solemnly between the parts of it. It
seems to be assumed that the contracting parties virtually imprecated
upon themselves a like doom if they proved faithless to their covenant.
5. At the next eventful appearance Abraham had been waiting in
faith for the son of promise a quarter of a century and was perhaps
tempted to think the fulfillment fast becoming impossible. Pertinently
therefore the first words of the Lord were――“_I am the Almighty God!_
Walk before me and be thou perfect”; fear nothing; my covenant stands
fast. I will multiply thee exceedingly! Abraham fell on his face and
God talked with him, reiterating his promise of posterity, giving
unwonted prominence to the family feature of his covenant――“a God
to thee and to thy seed after thee”――and instituting the rite of
circumcision.
6. The sixth and last recorded appearance followed the triumph of
Abraham’s faith in the sacrifice of his only son. In this the Lord
re-affirmed the great elements of his promise――posterity as the stars
of heaven; triumphant over their enemies; a blessing to all the nations
of the earth.――――Thus at successive and somewhat remote intervals and
mostly on special occasions the Lord manifested himself to his servant
to confirm his faith, to enlarge the range of promise and to signify
his pleasure in the obedient trustful life of his friend.
Such is the religious history of Abraham as related to his covenant
God. Corresponding to this is the history of his posterity, the Hebrew
nation. To them as to their patriarchal father God manifested himself
through long ages, at successive points, _e. g._ in their Egypt life;
in his uplifted arm over Pharaoh to bring them forth in the memorable
Exodus; at the Red Sea; at Sinai; all through their wilderness life;
at the Jordan crossing; in the conquest of Canaan, and onward, onward,
till the coming at length of that greater Seed of Abraham in whom most
signally were all the nations of the earth to be blessed. But to the
details of this latter history we must give more definite attention in
their place and order.
* * * * *
One other special feature in the great covenant with Abraham should be
noticed.
In many respects this covenant made Abraham and his posterity a
peculiar people, discriminating broadly between them and every other
nation, and accumulating the blessings of God upon them in no stinted
measure. It might be apprehended that such exclusiveness would beget
bigotry, national pride and self-righteousness; but, with wisest
forethought, the Lord put into this covenant one counteracting element
of great power, viz. that _he ordained them to be a blessing to all the
nations of the earth_. “In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations
of the earth be blessed.” It was never the thought of God that the
Hebrew people should live to themselves and for themselves――should
garner their own store-house full of heavenly blessings and leave
all other peoples to shift for themselves as best they might. No;
God’s plan contemplated the culture in their souls of the broadest
benevolence, and this, pressed into service by a sense of largest
responsibility to meet the revealed purposes of God as to their work.
Into this great system which made them his peculiar people, he put,
openly and clearly, the germinal idea of a salvation to be provided for
the wide world――this covenant people to be the almoners of all these
blessings to the otherwise benighted and perishing nations. Properly
understood and duly regarded, this germinal idea would have developed
in their hearts and lives the true missionary spirit, would have given
at once both breadth and depth to their piety, would have made them
feel that God had great thoughts of mercy for the whole race of man,
and had honored them as his ministers in giving this salvation to every
creature. At the very least here was opened a thoroughly rich field for
prayer, the broadest scope for real sympathy with the benevolence of
the Great Father of all the nations and a powerful antidote against the
narrow exclusiveness which might otherwise have shrunk and shriveled
their piety and narrowed their aspirations to themselves and their
land. How often in the heart of the good men of later times――the men
like Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah,――must the kindling thought have been
sprung by this great germinal promise――_When shall these things be?_
When shall the full fruitage of these great promises be realized? What
have we to do to hasten the coming of that sublime consummation?
* * * * *
It remains to speak more definitely of the promises made to Abraham _as
including the great Messiah_.
In this as in most other Messianic prophecies, the argument is
threefold;
(1) The language obviously _admits_ the Messiah, _i. e._ may be
construed without violence to apply to him, or at least to _include_
him:
(2) Its meaning is so broad that it _must_ include him; the blessings
are too great to be supposed possible without him――apart from him: and
(3) The inspired writers of the New Testament found the Messiah in this
prophecy.
The substance of the prophecy is in the words――“In thy seed shall all
the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 22: 18 and 26: 4). Beyond
question this _may_ include the Messiah as the author of these really
universal blessings――blessings for all the nations of the earth. Nay
more; the blessings are too great, too broad, too far reaching to admit
any supposable interpretation short of the Messiah and the gospel age.
Historically no fulfillment less broad than the Christian can possibly
be made out. In Christ and in him only can this prediction be fulfilled.
And to crown all, our Lord himself testifies; “Your father Abraham
rejoiced to see my day; and _he saw it and was glad_” (Jno. 8: 56). It
may be noticed that the word used by our Lord was not _me_, my person;
but “my _day_”――the gospel age; the great events of it; the wonderful
results of my coming――which is no doubt the exact truth. It was rather
what was to be achieved by Christ in the way of blessings upon all
the nations than what lay in Christ’s _person_ definitely that Abraham
prophetically saw.
Paul adds his testimony that these words refer to Christ;
(a.) Affirming (Gal. 3: 8)――“The Scripture, foreseeing that God would
justify the nations [‘heathen’] through faith, preached before the
gospel to Abraham, saying, ‘In thee shall all nations be blessed.’”
“Preached before” is simply predicted, revealed by prophecy, with the
accessory idea that the thing revealed was the gospel, the news of
salvation.――――(b.) To show that in his view the burden and fullness
of this prophecy are Christ and nothing less or other than Christ, he
says in this connection (v. 16); “Now to Abraham and to his seed were
the promises made. He saith not――And to _seeds_ as of many, but as of
one――And to thy _seed_, which is Christ.”
Waiving any special effort to justify Paul’s argument from the singular
number of the word “seed,” his testimony is certainly valid to the
point for which I have adduced it, viz. that Paul saw Christ in this
prophecy. How much soever the principles of exegesis may reluctate,
they certainly will not deny that he interprets the prophecy concerning
Christ. Their complaint would be that he ties it down to Christ too
exclusively.
It must be held therefore that the promises made to Abraham really
include a prophecy of Christ. We could not infer from the record in
Genesis how well Abraham understood the reference to the Messiah. But
the allusions to this point in the New Testament give us light, our
Savior most distinctly declaring――Abraham rejoiced that he might see
my day; _he saw it_――with great joy. The writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, speaking of Abraham and the patriarchs as not having received
the promised blessings but as seeing them from afar and embracing them,
has in mind specially their faith in the promised heavenly city (Heb.
11: 10, 13, 14, 16), yet not to the exclusion of him who prepares those
mansions for his people (Jno. 14: 2, 3). His testimony is in point to
show that Abraham looked beyond the earthly side of those blessings to
the heavenly; rested not in the earthly Canaan, not in the multitude of
his lineal sons and daughters; but reached out beyond these to the city
that hath eternal foundations and to the blessings of the Great Messiah,
good for all the nations of the earth. The nearer and lesser blessings
had a power of suggestion, lifting his thought to the more remote and
greater. A man who talked with God so intimately can not be supposed
to have missed these grand ideas of the gospel age and of the heavenly
state which we are sometimes wont to regard as the special, not to say
exclusive, revelations of the New Testament.
_Sodom and Gomorrah._
Involved in this history of Abraham, there occurs this ever memorable
case of sudden and most fearful judgment upon the ungodly in this
world――the overthrow of the cities of the plain. Sodom and Gomorrah
only are mentioned by name in Gen. 13: 10 and 19: 24, 28); in several
cases for brevity, Sodom only; but Moses (Deut. 20: 23) and Hosea
(11: 8) speak of Admah and Zeboim as also overthrown. These were
contiguous and (in Gen. 14: 2) confederate cities. The narrative
sets forth their appalling and absolutely universal wickedness. Other
references suggest the causes or occasions (Ezek. 16: 49, 50), and
intimate that the better life and the reproving testimony of Lot were
powerless (2 Pet. 2: 7, 8).
The narrative also makes prominent the immediate agency of God in this
destruction. “The Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and
brimstone from the Lord out of heaven” (Gen. 19: 24). “When Abraham
looked toward Sodom and all the land of the plain, lo, the smoke of
the country went up as the smoke of a great furnace” (v. 28).
The case became for all future time a standard illustration of God’s
most sudden, fearful and utter destruction of the wicked. (See Deut.
29: 23 and Isa. 13: 19 and Jer. 20: 16 and 50: 40 and Amos. 4: 11 and
2 Pet. 2: 6 and Jude 7.) It classes itself naturally with the deluge of
Noah’s time and with the fall of Pharaoh’s host in the Red Sea, and the
swallowing up of Korah and his company in the wilderness――all combining
to show that God never lacks the means or the power to begin his
threatened retribution upon the wicked here in time whenever he deems
it wise for the moral ends of warning.
The question of secondary agencies is of altogether secondary
importance. It may well suffice us that _God’s hand was there_. It
matters but little whether he made use of the agencies of the natural
world――lightning and the combustible materials of that locality,
or otherwise. That these natural agencies were employed is perhaps
probable.――――The locality of those cities is undoubtedly identified,
viz. at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, now and for many ages
submerged though in quite shallow water. The adjacent soil affords
bitumen and other inflammable substances in abundance, indicating
with great probability that a prodigious discharge of electricity
ignited the whole region, fire from the Lord out of heaven gleaming and
crashing; the atmosphere all ablaze with flames and the very ground on
which the city stood burning with terrible fury. It might seem that the
deep moral pollutions of its people had doomed that vast plain to be
first purified by fire and then sunk from human view for all the coming
ages by its subsidence beneath the waters of the Dead Sea.――――In view
of this appalling scene, how terribly significant become the words of
Jude――“Set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal
fire”! How easily and yet how fearfully can the Almighty execute the
judgments written against guilty sinners who scorn his words of warning
and dare his vengeance!
“_The Angel of the Lord._”
Cases occur in Old Testament history in which the Lord appears in
visible form and is called interchangeably “the Lord” and “the Angel
of the Lord.” See the personal history of Hagar (Gen. 16: 7, 13); of
Abraham (Gen. 18: 2, 16, 33 and 22: 11, 15–18); of Jacob (Gen. 31:
11–13, 16); of Moses (Exod. 3: 2, 4, 6, 7, etc., and 23: 20–23); of
Gideon (Judg. 6: 11, 12, 14, 20–23) and of Manoah (Judg. 13: 18, 22).
The term “angel” means in general a messenger; but is manifestly
applied and therefore is applicable to the visible manifestations of
God himself, supposably of the second person of the Godhead, _i. e._
God as made manifest to mortals. The cases above referred to are
entirely decisive as to the usage of the phrase, “The Angel of the
Lord” in some cases (not relatively many) to denote the very Presence
of the Lord himself coming down to reveal himself to his people. In Gen.
18: first three men appear before Abraham; he entertains them. Two of
them go on toward Sodom; one remains talking with Abraham. It is said
“Abraham stood yet before the Lord”; then drew near and offered that
remarkable prayer of intercession for Sodom; after which “the Lord went
his way and Abraham returned to his place.”――――In Gen. 22, when Abraham
had stretched forth his hand to slay his son, “the angel of the Lord
called to him out of heaven.” Shortly after (vs. 15–18) “the angel of
the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time and said, By
myself have I sworn, saith the Lord; etc.... Because thou hast obeyed
my voice.” This can be no other than the very God.――――The passages
above referred to from the history of Moses are striking. In Exod. 23:
20–23 we read: “Behold I send an angel before thee to keep thee in the
way and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. _Beware
of him_” (_i. e._ not to offend him) “and obey his voice; provoke him
not; for he will not pardon your transgressions, for _my name is in
him_”――name, as usual in the sense of the very qualities of character
of which the name is a significant indication.
CHAPTER XI.
THE PATRIARCHS.
_Isaac._
THE story of Isaac is brief; his life uneventful, perhaps we might
say monotonous. The record shows that the Lord appeared to him on two
distinct occasions; at Gerar (Gen. 26: 2–5), renewing the covenant
previously made with Abraham, with a very full restatement of all its
salient points; also at Beersheba (26: 23–25) where we are told “he
builded an altar and called on the name of the Lord,” in the steps
of his godly father.――――We see a point of his character in the fact
stated incidentally, that Esau’s marriage into Hittite families “was
a grief of mind to Isaac and to Rebekah.” Esau lacked sympathy with
the spirit of the pious patriarchs and utterly failed to appreciate
the inheritance of blessings which had lain so near the heart of his
grandfather Abraham and of his father Isaac――facts which the historian
touches briefly――“Thus Esau despised his birthright.” The writer to the
Hebrews puts the case forcibly: “Who for one morsel of meat sold his
birthright” (12: 16).――――We have no means of knowing how persistently
and wisely Rebekah had labored to win and hold him by her maternal
opportunities and power. In later years she seems to have withdrawn
her heart from him to give it (with apparently extreme partiality) to
Jacob.――――Of her duplicity in the matter of the paternal blessing, it
can scarcely be necessary to say that the fact of its being recorded by
no means proves that the Lord justified it. Indeed the absence of any
explicit condemnation can not be taken as equivalent to a justification.
Jacob’s exile from his father’s house and home for twenty long
years――so manifestly the result of this duplicity――must have been to
her mind painfully suggestive. It seems plainly to have been one of
God’s ways in providence to rebuke and chasten her for this wrong,
and perhaps we may add, to save Jacob’s soul by removing him from
a maternal influence which was so defective――not to say faulty and
pernicious.
As to Isaac, one point only is named of him by the writer to the
Hebrews in his catalogue of illustrious examples of faith: “By faith
Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come” (11: 20).
These benedictions (recorded Gen. 27: 28, 29, 33, 37, 39, 40) must
be regarded as far more than a venerable father’s good wishes――indeed
as nothing less than prophetic benedictions――words uttered under the
divine impulses of the Holy Ghost. Their broad outlook embraced the
great outlines of the future history of the two nations that were
before him in the person of his two sons.
_Jacob._
In Jacob’s history there is no lack of stirring incident and critical
exigency; in his character, no lack of positive elements and vigorous
force. _Bethel_ where he seems to have found God first; _Mahanaim_
where the double hosts of God met him and the murderous rage of Esau
threatened every precious life in all his household, and he found help
only as he wrestled with the angel of the covenant till he prevailed;
the scenes of his sojourning in _Canaan_ where Joseph first comes to
view, envied and hated of his brethren, and his father mourned for him
many days as dead; and finally _Goshen_ where the aged patriarch found
his lost Joseph yet alive and lord of all Egypt; stood before Pharaoh;
saw his sons and sons’ sons――a growing host; gave them his blessing
and was gathered to his fathers:――surely these salient points of his
history indicate no lack of adventure, and in the religious point of
view, abundant scenes of moral trial――exigencies that tasked his virtue
and endurance, his faith and patience, and in the end brought forth his
chastened soul purified by the discipline of suffering and strong in
the faith of Abraham’s God.
To understand well the scenes of Bethel, we must think of a young man,
emerging from boyhood――his fond mother’s chief beloved――not to say, her
pet boy――never yet thrown upon his own resources; an heir to wealth;
a child of ease――perhaps of maternal indulgence;――but now suddenly
brought into peril of life from his twin brother’s indignant rage and
violence. It would be so horrible to the mother to see her Jacob slain
by his own brother’s hand and to “lose them both in one day”! (Gen.
27: 45). Safety seemed to be only in flight, so she must needs send him
secretly to the distant land of her birth――the old maternal family home.
Therefore, with many a pang of heart, and (let us hope) with many a
prayer, she commended him to the God of the covenant and sent him away.
One day of thoughtful travel had passed slowly over Jacob, his mind
traversing by many rapid transitions from the home he had left behind
to the new scenes that met his eye; from the brother before whose fury
he was fleeing, to the unknown experiences of life among friends he had
never seen. At last the sun had gone down; the eye had nothing more to
see; weariness called for rest and sleep. With a stone for his pillow,
with his tunic wrapt about him, and the broad heavens above for his
canopy, he slept and dreamed――dreamed of a ladder with its foot on
the earth beside him and its top in the heavens; and wonderful to
see! the angels of God descending and ascending upon it! A new sense
of communication between earth and heaven came upon him, assuming a
strange reality when he saw the Lord standing above it and heard him
say, “I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father and the God of Isaac.”
Before this Jacob had heard of that wonderful covenant of God so often
ratified with his venerable grandfather and his father. The transfer
of blessing from Isaac to himself as the lineal heir of both birthright
and blessing was a thing of quite recent experience. How fully he had
comprehended its glorious significance before does not appear; but now
that he is cast out alone upon the wide, unknown world――now that he so
much needs the Great God for his friend――it comes over him with solemn,
precious interest. The words spoken were full of comfort. They reminded
him of the great family promise to Abraham, renewed to his father Isaac:
“A God to thee and _to thy seed after thee_,” and he felt that the
promise put its finger upon his own aching, solitary heart. He had a
fresh assurance that his life would not come to nought and be a failure,
for the Lord said: “The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give
it and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and
thou shalt spread abroad to the West and to the East; to the North and
to the South; and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the
earth be blessed.” And lest these blessings might seem too remote to
meet his sense of present peril and need, the Lord kindly added――“And
behold I am with thee and will keep thee in all places whither thou
goest, and will bring thee again to this land; for I will not leave
thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.” How deeply
these scenes and words impressed the soul of the youthful Jacob is
apparent in the few words which fell from his lips when he came to the
full consciousness of wakeful life. “Surely the Lord is in this place,
and I knew it not”! I had not thought to meet God _here_ and to meet
him _so_! I thought I was utterly alone but lo! _God is here!_――――We
must suppose that Jacob had never been so near to God before. Such a
meeting with the Majesty of heaven was new to his experience, and a
sense of solemn awe――of reverence amounting to fear, came upon him:――as
the record is, “he was afraid and said, How dreadful is this place!
This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of
heaven.” The ladder stretching upward, its foot resting beside him
and its top in the heavens, the open door far in the sky through which
the angels seemed to come and go; the voice of the Lord himself and
withal uttering such words――ah indeed, the whole effect was as if
God and heaven had truly dropped down upon him, and this was God’s
dwelling-place and heaven’s door was there!
The scene was entirely too precious to be suffered to pass into
oblivion; so Jacob’s thought turned to some memorial of the scene and
to a moral adjustment of his future life to this heavenly call. First,
he took the stone which had served him for a pillow and set it up for
a _pillar_ and poured oil upon the top of it――a sacred unction.――――To
the place he gave the significant name “Bethel”――house of God――by which
it was ever after known. Then, by a solemn vow, he gave himself to
the Lord who had thus called and comforted him with promise. We read,
“Jacob vowed a vow, saying, ‘If God will be with me and will keep me
in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and raiment to put
on so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then shall the
Lord be my God, and this stone which I have set for a pillar shall be
God’s house; and of all that thou shalt give me, I will surely give the
tenth unto thee.’”――――If we press the word “_if_” at the head of this
sentence so as to make it thoroughly conditional, and withal suggesting
some shades of doubt whether God would prove faithful, we shall wrong
Jacob, imputing to him what manifestly he could not have meant. His
words must be taken thus:――_Inasmuch as_ God has so kindly promised
to be with me in all my otherwise doubtful way, and to bring me back
despite of all peril to my father’s house again, I accept him as in
very deed my God; and out of all my accumulated wealth, I will surely
give one tenth to him.――――The spirit is that of one drawn by God’s
promised mercy――not of one who stands in grave doubt whether God will
come up to the full height of his promise. These are the words of one
who has _no_ doubt on that point and who refers to that promise only
to say that because of it, under the joyful assurance of it, he gives
himself to God in full, prompt, and perpetual consecration. A reverent
soul brought so near to God, impressed with a sense that heaven and
God are verily here, does not tempt and provoke God by expressing the
fear that he will not prove faithful to his promises!――――Late into the
morning Jacob lingered in this hallowed spot as one loth to close such
an interview with God and break the charm of such sacred associations.
And when at length he must go on his journey, it was with far other
heart than in his solitary journey of the day before.
* * * * *
Of the scenes of his sojourn at Haran there is no occasion to speak
particularly. Perhaps the deception in which his mother and himself
were the responsible parties came up fresh and clear to him when he
found that Laban had taken similar liberties with him, giving him Leah
when Rachel was in the bond. A man never gets so sharp and keen a sense
of the wrong of these little deceptions as when he becomes the victim
and the sting goes deep into his own bosom. This is sometimes the
Lord’s way to testify his disapprobation of this wrong and to impress
his own view of it upon those who may have sinfully indulged in it.
_Mahanaim._
The second great exigency of Jacob’s life has its record in Gen. 32.
Twenty years have passed away in Haran; he has wives, children, and
ample substance of cattle, sheep, camels. Indeed all his children
except Benjamin are now about him. Not feeling at home longer with
Laban; remembering the Lord’s promise to give Canaan to him and to his
children; mindful moreover of the scenes of Bethel, and we may hope,
somewhat fearful lest the household gods which were dangerously near
the heart of Laban, might be a snare to his wives and children, he
fully makes up his mind to return to Canaan.
At some point on this return journey, (as the narrative states
rather abruptly), the angels of God met him. Jacob saw them and said,
“This is God’s host”――a convoy――a kind of military guard, the demand
for which presently appeared. He gave name to the place from the
fact――“Mahanaim”――the double camps or hosts. They seem to have been an
intimation to him that danger was near, and that God’s hosts were near
also for his rescue.
On his way back to Canaan, and consequently approaching the residence
of Esau in the land of Seir, Jacob is fully aware that his coming must
be known to Esau, and therefore he sends messengers to him for the
purpose of conciliating his good will. These messengers soon returned
to Jacob, saying; “We came to thy brother Esau, and also he cometh
to meet thee and four hundred men with him.” In an instant Jacob
comprehends the situation and sees his danger. Those four hundred
men are led on by Esau with no peaceful purpose. The lapse of twenty
years has not sufficed to quench the fire of his wrath and to revive
fraternal affection. Still unforgiving he comes on “breathing out
threatening and slaughter,” exhibiting identically the same character
which he impressed on his posterity and which manifested itself in
the vindictiveness of the Edomites at the fall of Jerusalem before the
Chaldean power. Amos (1: 11, 12) and Obadiah (vs. 10–16) represent this
vindictiveness against the posterity of his brother Jacob as the ground
and reason of God’s overwhelming judgments on their nation and land.
“Because he did pursue his brother with the sword and did cast off all
pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he nursed his wrath for
ever.”――――Such was the bearing of his nation toward the sons of Jacob
in the day of Jerusalem’s fall; and with this same spirit he is coming,
at the point of his history now before us, to cut off Jacob’s powerless
family.――――With admirable self-possession and wisdom, Jacob laid his
plans promptly――first, to divide his train into two parts, placing
one at some distance in advance of the other, so that if the front
column were attacked, the rear might stand some chance of escape: and
secondly, to send forward a valuable present to Esau;――“two hundred
goats; two hundred ewes and twenty rams; thirty milch camels with their
colts; forty kine; ten bulls; twenty she-asses and ten foals” (Gen.
32: 13–15)――enough at least to arrest Esau’s attention and perhaps
to soothe his spirit toward his brother. These he sent forward with
fitting words of conciliation:――but by far the most vital measure
of relief yet remained――_prayer to the Great God of the covenant_.
Vs. 9–12 record the words of this prayer, apparently as offered to
God in the first moments after the messengers returned and apprised
him of his danger. The prudential arrangements above named followed,
occupying the morning hours of the day. When night came on Jacob was
left alone save that the Lord came down in form as a man――the angel
of the covenant――and a scene of struggling, wrestling prayer ensued
which ceased not till the dawn of the morning. As the narrative has
it; “Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled a man with him until the
break of day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he
touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was
out of joint as he wrestled with him. And he [the angel-man] said, Let
me go, for the day breaketh. And he [Jacob] replied――I will not let
thee go except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name?
And he said, Jacob. And he said――Thy name shall no more be called Jacob,
but Israel; for as a Prince hast thou power with God and hast prevailed.
And Jacob asked him and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name; and he
said――Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed
him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, for I have
seen God face to face and my life is preserved.”
What we may call the costume, the purely external _forms_ of this
scene, are striking, peculiar, but thoroughly significant. In view
of the circumstances, there can not be the least doubt that, mentally,
spiritually,――_this is a scene of prayer_――nothing else, less or more.
The prayer is a struggle of soul on the part of the suppliant. He
is in trouble; he is shut up to God alone for help; and he feels that
_he can not be denied_. The scene of the wrestling must imply that God
debates this matter with the suppliant Jacob, apparently resisting,
contending,――certainly delaying, and prolonging the conflict hour after
hour of the live-long night till break of day. Seeing that he prevailed
not to silence Jacob’s supplication, _i. e._ to break his hold as
a wrestler, he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh, crippling the
wrestler seriously, yet leaving his arms with strength unimpaired
to hold fast his antagonist. Then as if to test Jacob’s faith and
endurance to the utmost, he said――“Let me go, for the day breaketh;”
to which Jacob replied――“I will not let thee go except thou bless me.”
Jacob as a wrestler with one thigh out of joint had become powerless
to cast his opponent; but with his arms in their full strength he could
_hold on_――and he did. The culminating point in the struggle is reached
in these remarkable words; “I will not let thee go except thou bless
me.” I can not be denied. I have thy promise: it touches this very
case――protection and succor till I return to my country; and I can
not let go my hold. I must have help now, or perish!――――The change of
name is richly significant. Jacob, _i. e._ supplanter, suggested the
deception by which he obtained from his blind father the blessing; but
with it came the rage of his brother and this present peril to himself
and to his great family. “Israel” means _a prince with God_――one who
has prevailed in the struggle of prayer and obtained the blessing
he sought. The change of name thus indicates the change in Jacob’s
relations to God and to Esau which followed his victory in this
prayer-struggle.
But what is the significance of this example? What was really the
animus of this conflict? what the reason for it; what the point in
debate, and what the great moral lessons which it teaches?
Our data for the answer to these questions must come from one or both
of two sources:
(a.) _The circumstances of the present case_;
(b.) _The principles of God’s spiritual administration_ of grace to his
people in connection with prayer.
(a) As to the circumstances of the present case:――The covenant of God
with Jacob is very definite. Jacob understands and manifestly pleads it,
as we see in this chapter. These are his words as recorded: “O God of
my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac”――the Lord [the _Jehovah_,
signifying the faithful God of his people] “who saidst to me, Return
unto thy country and to thy kindred and I will deal well with thee:
I am not worthy of the least of all thy mercies and of all thy truth
which thou hast showed unto thy servant; for with my staff I passed
over this Jordan, and now I am become two bands. Deliver me, I pray
thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear
him, lest he will come and smite me and the mother with the children.
And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good and make thy seed as the
sand of the sea which can not be numbered for multitude.”――――It should
be noted that the promise in this covenant precisely meets Jacob’s
present emergency――“Return and I will deal well with thee: thou saidst,
I will surely do thee good and make thy seed as the sand of the sea.”
These points fully covered his present danger. Jacob doubtless had in
mind the very explicit terms of this covenant as announced to him at
Bethel: “I am with thee and will keep thee in all places whither thou
goest and _will bring thee again to this land_; for I will not leave
thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.” There
is therefore no room for mistake on this point. The Lord’s promise to
Jacob is explicit, and in its terms guarantees perfect protection in
his present peril. Why, then, it will be asked, was this night-long
struggle?
We may find some light toward the answer if we remember that every
promise of God to man must in the nature of the case _imply certain
conditions_; and the promise in this covenant equally with all other
promises. “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.”
“Ye ask and receive not because ye ask amiss.”――――As bearing on this
very covenant let us recall the ground of the Lord’s confidence that
he should be able to fulfill his words to Abraham: “I know him that he
will command his children and his household after him, and they shall
keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment, _that the Lord may
bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him_.”――――Now it will
be in point to consider that these scenes of danger from Esau’s rage
inevitably brought up between the Lord and Jacob the question whether
the deception practiced upon Isaac to transfer to Jacob the blessing
which legitimately fell to Esau could be passed over by the Lord
without rebuke. Was it proper that the Lord should endorse it with no
rebuke whatever? If he were ever to bear his protest against it, the
present was the time.――――Yet further, the fact had but recently come
to Jacob’s knowledge that his favorite Rachel had stolen her father’s
gods and taken them with her as she left the family home. Had Jacob
been faithful to the God of his fathers in teaching and impressing
the worship of the one true God and in protesting solemnly against
idol-worship? And had he been firm and outspoken against such theft and
deception as that of his beloved Rachel? Must not things of this sort
be inquired into and definitely settled before the Lord could interpose
with such manifest deliverance as would virtually endorse Jacob as
right before God?――――It ought not to escape our notice that while
the narrative in the preceding chapter (31) recites the misconduct of
Rachel and shows that Jacob then for the first time became aware of the
extent of her idolatry, theft, and deception, so a subsequent narrative
(35: 1–4) apprises us in a very significant way that both the Lord and
Jacob remembered this wonderful night of struggle, and that some of
the matters then in issue were set right. “God said to Jacob――Arise,
go up to Bethel [that place of so many hallowed associations] and dwell
there and make there an altar unto God who appeared to thee when thou
fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother. Then Jacob said to his
household and to all that were with him, _Put away the strange gods
that are among you_, and be clean, and change your garments, and let
us arise and go up to Bethel, and I will make there an altar unto God
_who answered me in the day of my distress_, and was with me in the way
which I went.” Yes, “he who answered me in that day of my distress,”
before whom this whole matter was reviewed and debated through that
long, fearful night――who called me to account in that dread emergency
and pointed out my sins and put my soul to most humble confession of
past short-comings and to most solemn vows of future service;――let
us amend our ways and our doings before the eye of this holy God who
mercifully spared us in that fearful hour. These circumstances throw
light upon this remarkable scene of prayer.
* * * * *
(b.) We may also call to mind _the principles of God’s spiritual
administration over his people in respect to answering their prayer_.
Here it is safe to say that God never delays to answer prayer without
some good reason. He could not delay from mere caprice.――――On the other
hand he may delay the blessing sought, for the purpose of holding it
before the suppliant’s mind till he shall better appreciate its worth,
and his own dependence on God alone for it, and that he may accept it
more gratefully and prize it more adequately when it comes. The reasons
for delay may often lie in this direction; but in the present case
of Jacob we must look elsewhere, since in his fearful emergency this
particular reason is scarcely supposable. His case was so urgent and
involved interests so dear and so near to his very soul that his mind
could scarce need to be sharpened to more intense desire or impressed
with a deeper sense of dependence.
Again, God often holds the suppliant in suspense for the sake of
throwing him upon self-examination. It may be simply indispensable
both for the good of the suppliant and for the honor of God that he
should be put to the deepest self-searching, to compel reflection and
consideration for the purpose of convicting him of some sin that must
needs be seen, confessed, repented of and put utterly away. We must not
overlook the great fact that when God grants signal blessings in answer
to any man’s prayer, it will be taken as a tacit indorsement on God’s
part of this man’s spiritual state. It will be considered as God’s
testimony that he is _not_ “regarding iniquity in his heart”――that
there are no iniquities palpable to the world and present to the man’s
own consciousness――indulged and not condemned and forsaken. On this
principle it often happens that God must needs compel the praying
soul to the most thorough heart-searching and to the most absolute and
complete renunciation of known sin, before he can honorably and safely
bestow signal blessings.
If now we place this obvious principle of God’s spiritual
administration alongside of the well-known facts of Jacob’s history,
we shall readily see reasons, apparently all-sufficient, for this long
delay and this remarkable struggle of prayer before the blessing was
given. The Lord was searching his servant and impressing some great
principles of practical duty upon his mind under circumstances well
adapted to insure very thorough reformation.
When Jacob at length prevailed and the Lord blessed him there, the
crisis was past, and the danger really over. It was only for the Lord
to put forth his finger and touch the heart of Esau:――then the revenge
and murderous rage of the Esau that was, gave place to fraternal
kindness and sympathy. We read, “Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced
him and fell on his neck and kissed him; and they wept” (Gen. 33: 4).
The result therefore was far more and better than a mere escape with
life from Esau’s murderous purpose. It was the reconciliation of long
alienated brothers. At least it secured one precious scene of fraternal
sympathy and love.――――We read little of Esau’s subsequent life. The
brothers met at the death-bed and grave of their father (Gen. 35: 29);
perhaps their paths never came in contact again.
The scenes of Mahanaim have afforded to the godly of all future
ages some new light on the great subject of prayer. This was the
first strong decisive case on record of prevalence in prayer. Abraham
interceded long for Sodom; but with no further result than to show
that God was very condescending to hear such prayer, yet that the thing
asked could not be granted.――――Here is a case of positive victory――a
real prevailing with God, reached, however, only after a most
remarkable struggle. It is a great advance in the revealed science
of prayer to have a case so illustrative as this of the great laws
of prevailing prayer.
_Jacob and Joseph._
The group of historic incidents in which Jacob and Joseph were
prominent actors is eventful and striking; in some points without a
parallel in human history. If it were fiction, a mere drama, wrought
out by some gifted imagination, it could not fail to command the
admiration of men as a most finished plot, a wonderful outline of
strange varieties of human character. Truth is sometimes “stranger
than fiction”: and the careful reader of this narrative will testify,
far more instructive and impressive.
The points of chief value will be readily embraced under the following
heads:
I. The striking developments of personal character in the case of Jacob,
Joseph, and his brethren.
II. The hand of God in this history, manifested in two respects:
(a.) In the suffering and moral trial of the righteous: (b.) In his
overruling control of the wicked to bring forth abounding good from
their wickedness.
III. The divine plan and purpose in locating the birth of the great
Hebrew nation in such contact with Egypt.
IV. Egyptian history and life, studied in connection with this sacred
narrative as affording confirmation of its truthfulness.
I. The reader of Gen. 34 and 35 and 37 and 38 will see that the ten
older brethren of Joseph were “hard boys.” The sacred historian must
have been quite willing to give this impression, else he would not
have recorded Reuben’s incest with his father’s concubine (35: 22),
nor Judah’s criminal connection with a supposed harlot who proved
to be his own daughter-in-law (Gen. 38), nor the pitiless cruelty of
Simeon and Levi when stirred up to revenge the dishonor done to their
sister Dinah (Gen. 34). Especially do the worst elements of depraved
character appear in their treatment of their younger brother Joseph.
The narrative (Gen. 37) is brief; gives facts without comments; but
_what facts_! Joseph was young and very simple-hearted. Up to the point
where the history introduces him, he had been trained in a religious
home――which seems scarcely to have been the case with the ten older
sons. Their shepherd life took them into distant parts of the country,
and seems practically to have removed them much of the time from home
and its domestic influences. Unfortunately the domestic influences
of that polygamous home were by no means so wholesome as a religious
home ought to furnish. Envy and jealousy were stimulated into fearful
strength.
Joseph was sent to help the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. Painfully
impressed by their misdeeds, he reported them to his father. The
special love of this aged father for Joseph, manifested in the “coat
of many colors” (really a long tunic reaching to the wrists and ankles)
occasioned more rankling jealousy. Finally, Joseph’s remarkable dreams
which his simplicity related without apparently a thought of giving
offense, brought their animosity to its climax. Soon Joseph is thrown
into their power. They see him coming and conspire to take his life.
“Come,” (say they) “let us slay him and cast him into some pit, and we
will say, Some evil beast hath devoured him; and we shall see what will
become of his dreams.” We are not told which of them suggested this
murderous purpose. Reuben, the eldest brother, was the first to protest.
His plan was that they should cast him alive into some pit; and then in
their absence he could take him out and return him safely to his father.
They consented; stripped him of his new coat, and cast him into a pit
without water. [These pits were dug in that poorly watered country for
the sake of getting water for their cattle.] Then they sat down to eat
bread, perhaps complimenting themselves that they had not murdered him,
but had shown their power and for the present had put him out of their
way. Manifestly their consciences were dead to that sense of guilt
which a few years later forced them to say, “We are verily guilty
concerning our brother in that we saw the anguish of his soul when he
besought us and we would not hear” (Gen. 42: 21). Just then a caravan
of Ishmaelites and Midianites came in sight, moving toward Egypt, and
Judah came to the rescue with the proposition to take up Joseph and
sell him, to be taken as a slave to Egypt. With some manly feeling he
says――“What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?
Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be
upon him, for he is our brother and our flesh; and his brethren were
content.”――――Reuben’s better qualities come up to view again when he
returned to the pit, hoping to rescue his brother――but found no Joseph
there! “He rent his clothes”; he came to his brethren exclaiming, “The
child is not;――and I――whither shall I go?”
In the next scene these brethren were if possible more heartless still.
It commonly happens that one crime demands another and yet another
to conceal the first. So in this case, the next thing is to deceive
their father even though it torture him with the agony of supposing
his favorite son devoured by some evil beast. They kill a kid; stain
Joseph’s coat with its blood; and then send it to their father,
saying, “This have we found; see whether it be thy son’s coat or not.”
There was no mistaking the coat, and Jacob’s grief is heart-breaking.
Remarkably it is said that “all his sons and all his daughters rose up
to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted”; and he said, “I will
go down into the grave to my son mourning. Thus his father wept for
him.”――――How easily those sons might have said: “Father, we have sinned
against God and against thee; but Joseph is not slain by lions; we sold
him into Egypt! You may live to see him again.” But not even Reuben or
Judah had conscience, and truthfulness, and filial affection enough to
reveal the guilty secret. Miserable comforters were they all to their
father’s broken heart!
* * * * *
Leaving Jacob to long years of bitterest grief, we follow the fortunes
of Joseph. From this point the thread of the story takes him into Egypt
a slave. Sold to Potiphar, an officer under Pharaoh, it soon became
apparent that the Lord was with him and made every thing prosper under
his hand. He rises rapidly in the confidence of his master; is put in
charge of all his house――but here springs up a new trial. Joseph is
beautiful in person and amiable in manners. Potiphar’s wife, lewd and
shameless, tempts him with solicitations to adultery. Joseph’s bearing
in this case was worthy to be put on permanent record to pass down
through all future generations to the end of time, a perfect model of
both virtue and wisdom――the virtue that resists seductive temptation
with unwavering firmness; and the wisdom that comprehends and applies
the perfect methods of resisting temptation. Joseph did not dally with
his tempter; did not suffer the temptation to gather new force, but met
it instantly with the strongest considerations possible――“How can I do
this great wickedness and _sin against God_!” God, said he to himself,
is my best friend; I am his servant. He has stood by me through all
my trials and given me this great prosperity; his pure eye is on me;
I can not do this great wickedness against him!――――The sense of a
present God settled the question forever. There was indeed another line
of considerations――his obligations to the husband of this lewd woman.
Potiphar had trusted him most entirely; shall he abuse this trust?
Never.――――Thus Joseph’s course was at once decided. But this vile
woman persisted in her solicitations, till at length, maddened by
her failure, she plotted his death. She laid hold of his garment; he
escaped leaving it in her hands. With this for her proof she accuses
Joseph of the crime of which she alone was guilty. Joseph is thrown
into prison――because of his virtue and not because of any crime. Of
course the Lord was with him still, and again Joseph rises in the
favor and confidence of those in power; is put in charge of all matters
in the prison, and thus the Lord turned this great trial to account
to bring Joseph before Pharaoh. Long was the trial; the story of his
relations to the chief butler and the chief baker is in point chiefly
as showing how ungratefully the butler could forget his imprisoned
friend and prolong his imprisonment. But the hour of deliverance came
at last. Pharaoh’s two dreams impressed and disturbed his mind so much
that he summoned all his wise men to his help――but in vain. At this
opportune moment the chief butler remembers Joseph. He should have
spoken of him to the king two years before; but engrossed with his
own prosperity, he forgot his prison benefactor till this time. Joseph
comes to the help of the king. His first answer is beautifully modest
and fragrant with piety. “I have heard of thee, said the king, that
thou canst understand a dream to interpret it.” Joseph replies: “It
is not in me; God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace” (Gen. 41: 16).
The dreams are interpreted to signify seven years of overflowing plenty,
followed by seven of extreme famine throughout all the land. Joseph
suggests to the king to store up the excess of the plentiful years
against the deficiencies of the famine years. The king sees the wisdom
of this suggestion and at once appoints Joseph to this responsibility;
in fact, sets him over all Egypt save only in the honors of the throne.
At this point the historic thread brings Jacob and his sons in Canaan
to view again. We are not told whether they had the seven years of
exuberant plenty there, but the years of famine were there in terrible
power. They were soon breadless. The father hears that there is corn
in Egypt; so he sends ten of his sons――all that are with him save
Benjamin――to get corn. It was to be brought on the backs of their asses,
and therefore it was wise to send them all together.
The scenes that follow are told with masterly simplicity. Joseph knows
them; they do not recognize him: What policy shall he pursue? Why, we
may perhaps ask, why does he not make himself known to them at once?
Why does he treat them so roughly; accuse them of being spies; throw
them all into prison for three days; propose to keep them all confined
save one and send him back after Benjamin; but finally compromises the
matter by taking Simeon as a hostage, binding him before their eyes,
and then consenting that the rest may go home and bring Benjamin down
as the condition of Simeon’s release? Why does he put their money into
the mouth of each man’s sack of corn? Why this long delay, and these
searching, harassing preliminaries?
It was not that Joseph was hard-hearted and rather enjoyed using his
power and taking some revenge――nothing of this sort. It is indeed said
in the first stage of this interview――“Joseph remembered the dreams
which he dreamed of them” (Gen. 42: 9), and thereupon said, “Ye are
spies; to see the nakedness of the land are ye come.” But this only
shows that his policy was settled upon the spur of the moment. He saw
what he needed to accomplish and laid his plans accordingly. The whole
narrative shows that, so far from being void of fraternal feeling and
hard-hearted, in fact it tasked his firmness of character to the utmost
to suppress his emotions sufficiently to carry out his purpose. His
main purpose was to bring them to thorough repentance. For this end he
must needs throw their thought back upon their great sin and bring the
heavy pressure of present calamity upon them with all its suggestive
power to show them that God was taking them in hand for that wickedness.
He also wished to see how they felt toward their father and toward
Benjamin. Their feeling toward both the father and his youngest son
would be an index of their penitence for their great sin toward himself.
Joseph was a man of consummate wisdom. Few men have ever lived who
understood human nature better than he, or could plan better for a
given effect. Consequently we shall not miss greatly if we infer his
design from the actual effect. When we see what he accomplished, we are
reasonably safe in saying――This is what he aimed to do.
Observe now that the first scene had not fully transpired ere he
heard them saying one to another, “We are verily guilty concerning our
brother in that we saw thee anguish of his soul when he besought us and
we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.” And Reuben
answered them (_i. e._ interposed at that point) saying, “Spake I not
unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear?
Therefore, behold also, his blood is required.”――――Joseph saw that his
scheme was taking effect; their consciences were at work. How his own
heart must have throbbed! Accordingly we read――“He turned himself about
from them and wept.” But the work is not yet complete; so he brushed
away the tears and “returned to them and took from them Simeon and
bound him before their eyes.” Why he chose Simeon is not indicated.
Perhaps――not to say probably――he was the leading spirit in the cruel
scenes thirteen years before. We remember that Simeon and Levi led off
in that bloody affray with the men of Shechem. However this may be, he
was the eldest after Reuben; and Reuben, though a coarse, rough nature,
was on the side of mercy toward the abused Joseph. Simeon, therefore,
is chosen for the hostage, to be kept in close confinement while
the rest are dismissed to go home. Simeon will have abundant time to
think over the guilty deeds of that dreadful past! Let us hope that it
brought him to genuine repentance.
The narrative details the return of the nine brethren to their father’s
house; how they told their story there; how Jacob rebuked them for
disclosing their youngest brother; how he struggled desperately against
his manifest destiny; how he said――Benjamin shall never go down into
Egypt; how Reuben interposed in his rough way, saying to his father:
“Slay my two sons if I bring not Benjamin back to thee”――as if he could
not see that murdering two of his grandchildren would be infinitely
far from helping the matter or affording the least relief. With better
good sense and a more just appreciation of his father’s feelings, Judah
pled with his father:――We shall all die of starvation unless we go down
to Egypt for corn: we must take Benjamin with us――else we get no corn.
“Send the lad with me; I will be surety for him. Of my hand shalt thou
require him: if I bring him not unto thee and set him before thee, then
let me bear the blame forever” (Gen. 43: 8–10).――――The heart of their
father Israel comes to view here――yielding to the inevitable necessity;
wisely getting up a liberal present of the best fruits of their land;
double money, to return what came home with them in their sack’s mouth,
and to buy again. Saddest of all he gave up his dear Benjamin, and
then with many a prayer he sent them to Egypt a second time: “And
God Almighty give you mercy before the man that he may send away your
other brother and Benjamin: If I be bereaved of my children, I am
bereaved.”――――But he did not see the deep thoughts of God in these
trying scenes, and perhaps he had not yet fully learned how wise and
safe it is to trust Almighty God to bring out his own results in his
own way! He will learn more by and by.
Events thicken; the final consummation hastens on. They are in Egypt
again and stand before Joseph. His quick eye sees his beloved brother
Benjamin among them. At once he gives orders to the ruler of his house
to prepare a dinner for all these men and to bring them all into his
house. A deeper fear seizes upon them: what, say they, can this mean?
What new charges, what prosecutions, what fresh dangers, are coming
now? They meet the Steward at the door and tell him their story about
the returned money. The recognition of God in his reply seems strange
for an Egyptian――unless we suppose that Joseph had given him the
words. He said, “Peace be to you; fear not; your God and the God of
your fathers hath given you treasure in your sacks. I had your money”
(Gen. 43: 23). “And he brought Simeon out to them”――which might well
have given some relief to their burdened hearts.――――The dinner hour
approaches; they are to eat with the lord of the land. They get their
presents ready; and when Joseph appeared “they bowed themselves to him
to the earth.” The historian is careful to mention this for its bearing
as the fulfillment of that long past dream of the boy Joseph. With
the true politeness of profound sincerity Joseph inquires about his
father: “Is your father well――the old man of whom ye spake? Is he yet
alive?” “And they answered: Thy servant our father is in good health;
he is yet alive; and [again] they bowed down their heads and made
obeisance.”――――Now his eye falls on Benjamin, his own mother’s son, and
he asks――“Is this your younger brother of whom ye spake unto me? God be
gracious unto thee my son.”――――Ah, but Joseph’s heart is too full; “he
made haste, for his bowels did yearn upon his brother; and he sought
where to weep, and he entered into his chamber and wept there.” But,
the time has not come yet to reveal himself; the searching ordeal
through which he must needs make his brethren pass has not fully
done its work; so Joseph washes off the tears; refrains himself from
shedding more, and orders the food set on. The brethren of Joseph had
probably a rather pleasant time――only it seemed strange to them that
they were seated by age from the eldest to the youngest and Benjamin
had a five-fold mess! How comes it that the lord of Egypt knows so much
about us? They can not see.
They are getting ready now for home; their sacks are filled with
corn again, and again the money is put back into each sack’s mouth,
and worst of all, Joseph’s silver cup is slipped into the mouth of
Benjamin’s sack. Ere they are fairly out of the city Joseph posts his
steward after them, abruptly charging them with having ungratefully
stolen his lord’s silver cup. Consciously innocent and deeply indignant,
they are rash enough to say――Let the man in whose sack it is found
die, and take all the rest of us for slaves! How were they amazed
and overwhelmed when the cup was found in Benjamin’s sack! They rent
their clothes in bitterness of heart, and all return to the city. Judah
comes to the front here; it is “Judah and his brethren” who come to
Joseph’s house, and Judah who makes the plea in behalf of Benjamin.
The historian is careful to say again that when they met Joseph “they
fell before him on the ground.” He also remarks that Joseph was yet
in his house, having remained there ever since the caravan left in the
early morning, too full of thought on this subject to turn to any other
business.――――Now he expects to learn how they feel toward Benjamin and
toward their aged father. He must be sure they are all right on these
points before he lifts the vail and shows them himself.――――They are
brought back as criminals before him. With a sternness that is not at
all in his heart but in his assumed manner only, he says――What deed
is this that ye have done? Were ye not aware that I have the power of
positive and certain divination?――――Judah is in deep perplexity――but he
speaks frankly: “What shall we say unto my lord? or how shall we clear
ourselves? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants”――which
words can not, it would seem, refer to any iniquity in the matter
of the silver cup, but must have referred to the long past crime of
the brethren toward Joseph. He can not say less than that they will
all become the slaves of Joseph, all including even Benjamin.――――No,
replies Joseph; I want only the guilty man, Benjamin; all the rest of
you may go in peace to your father!――――Now the crisis so long dreaded
has come. A terrible responsibility falls upon Judah. With wonderful
simplicity, with most touching filial affection toward his father, and
with masterly skill he rises to the moral sublimity of the occasion. He
comes near to Joseph and begins his great plea. Every reader must study
it. We shall need to go far to find more touching eloquence, a more
masterly setting forth of the facts of the case including the whole
story from the beginning to the end. The case of the aged father and of
his two younger sons left him by his best beloved wife――put in the aged
patriarch’s own words――ran thus: “Ye know that my wife bear me two sons,
and the one went out from me, and I said――Surely he is torn in pieces,
and I have not seen him since; and if ye take this also from me, and
mischief befall him, ye shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow
to the grave. Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father and
the lad be not with us; (seeing that his life is bound up in the lad’s
life)――when he shall see that the lad is not with us he will die; and
thy servants will bring down the gray hairs of our father with sorrow
to the grave. I said to him, If I bring not Benjamin back, I will bear
the blame forever. Now therefore I pray thee, let me abide instead
of Benjamin, the bond-servant of my lord, and let him go back to his
father. For how shall I go to my father and the lad be not with me?
Lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my father.”――――This
was more than Joseph could bear. He could refrain himself no longer;
the tears would come; the swelling emotions must have vent. Joseph
cried: “Have every man away from me save these men of Canaan.”
The proof of their love to their aged father and to Benjamin is
unmistakable; Joseph is satisfied. They are penitent for their long
past crime against him, and he can therefore at length break the secret
and show himself their long lost brother! How do their ears tingle
as they hear him say――“I am Joseph: Doth my father yet live?”――――The
first shock is almost stunning: they can not answer him, for they are
troubled at his presence. More kind words and the kindest possible
manner are now in place. “Joseph said to his brethren, Come near to
me, I pray you; and they came near.” Again he says――“I am Joseph, _your
brother_, whom ye sold into Egypt.” Then with a turn which evinces the
exquisite tenderness of his heart, he begs them “not to be grieved nor
angry with themselves;” but to think rather of the design of God in
permitting and providentially shaping this wonderful series of events.
“God did send me before you to preserve life. There are five more
years of famine yet to come; God sent me before you to preserve you a
posterity in the earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.
So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God.” The best thing
he could say under just those circumstances to soothe their mind, to
assure them of his full forgiveness and to give them consolation in
place of the agitation, fear, and remorse that so nearly overwhelmed
their spirits.
Arrangements for the future are soon made. Joseph assures them that the
best of Egypt’s land shall be given them, and insists that they hasten
home and bring their aged father and their little ones――every thing
they have――down to Egypt, because five more years of famine are to
follow. Egyptian wagons――unknown to Jacob’s household――are sent, and
the brethren are hastened off. Were they not a happy band? The great
agony of fear is past; the surgings of anxiety and solicitude have
ceased; the pungent convictions of that dread crime long ago against
their younger brother have done their work, and wrought out “the
peaceable fruits of righteousness.” This is a wonderful crisis in
their life history. Let us hope that most if not all of them found God
through these fiery trials and these penitent tears!
They are home again. The first thing is to break this strange secret
to their father. They make just two points: “Joseph yet alive;” “Joseph
Governor over all the land of Egypt.” It was too much――was too good
to be believed. The English version has it, “Jacob’s heart fainted.”
Better――“Jacob’s heart _remained cold_, for he believed them not.” It
stirred no joyous and warm emotions, for he could not believe it. But
when they told him all the words of Joseph, and especially when he saw
the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, then his spirit rose;
his heart waxed warm; he said: “_It is enough_; Joseph my son _is_ yet
alive; I will go and see him before I die.”
Beersheba, the old home of his father Isaac, lay on his route. He
stopped there and offered sacrifice to the God of his father Isaac.
The night following the Lord met him in vision, saying, “I am thy God
and the God of thy father; fear not to go down into Egypt, for I will
there make of thee a great nation: I will go down with thee into Egypt
and will bring thee up again; and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine
eyes”――_i. e._ to close them in death.――――How tenderly appreciative
of the circumstances and of Jacob’s need was this vision of Beersheba!
Such are God’s blessed ways with his children. He can not send them
into scenes of special danger or of critical interest, without some
special manifestations of his presence.
II. We are to notice _the hand of God_ in this history in its twofold
bearings:
1. As active in the sufferings and moral trial of the virtuous;
2. As manifested in his overruling control of the wicked to bring forth
from their wickedness abounding good.
1. As active in the sufferings and moral trial of the virtuous.――――The
most cursory reader of this story will see in it a striking case of
the sufferings of innocence. Joseph, envied and hated for no fault
of his; coming near to being murdered by his own brothers, and really
sold into slavery――a slavery prospectively life-long and in a distant,
unknown land; torn away from every thing dear in _home_, at the age
of seventeen:――this surely was innocence subjected to the sternest
suffering.
How do such things happen under the government of God? When they do
happen, _what do they prove_?
a. Negatively: They prove that all the suffering in this world _can not
be retribution for sin_. There may be great suffering which can not in
any true sense be the punishment of great crime. The greatest sufferers
are not necessarily and always the greatest sinners. Suffering is
not graduated to crime.――――This lesson Job’s three friends were slow
to learn. Even Job himself seems not to have learned it thoroughly,
but was groping toward it, under the lessons of his own conscious
experience. It may not be amiss to suggest here that Job and his
friends reasoned _without the light_ which this history of Joseph would
have given them if they had ever heard or read it. They either lived
_before Joseph_, or too remote from these scenes to hear or in any way
learn the lessons they teach.
b. Positively this case illustrates some of the ends which God aims to
secure by permitting the sufferings of the good; _e. g._ to discipline
them to patience under suffering, and to trust in God in the midst of
darkness and in spite of it. Joseph’s slavery and prison-life in Egypt
would have been simply miserable without this patience and this trust
in the Lord his God. Suppose he had given himself up to fretting and
chafing and dashing his head against the strong walls of his prison and
to wrenching off the fetters with which they “hurt his feet” (Ps. 105:
18);――What could have come of such adjustment of one’s self to dark
providences? Certainly not the sweet and blessed discipline which he
did in fact get from his afflictions; certainly not the favor and the
blessing of his God. Every thing in the future as before his eye was
dark enough; but he knew there was a God of loving kindness above――a
God who made no mistakes, yet whose purposes were often too deep for
afflicted man to fathom, and therefore a God whom his children should
learn to trust as certainly doing _all things_ well.
Again; the case serves to reveal God’s pity and his love in that
he _goes with_ his children into their slave-life and into their
prison-life with such smiles of favor, such tokens of his presence,
as may well make them joyful in the most terrible affliction. As Paul
and Silas prayed and sang praises within the cold, desolate walls of
a prison while yet smarting under the Roman scourge, and with perhaps
some prospect of sufferings more severe when another day should dawn;
so Joseph found the Lord with him when he reached Egypt a slave;
with him when cast into prison because he virtuously repelled a foul
temptation to crime. God was there, proving to his servant Joseph that
no surroundings are so dark that God’s manifested presence will not
make them light――that no sufferings and no bereavements are so severe
that God can not throw his smile upon the sufferer and fill his soul
with overflowing joy!
Yet again; this lesson teaches that God uses means apparently rough
and stern to prepare his servants for higher responsibilities and more
signal blessings. We can not say what Joseph would have been if he had
remained in the bosom of his doting father’s home through all those
years from seventeen to thirty, instead of being in God’s school of
suffering and trial; but it is safe to say that he made rapid strides
forward in this school of God――in his knowledge of human nature; in his
quick and manifest sympathy with every one in trouble; in his skill to
gain the confidence of those about and above him; in his capacity for
business; and not least in his living piety and his humble walk with
God. His surroundings threw him roughly upon his own resources, and
at the same time sweetly upon God’s resources; and in consequence he
rose, as few men have even been fit to rise, from slave-life and from
prison-life, to be the actuary of a great kingdom――the almoner of bread
and of life to the nations of the then civilized world; and also to
become one of the most exalted and spotless characters of all history.
Are not the ways of God truly wonderful?
* * * * *
_The ways of God toward Jacob_ must not be overlooked. We need not
debate the question how far his sufferings were those of innocence,
and how far he was criminally responsible for the lack of moral culture
and the power of fearful depravity in his sons. Be this as it may, it
was hard for him to lose Joseph――the one son who was a comfort to his
heart among so many who were quite otherwise. Even after thirteen years
his heart seems still to be sore with that great sorrow, so that when
his ten sons say that Benjamin must go with them to Egypt, he exclaims,
“All these things are against me”! And when at length he is compelled
to consent, his words indicate that he bows to an inexorable fate
rather than yields in sweet trust to a divine hand believed to be
wise and kind, though utterly and inexplicably mysterious;――“If I am
bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.”
Jacob lived to see the clouds of darkness lifted and rolled away.
He lived to learn that all those things were _not against him_ by
any means, but were in fact shaped of God to save his great household
alive through a seven years’ famine; and (what is far more than even
this)――were designed of God for the salvation of those sons of his
whose wickedness had brought these sorrows upon him, and whom God
had faithfully taken in hand to bring them to repentance. Had he not
learned ere this that it was always safe to trust in his father’s
God? Had not the Lord said to him, “I will surely do thee good”? As to
being “bereaved of his children,” was not the covenant very definite:
“A nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall
come out of thy loins”? (Gen. 35: 11).――――This discipline of the aged
patriarch was sharp but wholesome. He might have said, “In faithfulness
hast thou afflicted me.” The clouds of life’s stormy day cleared before
sunset. It would be pleasant to hear, if we might, the experiences of
his closing years when he came to understand God’s ways and to reap the
blessed fruits of such chastening sorrows.
* * * * *
These methods and ends of God in the discipline and culture of his
people _reach onward into eternity_. The faithful here are the rulers
there (Mat. 25: 21). Those who take God’s discipline kindly here and
turn it to best account according to his thought and will, have their
reward above. It is not needful that we know in their details what the
heavenly responsibilities are, and what the dignities and the honors of
those who have been faithful over a few things here; but we are safe in
the belief that earthly discipline and culture are not lost attainments
as to the after life.――――As one short day transferred Joseph from the
prison-house of the kingdom to the lordship of that kingdom, so one day
is long enough for the transfer of many a humble, suffering saint of
God from dungeons of darkness and pain to palaces of royalty and bliss.
In the story of Joseph these great truths of God’s administration
with his people were breaking forth upon the minds of men by most
interesting stages of progress.
* * * * *
2. From these lessons in God’s ways with the righteous, we turn to
other lessons pertaining to his _ways with the wicked_. This history
of Joseph shows how skillfully and mightily God manages the wicked,
making their wickedness work (wholly against _their_ purpose) to evolve
abounding good.
We have seen how Joseph directed the thought of his brethren to these
ways and designs of God. “Be not angry with yourselves that ye sold
me hither; for God did send me before you to preserve life.” “So now
it was not ye that sent me hither, but God” (Gen. 45: 5, 7, 8). And
again seventeen years later, after Jacob’s death, his brethren being
apprehensive lest Joseph might then relapse into revenge, he said
to them; “Fear not, for am I in the place of God? But as for you, ye
thought evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass
as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Gen. 50: 19, 20). We
should quite under-estimate Joseph’s knowledge of human nature and his
sense of moral distinctions if we were to press his words to mean that
God’s agencies in those crimes superseded theirs; lifted off their
responsibilities and left them essentially faultless.――――The reason
why Joseph’s remarks took this turn seems to have been this. He saw
that conviction for sin had done its vital work in their souls; that
they were apparently penitent and leaning toward the most severe
self-condemnation――at a stage where it was both safe and kind to turn
their attention to God’s hand as evolving good from their sin. In so
far as we can have confidence in Joseph’s judgment as to their moral
state, his words afford proof that his brethren were truly penitent,
and at a stage where consolation might properly be suggested as some
relief to their mental anguish.
The use which God made of the sin of Joseph’s brethren exemplifies his
consummate, far-reaching wisdom. He knew all the future. He saw the
coming famine; knew how to advance Joseph to the lordship of all Egypt,
and to put him there just in time to garner up the surplus of seven
years of overflowing abundance, and then dispense these stores of corn
for the sustenance of thousands less provident throughout all Egypt and
all adjacent countries. The resources of God’s providence, guided by
such wisdom, are simply boundless. What can he not do when he wills
to do it?――――The case is equally demonstrative of his _love_. Mark how
he bends the great powers of his infinite being to the production of
good, to multiply the means of happiness. This view of his character is
doubly, yea infinitely precious when studied in its developments in a
world, or rather a universe, _with sin in it_. If the Lord were obliged
to say――I must content myself with the co-operation of the good, the
unfallen, turning their agency to best account for the promotion of
happiness; but as to the wicked, they are beyond my reach; I can do
nothing with them; the evil they do must be endured as so much dead
loss to the universe, never to be of any service toward virtue and
happiness――the case would be, so far, one of unrelieved sadness. We may
bless the name of our God that his resources of wisdom and power and
the outgoings of his love are not thus limited. No indeed; some good
results will be extorted from even those horrible crimes of Joseph’s
brethren. Even the devil’s wickedness in which he exults as availing
to frustrate God’s plans and to shake his throne, he will find at
length to his everlasting confusion and shame, has been made, by the
over-mastering wisdom, power, and love of God, to subserve the very
cause he thought to break down, and to break down every thing he had
vainly hoped to build up! For is not God wiser and mightier than the
devil? The final result of the conflict will prove it.――――But it is in
place here to note that this story of Joseph’s brethren and of God’s
over-ruling hand in their case was shedding some rays of light on
these previously dark problems, and therefore was indicating progress
in the revelations of God and of his ways with sinful men.
Nor let us overlook this one other point――that the case evinces
the consummate skill of God in managing the free moral activities of
men without the least infringement upon their free agency and moral
responsibility. We see this in the way they went into their sin――purely
of their own free purpose――after their own envious and proud heart,
although God had purposes to answer by means of this very sin. We
see it still more, if possible, in the means he used to bring them
to repentance; how he put his great hook into their jaws and brought
them down to Egypt; took the pride out of them; pressed them with one
calamity after another till they came to feel very weak before Almighty
God; aroused their long slumbering consciences and kept their thought
upon that long past, almost forgotten crime against Joseph――till at
length they seem to have become thoroughly penitent. Only by legitimate
means and influences, and only by such a use of these as still left
their moral activities under their own responsible control――were these
grand results reached.――――Thus we may take lessons in the masterly
skill with which God’s agencies interwork with man’s, effective to the
result he proposes because God is more and mightier than man.
* * * * *
III. Taking a broader range of view, we may next study the purposes of
God _in locating the birth of the Hebrew nation in the land of Egypt_.
Since God’s purposes never come to nought but are always accomplished
perfectly, the ends he has in view being surely secured, it is safe
to reason backward from known results to original purposes. It would
amount practically to the same thing if we were to ask――What great
results were actually secured by locating his people in Egypt when and
as he did; by shaping their history as he did, and by bringing them out
at length with his high hand and outstretched arm?
1. In answering these questions we may note that Egypt in that age
stood at the summit of the world’s civilization, a fully organized
kingdom, a great and highly cultured people. There is most ample proof
that Egypt was then eminent above any other nation in learning, wisdom,
science, and art; in jurisprudence, and in the administration of law;
in industry and in wealth; in short, in all the main appliances and
results of a high civilization. The antiquities of Ancient Egypt are
the marvel of our times. Her temples, pyramids, and obelisks; her
paintings and works of art, have come down to our age in most wonderful
preservation, living witnesses to her ancient greatness. There was
no other kingdom on the face of the earth where a man like Moses
could have been educated and trained to become the law-giver of the
Hebrew nation, or where such a system of civil law as God gave his
people by the hand of Moses could have taken its rise and could have
been understood, accepted, appreciated, and ultimately wrought into
established usage and into the national life. We shall have occasion in
its place to inquire how far the civil system given through Moses was
borrowed from the Egyptian Code, and consequently how far the scenes
of their Egyptian life prepared the way for the new national life
instituted in the wilderness.
2. The plan of transferring his people from their nomadic, pastoral
life in Canaan, to a settled residence in Egypt provided scope for all
those developments which we have been studying in the history of Jacob,
Joseph, and his brethren.
3. Yet more and greater developments of God’s mighty hand were provided
for in the deliverance of his people from their bondage in Egypt; in
his judgments on Pharaoh and his land; in the destruction of his hosts
in the Red Sea; in the wilderness life of Israel during forty years;
and at length in their location in the land of promise. All these
points will come under review in their order.
* * * * *
IV. _Some notice should be taken of ancient Egypt as affording
confirmation to the historic accuracy and truthfulness of Moses in
Genesis._
1. Moses assumes that Egypt had a king and a fully organized government.
The evidence of this from Egyptian history and antiquities is too
abundant and accessible to need citation.
2. Also that the people subsisted mainly by agriculture, not pasturage;
that their soil was exceedingly fertile and the country one of great
wealth. The facts on these points also are beyond question. The Nile
has always made Egypt rich in soil and in agricultural productions.
Its periodical inundations have sustained the fertility of that valley
for thousands of years. Alternations of years of plenty with years of
famine have been their common experience in all ages, though probably
never so extreme and protracted as in the age of Joseph.
3. The history by Moses records the fact that in the early stages of
this great famine the lands passed over largely to the crown, but were
leased to the farmers for a certain portion (one-fifth) of the crops
(Gen. 47: 20–26).――――Testimony from sources other than sacred proves
these points. Herodotus was told by the priests of Egypt that the king
gave each Egyptian laborer a square piece of land of equal extent and
collected from each a yearly rent. Diodorus states that all the land of
Egypt belonged either to the king, the priests, or the military caste.
Strabo says that the farmers and tradesmen held their lands subject
to rent. In the Egyptian sculptures as shown by Wilkinson, only kings,
priests, and the military orders are represented as land-owners. [See
“Hengstenberg and the Books of Moses,” pp. 62–70.]
4. The history by Moses makes an important exception in the case of
the priests. Being supported directly from the royal treasury, they
were not obliged to alienate their lands during the great famine
and consequently continued to hold them (Gen. 47: 22). With this all
profane testimony concurs.
5. This fact implies an organized priesthood as a favored and therefore
powerful class in Egyptian society. Egyptian history confirms this and
shows moreover that they were not merely priests, performing religious
functions, but were the learned and scientific men of the nation; had
charge of education; held in their body the art and the “wisdom” of the
nation and performed largely the administrative functions of government.
“The thirty judges (says Drumann) priests of Heliopolis, Thebes, and
Memphis, were maintained by the king, and without doubt, the sons of
the priests also, all of whom over twenty years of age were given to
the king as servants; or, more correctly, to take the oversight of
his affairs.” “The ministers of the court were in Egypt the priests,
just as the state was a Theocracy, and the king was considered as
the representative and incarnation of the Godhead.” (Hengstenberg,
p. 68).――――It was by virtue of this usage that Joseph married into
the class of the priesthood, Asenath his wife being a daughter of
Potipherah priest of On (Gen. 41: 50).――――The reader will perhaps
recall the striking analogy between the Egyptian system and the Hebrew
Theocracy, particularly in the point that the ministers of religion
were also ministers of civil law and prominent in its administration.
The judges in the civil courts were taken chiefly from the tribe of
Levi.
6. Joseph’s arraignment of his brethren――“Ye are spies; to see
the nakedness of the land are ye come”――suggests an inquiry into
the relations of Egypt to foreign powers. The suspicions of Joseph
obviously assume a consciousness of great liability to foreign invasion.
Such was the fact; and the reasons for it will readily appear. We
have only to think of the powerful tribes scattered over vast Arabia,
the Hittites and other tribes of Canaan and of the regions North and
East――all stalwart men, all poor and subsisting on precarious supplies,
yet possessed of fleet animals――horses, dromedaries, camels――with which
they were able to move masses of men with great celerity. Let such men
see the tempting bait of corn in plenty in Egypt, and the marvel is
how Egypt could protect herself against sudden and formidable invasion.
The monuments of her early history testify to her long and bloody wars
with the Hittites and other tribes of Western Asia, often carrying the
war into their country as a wiser policy no doubt than to stand behind
her own walls on the defensive. Suffice it to say here that when those
Asiatic countries were famishing for bread and it was well known there
was corn enough in Egypt, the suspicion expressed by Joseph that those
ten men were spies was not only natural but perhaps even a necessary
measure of policy to satisfy the Egyptians. _They_ must naturally
apprehend danger though _he_ might personally know that these men were
harmless.
7. Sacred history drops this incidental remark――“For every shepherd
is an abomination to the Egyptians” (Gen. 46: 34). To some extent
this feeling was a natural outgrowth of their relations to the nomadic
tribes of South-western Asia――to which we have recently referred. But
there is some reason to suppose among them a certain special antipathy
against the sheep, more intense than against any other domestic animal
unless swine be an exception. They had so much respect for the cow
that they made her and her species objects of worship. Although they
attained great skill in the manufacture of linen, cotton, and silk,
I meet with no allusion to wool. Woolen cloths are never found upon
Egyptian mummies; linen and cotton were used.――――Some writers have
supposed that shepherds were held in special abhorrence because their
country had been conquered and ruled by a dynasty of shepherd kings
from the North-east; but the precise date of their invasion and of
their rule over Egypt is very much in doubt.
8. Both Joseph and his father were embalmed after death (Gen. 50: 2,
3, 26)――a service performed by the physicians. The antiquities of Egypt
furnish most conclusive testimony to their skill in this art――a skill
far surpassing that of any other people known to history. Great numbers
of those embalmed bodies (“mummies”) have been found in Egyptian tombs
within the present century, in perfect preservation. On this point the
coincidences between sacred and profane history are striking.――――The
practice was very ancient, some mummies bearing the date of the oldest
kings. It was performed by a special class of physicians. In harmony
with Moses, Herodotus and Diodorus state that the embalming process
occupied forty days; the entire period of mourning seventy. Classic
authorities give accounts similar to those in Gen. 50 of great mourning
for the dead. The monuments contain representations to the same
effect. Funeral trains, processions, of such sort as Gen. 50 records,
are represented abundantly in the oldest tombs at Elithias, also
at Sagguarah, at Gizeh, and at Thebes. (Hengstenberg’s Egypt and
Moses, pp. 70–78).――――A coincidence so minute as this is noticed; that
mourners forbore to shave their hair or beard; but none might appear
♦before the king unshorn. Consequently we observe that in the mourning
scene of Gen. 50, Joseph does not come before the king in person but
“spake unto the house of Pharaoh” requesting them to speak in his
behalf to the king (Gen. 50: 4–6).
Quite in contrast with the usual oriental custom, women were exempt
from seclusion and moved in society with apparently entire freedom.
This appears in the family of Potiphar. The ancient sculptures and
paintings found in their tombs give a very full view of the domestic
life of the ancient Egyptians, no point of which is more striking than
the high social position of woman and the entire absence of the harem
system of seclusion. “The wife is called the lady of the house.” (See
Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 677). According to the monuments the women
in Egypt lived under far less restraint than in the East, or even in
Greece. Wilkinson’s Egypt is full of testimony to this point (Vol. II.,
p. 389). Hengstenberg’s Moses, p. 24.
Sad to say there is abundant evidence from profane sources of a very
lax morality among married women――of which the history of Joseph in
Potiphar’s house is an illustration. Herodotus gives a fact in point:
“The wife of one of the earliest kings was untrue to him. It was a long
time before a woman could be found who was faithful to her husband.
When at last one was found, the king took her without hesitation for
his wife.”
Yet other points might be adduced of coincidence between the sacred and
the profane records of Egypt as the former appear in Moses. The above
may be taken as specimens. Most amply do they testify that the author
of Genesis was entirely familiar with Egyptian life and manners. The
sharpest and most unfriendly criticism has hitherto detected no point
of discrepancy between these respective records――no point in which it
can be made to appear that Moses wrote without well understanding the
Egyptian life of which he speaks.――――The corresponding coincidences in
Exodus will be suggested in their place.
* * * * *
Some special passages occurring in these latter chapters of Genesis
should receive attention.
_Jacob going down into Sheol to his son Joseph._
In Gen. 37: 35 Jacob, supposing Joseph to be dead, says――“I will go
down into the grave (Sheol) to my son mourning.” The reader of the
Hebrew text of Genesis has not met with this word before, and may
reasonably expect to see its meaning discussed here.
In the outset it should be observed that these words can not
possibly mean――My dead body shall go down into the grave proper, the
sepulcher――there to lie by the side of Joseph’s dead body. He could not
have meant this because the place of Joseph’s supposed dead body was
entirely unknown to him. He had seen his bloody coat and inferred that
Joseph was no doubt torn in pieces; _where_, he knew not; and whether
devoured by flesh-eating animals he could not know. We must therefore
reject this construction of his words.――――Plainly the Joseph he thought
of was the undying soul. He expected at his own death to meet Joseph in
that state or place which the Hebrews indicated by the word “Sheol.”
What is the primary significance of this word? What were the views
of the ancient Hebrews in regard to its location and the state of its
occupants?
The noun “Sheol” is made from the verb Shaal[25] having the sense,
to ask, to demand; and conceives of the place as evermore demanding,
insatiable; that which is never full; never has enough. The current
Hebrew conceptions of the word may be seen in Prov. 30: 15, 16, and Isa.
5: 14, and Hab. 2: 5. “There are three things that are never satisfied;
yea four say not, It is enough: the grave” [Sheol], etc.――――“Therefore
hell [Sheol] hath enlarged herself and opened her mouth without measure;
and their glory, and their multitude and their pomp, and he that
rejoiceth shall descend into it.” “Who enlargeth his desire as hell”
[Sheol] “and is as Death, and can not be satisfied,” etc.
As to the location of Sheol it seems clear that they thought of it as
an _under-world_, as somehow beneath the surface of the earth. We see
this in the case of Korah and his company (Num. 16: 28–34), of whom
Moses said:――“If the earth open her mouth and swallow them up with
all that appertain to them, and they _go down_ alive into Sheol [Eng.
‘the pit’], then shall ye understand that these men have provoked the
Lord” ... “As he had made an end of speaking these words, the ground
clave asunder that was under them and the earth opened her mouth and
swallowed them up,” etc.――――We find the same view in Deut. 32: 22. “For
a fire is kindled in mine anger and shall burn unto the lowest hell
[Sheol], and shall consume the earth with her increase and set on fire
the foundations of the mountains.”
In regard to their conceptions of Sheol as a state of being for the
righteous and the wicked dead, it is easy to see that holy men of
the oldest time lacked the clear light of the gospel age. Then it had
not yet been said――“In my father’s house are many mansions”; “I go
to prepare a place for you, and I will come again and receive you to
myself that where I am, there ye may be also” (Jno. 14: 2, 3). They
had not heard these words of Jesus――“This day shalt thou be with me
in paradise” (Luke 23: 43); those of Paul: “Having a desire to depart
and to be with Christ which is far better” (Phil. 1: 23).――――But
the patriarchs did expect to “be gathered to their people”――the good
men who had gone on before. This is said of Abraham (Gen. 25: 8); of
Ishmael (25: 17); of Isaac (35: 29); and of Jacob (49: 29, 33). David
said of his deceased infant child: “I shall go to him, but he shall not
return to me.” Job said of that little known world――“There the wicked
cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest” (Job 3: 17),
and yet he sometimes thought of it as intensely dark, for gospel light
had not then fallen upon it:――“Before I go whence I shall not return,
even to a land of darkness and the shadow of death; a land of darkness
as darkness itself; and of the shadow of death without any order, and
where the light is as darkness” (Job 10: 21, 22). Conceptions of this
state as well illustrating the fall and doom of wicked kings and
kingdoms, tinged, it would seem, with the spirit of poetry, may be
seen in Isaiah 14, and Ezek. 31: 15–18.
How far these notions as to the locality of Sheol are to be ascribed
to direct inspiration, and how far to a merely human speculation,
following the leading thought that the body _goes down_ and back to
dust at death, it seems by no means easy to determine positively. We
may be allowed to doubt whether the Lord intended to reveal definitely
the _location_ of human souls after death. It was a point of the
least conceivable importance; and moreover our knowledge of celestial
geography may be yet quite too limited to admit of any intelligible
revelation on this point.
* * * * *
_Jacob’s benedictions upon his sons_ on his death-bed――more or less
prophetic――present some points that call for special notice. Remarkably
they seem in most if not in all cases to start from the then existing
present, and to build their allusions to the future upon it. We see it
in the case of Reuben――noted for his outrage of his father’s nuptial
bed; of Simeon and Levi, whose history suggested their cruelty toward
the men of Shechem; of Judah, whose name bore the thought of _praise_
and whose record in the case of Joseph put him at once in the front
among his brethren; of Joseph, whose relations to his father and indeed
to all the family had been surpassingly precious. The special address
of Jacob to each of these was closely linked to their past history.
The prophetic feature in all these cases seems to have been suggested
by these salient points of their history. Reuben as the first-born
might have kept his supremacy――if he had been worthy of it――but he
was not. Simeon never rose to any distinction, and scarcely held any
well-defined territory in Canaan. Levi came into prominence as the
ancestor of Aaron and of Moses, and redeemed himself also by the
religious zeal and energy of Phineas in a great emergency during the
wilderness life (Num. 26: 6–13). The tribe were scattered in Israel,
yet not in the bad sense. Judah and Joseph had each a future more
resplendent and distinguished than any other of the twelve――their
prominence in Jacob’s benediction being fully carried out through the
history of their nation.
Some special passages and phrases should be briefly explained.
In v. 4, the phrase, “Unstable as water,” does not compare water to the
solid earth or to more solid rock as treacherous to the foot and unsafe
to stand on; but rather as bubbling, effervescing under heat or applied
force――as therefore a fit image of ungoverned passion; of wantonness,
impatient of restraint. Reuben had no moral stamina, and therefore
could not hold his natural place of headship as the first-born――a
moral lesson worthy of thoughtful consideration. A young man given to
licentious indulgence can have no solid bottom to his character. The
sagacious will never trust him.
v. 5. “Simeon and Levi are brethren”――of kindred spirit; “instruments
of cruelty are in their habitation”; better, instruments of cruelty
their swords are. Most solemnly does the dying patriarch disavow
all sympathy with their cruelty!――――The phrase――“Mine honor” in the
sense of myself――my nobler powers――is specially significant here, for
their spirit was dishonorable, treacherous, basely cruel. Jacob had
a sense of honor which utterly forbade all sympathy with them in this
thing.――――In the last clause of v. 6, the English margin gives the
sense of the Hebrew: “They houghed oxen.” They slew not one man only
but man as a species; and cut the hamstrings of their cattle.
* * * * *
_The benediction upon Judah_ (v. 10) stands unrivaled in importance
and is not without difficulty. The main question is whether the
word “Shiloh” signifies the Messiah, in the special sense of the
Peace-giving One; or refers to the city of that name in Canaan. If it
refers to the Messiah, the sense, the application and the fulfillment
of the passage are facile and truly rich――thus: Judah shall head the
tribes and give them kings until the Great Messiah shall come: then
all the nations (Gentile and Jew) shall obey him――obedience rather than
“gathering” being the best established sense of the word. It occurs
elsewhere only in Prov. 30: 17.
No facts of Jewish history are better known than these――that Judah
led the march through the wilderness, and that from David to Christ the
scepter was in Judah――until the Messiah came, when it dropped from his
hand. “We have a law,” (said the Jewish Sanhedrim in the age of Christ)
“and by our law he ought to die”――_i. e._ for blasphemy. But under
their law, capital punishment was by stoning (Lev. 24: 15, 16, and
Mat. 26: 65, 66, and Jno. 19: 7). Having lost the power of life and
death over criminals, they were compelled to take the case to the Roman
authorities. _Their_ mode of capital punishment was crucifixion. Thus
the “cross” stands through all the ages to prove that the scepter had
departed from Judah and that the Messiah had come.――――But he came not
only to die but to reign, and the nations of the wide earth are to bow
to his scepter.――――Such is the construction of this passage, provided
the term “Shiloh” refers to the Messiah.
That it does refer to him may be argued on two grounds:
(a.) This construction is facile, natural, and supported by analogous
prophecies;
(b.) The other which makes Shiloh the name of a town in Canaan, labors
under serious, not to say insurmountable difficulties.
(a.) “Shiloh” is derived readily from the verb Shalah,[26] kindred
with Shalam, both words being in frequent use in the sense of being
at peace and in rest; expressing good wishes for peace――_i. e._ for
all prosperity――the noun from which might naturally mean the author of
peace, as we see in Mic. 5: 4. Furthermore, this distinctive feature of
the Messiah’s character and mission is the theme of Ps. 72 and of many
passages in Isaiah, _e. g._ 9: 6, 7, and 11: 1–10, and 60: 18–22. These
prophecies naturally follow the lead of this and therefore sustain the
construction here given it.
Moreover, it is natural and highly probable that Jacob whose twelve
sons were to found the twelve tribes of Israel and who knew that the
Messiah was to come in the line of _some one_ of his sons, should
indicate which. Noah had designated Shem: God had designated Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob; now the choice is naturally made out of these twelve.
That the long promised Seed was in Jacob’s thought is forcibly and
beautifully suggested in the midst of these dying benedictions by
the words――“I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord” (49: 18). In the
sustaining hope of a coming Savior he had waited and trusted through
many long years; for these words express the precious experiences of
a life. As Jesus himself testified of Abraham, “He rejoiced to see my
day,” hailing it joyously from afar, so Jacob witnesses of himself,
“I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.”
(b.) Those who give “Shiloh” here the geographical sense argue that
in every other case of its use in scripture, it refers to the town of
that name. This name for a town appears first in Josh. 18: 1, 8, 10,
and often subsequently in Judges, 1 Sam., etc. But there is no evidence
that in Jacob’s day it had come into use in geography. This usage, so
far as appears, was long subsequent. Nothing forbids, therefore, that
Jacob should use it simply for its significance――the Peace-giving One.
Again, the most marked supremacy of Judah began _after_ the nation had
reached Shiloh. It is therefore bad history and very inept prophecy
to represent Judah as holding the scepter _until_ the nation came
to Shiloh; the fact being that he had not held it in the full sense
previously to reaching Shiloh, but did hold it for many centuries
after Shiloh had lost its pre-eminence as the religious capital. I see
therefore no good ground for setting aside the Messianic interpretation
of this passage. The argument in its defense is ably and fully drawn
out by Keil in his Commentary, and yet more fully by Hengstenberg in
his Christology, vol. 1. pp. 50–63.
_The less readable portions of Genesis._
We have passed several portions of Genesis with little or no notice;
_e. g._ the genealogical tables, and some of the less important
sketches of family and tribal history; _e. g._ that of Abraham’s sons
by Keturah; of Ishmael, Esau, Laban, etc.
Of these less readable passages, let it be noted:
1. They are such as never could find place in a tale of fiction,
gotten up in some later age to interest and amuse the reader. The
fact that nobody finds interest and amusement in reading them now
proves conclusively that no writer of fiction could possibly have
concocted such chapters from his own fancy and have foisted them into
a professedly ancient history. The men who forge books of fiction to
pass them off as truthful history are careful not to put in unreadable
chapters――void of rational or even imaginative interest to the men of
after ages.
2. Consequently these passages are incontrovertible proof of the
genuineness and real antiquity of these writings. In their time they
had interest――just that interest which attaches to sober truth: none
more or other than this.
3. The Scriptures were written with special adaptation to their
first readers, and must include therefore those matters which had
real value and interest _to them_, whether they would continue to have
interest and value many thousand years onward or not. This fact, often
overlooked, has many important bearings.
4. By far the greater portion of these historic books has a permanent
interest and value to us and will have to their readers through all
future ages. We see in these ancient books not only the earliest
developments of human nature in the primitive society of the race, but
also the earliest manifestations of God to men, and can trace their
progressive unfoldings step by step, age after age by new methods and
with clearer light as we move on toward the great era when God became
manifest in human flesh.
5. It may well reconcile us to the annoyance (if such it be) of
some unreadable portions that precisely these above all others afford
us the strongest evidence of the genuineness and high antiquity of
these entire books. They constitute an internal mark of antiquity
and genuineness which by the laws of human nature never could be
counterfeited. The man who should attempt to counterfeit such proofs
that his fiction is true history would not prove himself very sharp
save in the skill of spoiling his book and frustrating the only
conceivable object of a fiction――for the sake of what?
We lay down Genesis, profoundly impressed that this oldest volume of
human history is unsurpassed in simplicity and beauty, and wonderfully
rich in its revelations both of man and of his Maker.
CHAPTER XII.
EXODUS.
THIS second book of the Pentateuch takes its modern name from its
principal event, the exodus of the Hebrew people――their marching forth
out of their house of bondage from the land of their oppression, to be
replanted under God’s gracious providence in the goodly land promised
to their fathers.――――This one main event as recorded in this book
includes many subordinate points, _e. g._
I. The _oppressions_ of the Hebrews by the Egyptians.
II. _Moses_, who became in the hand of God their great Deliverer; his
history; his early training and his call from the Lord to this great
work.
III. _The great mission of Moses to Egypt’s king_; his reception;
the ten successive plagues――miraculous judgments from the hand of God;
the case of the magicians; the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and the
ultimate result.
I. _The Oppression._
The narrative shows that this oppression consisted in part in the
exacting of terribly severe labors, especially in building, including
the making of brick, the preparation of mortar, the transportation of
these materials, and the erection of buildings. The ancient monuments
of Egypt confirm the statements of sacred history, showing that the
Egyptians employed national bondmen in the construction of their vast
national works; that they placed over them task-masters; that when the
workmen fell short of the required tale of brick, their masters put
them to more severe labors, and in some cases to labors of other sort.
It has been supposed by some that the ancient paintings represented
some of these laborers with the well-known physiognomy of the Hebrews.
It should be noted that this bondage differed from the slavery of
modern times in this one respect――that the bondmen were held by the
king and the nation in their national capacity and not by individuals.
The Hebrews were not held as private but as public property. The king
and the nation as such bore therefore the responsibility and guilt of
this oppression, and God let his judgments smite them for the most part
in such a way as to indicate their sin.
A second feature in this oppression was the king’s cruel edict to
murder the male infants. This was first enjoined upon the Hebrew
midwives. Fearing God more than Egypt’s king, they evaded obedience;
whereupon the king commanded all his people to cast the male infants
into the river.――――The reason assigned for both these measures was
_public policy_, to prevent the rapid increase of Hebrew population
which the king assumed might be dangerous to his throne and people
in case of a foreign invasion. Such a policy is at once short-sighted
and wicked; short-sighted, since kind treatment would have made this
rapidly growing people their fast friends and helpers; wicked, because
it violates common morality, insulting God, and provoking his wrath
by outraging all the obligations which he imposes on men toward their
fellows. Egypt’s king and court presently found themselves arrayed
against Almighty God and saw him take up the challenge in a fearful
conflict for mastery. We shall see in the final issue that the Lord
improved this occasion to illustrate some of the noblest principles
of his government over nations and indeed over individuals as well,
showing that he abhors oppression; takes the side of the oppressed;
hurls his fiercest thunderbolts against giant oppressors in every age;
and every-where holds men to the responsibility of using their power
to befriend and not to oppress their human brethren.
This oppression began with “a new king over Egypt who knew not Joseph.”
It is generally held that these words indicate a new dynasty――one
royal line superseded by another, perhaps a foreign power coming in
to supplant the former dynasty. The points of historic contact between
Egyptian and Hebrew chronology may at some future day be adjusted with
reasonable certainty. They are not yet. The subject is undergoing a
somewhat thorough investigation with some prospect of ultimate success.
At present I am not prepared to express positive opinions.
Two of the disputed periods in Hebrew chronology are necessarily
involved;
(a.) The period of the Judges, which as shown above some reduce to 339
years; others extend to 450;
(b.) The period of the sojourn in Egypt, made by some 215 years; by
others, 430. Some of the theories which attempt to locate this new king
of Egypt in his relation to Hebrew history place the Exodus about B. C.
1600; others B. C. 1491. Some put the commencement of the sojourn in
Egypt B. C. 2030; others B. C. 1706; yet others B. C. 1815. I have
given my reasons for adopting the longer periods. It is possible that
Egyptian authorities may yet throw a strong influence upon the decision
of these much disputed points of Hebrew chronology.
The narrative shows that the Hebrews had become numerically strong
and were rapidly growing stronger. Joseph had been dead probably a
considerable time and all the men of his generation. Being 39 years old
when his father came into Egypt and dying at the age of 110, he lived
to protect his people 71 years. Moses was 80 years old when he came
before Pharaoh, bearing the command of the Almighty――“Let my people
go.” It is probable that the terrible edict to destroy all the male
infants did not long precede the birth of Moses. The interval between
the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses will depend on the duration
of the entire sojourn in Egypt, since from this entire sojourn we must
subtract the years of Joseph’s life after the sojourn began and the
years of Moses before it closed, _i. e._ 71 + 80 = 151. This sum must
be subtracted either from 215, leaving 64; or from 430, leaving 279.
The latter I assume to be the true period. It provides abundantly for
the great increase of the Hebrew people, and accounts for the fear felt
by Egypt’s “new king.”
II. MOSES.
We shall study the history of Moses without _the key_ if we overlook
the point made by the writer to the Hebrews (11: 23): “_By faith_ Moses
when he was born was hid three months because they saw that he was
a proper child, and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.”
Faith in God made them fearless of Egypt’s cruel king. It would seem
also that they saw in the peculiar beauty of this child a sort of
prophecy of his future, something at least which raised expectation
and put them upon special ventures to save his life. Three months they
secreted him within their home. When this expedient could suffice no
longer, they prepared an ark of bulrushes――a little box, water-tight,
constructed to float――and moored it with its treasure among the flags
on the river’s bank. We may suppose that his mother knew the spot where
the king’s daughter was wont to take her baths, and that her faith and
prayer lay back of this venture to throw her darling infant upon the
compassion of a stranger woman’s heart. It need not be supposed that
she foresaw his future adoption into the royal family, his training
for forty years in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and his consequent
qualification to become the great Hebrew Lawgiver and Deliverer.
Suffice it that these results lay in the thought of God. She had faith
enough to commit her darling to God’s care and to leave all the future
unknown results to his adjustment.
The ways of God were mercifully kind toward this Hebrew mother. She
stationed his elder sister as a sentinel to watch the issue, and then
(let us presume) gave herself to prayer. When this elder sister with
palpitating heart saw the daughter of Pharaoh take the beautiful child
to her bosom, she felt that her time had come. Modestly advancing, she
said, “Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women that
she may nurse the child for thee”? Pharaoh’s daughter said, Go. How
joyfully did she go and call the child’s own mother! God’s finger was
there. The mother’s faith has come up as sweet incense before Him and
her heart is made glad, as only a praying mother’s can be. There was
no occasion to tell us that she consecrated this child to Israel’s God
for any service he might have for him in his after life. Such a mother,
drawn by her sweet faith into such relationship to God, could do
nothing less. Moreover, this was no barren consecration――was not a vow
once made and soon forgotten. Nothing can be more certain than that she
cared diligently for the moral training and culture of this marvelously
saved son. Else how could it happen that “when he was come to years,
he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather
to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures
of sin for a season; esteeming reproach for Christ greater riches than
all the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect to the recompense of the
reward” (Heb. 11: 24–26)? The seeds of this world-conquering faith must
have been dropped early into his tender mind. This hired Hebrew nurse,
permitted to come into the royal palace by some back-way, was indulged
this privilege freely, we know not precisely how long; but let us
presume that the same faith and prayer kept this door open, at least
for her occasional visits in his future years. How many testimonies of
God’s love to the fathers of their nation she dropped into his youthful
ear; how much she told him of God as “the exceeding great reward”
of his believing people; how well she put the contrast between “the
treasures of Egypt” and the treasures laid up for God’s then persecuted
people:――these points are rather left to our inference than definitely
stated; but we may be very sure that the faith of Moses took hold of
these grand truths of then extant revelation; fixed its hold early; and
held fast through all his future life.
We have three co-ordinate narratives of the early years of Moses: that
given in Heb. 11: 24–27, very brief, and touching only its specially
religious side; while that of Stephen (Acts 7: 20–29) is full, even
somewhat more full than the narrative in Ex. 2: 10–15. Particularly
Stephen adds that Moses was “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians
and mighty in words and in deeds”――a man like Joseph of immense
efficiency:――also that he was “full forty years old” when it came into
his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel――a statement
which shows that he distinctly recognized this relationship of brethren.
Seeing a brother Hebrew abused by an Egyptian he interposed, smote
the Egyptian dead, and buried him in the sand. Stephen’s words suggest
that this was not merely one of those quick, spontaneous impulses
felt by noble souls in view of outrageous wrong, but was a first step
toward a contemplated career of interposed force for the rescue of
his people from their oppression. “For he supposed his brethren would
have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them; but they
understood not” (Acts 7: 25). The whole of the fact seems to be that
the Lord was not yet ready and had not fully prepared Moses for this
great life-work of his yet, and certainly had not inaugurated him into
it.[27]――――Interposing the next day in a quarrel between two of his own
Hebrew brethren, he learned that his slaying of the Egyptian was known,
and immediately sought safety by flight to the land of Midian. The Lord
had more objects than one in turning his steps thither; not only his
then present safety, but the spiritual culture of so much solitude and
of long-continued, unbroken communion with God and of long tried faith,
coupled with the incidental advantage of becoming perfectly familiar
with that great wilderness through which he was to lead the hosts of
Israel for forty years.
Scarcely had he penetrated this desert land in his flight when he
made the acquaintance of a priest of Midian [Jethro], and of his seven
shepherdess daughters, one of whom became his wife. Like the somewhat
similar experience of Abraham, falling in with the priest of Salem,
♦Melchizedek, the circumstance suggests the inquiry how much of the
true knowledge and worship of God existed in those early ages outside
the line of Abraham’s family. The historical traces of such piety
are certainly very few, yet they recur so incidentally that we are
justified in the hope that these cases are not exhaustive; stood
not altogether alone. When we come to consider the history of Job we
shall take occasion to observe, that his location is certainly in this
great region of Arabia, and that his date must in all probability have
somewhat preceded this residence of Moses in the land of Midian. Here
Moses may have found the story in a traditional form; may perhaps have
seen Job’s immediate descendants; may possibly have put the story in
its present form as one of the pastimes of a literary shepherd’s life;
and then, retaining it in his possession during his subsequent years,
may have himself solved the problem――How came this book in the archives
of the Hebrew nation, on an equal footing as to inspired authority with
their historical books?
_The Great Mission of Moses._
Of the second forty-year period in the life of Moses, little is
reported save its first scenes and its last. Ex. 3 opens the latter.
Moses is keeping the flock of his father-in-law, the priest of Midian.
He has “led them to the back side of the desert”――_i. e._ to the
west side of it, for in designating the points of compass the Hebrews
always turned the face toward the east. The east is in front――_before_;
and of course the west is behind. Horeb and Sinai lay on the western
margin of the great Arabian desert.――――Here “the angel of the Lord
appeared to him” (v. 2), called “angel” however only as one who
comes or is sent with divine manifestations; for in every subsequent
mention he is called “the Lord” and “God” (vs. 4, 6, 7, 11, 13,
etc.)[28]――――Remarkably this visible manifestation was made by the
symbol of fire in a bush――the bush all aflame yet not consumed. This
strange sight attracted the attention of Moses, and he turned aside
to look into it more closely, when a voice from the bush called him
by name; warned him not to approach in the spirit of mere curiosity,
but to take off his shoes because the place on which he stood was holy
ground. The mystery before Moses’ mind is solved――the Lord is there!
His purpose in this appearing is soon told. He has heard the cry of
distress from his oppressed people, has come down to deliver them and
to bring them forth into Canaan. He has a mission for Moses in this
work. “Come” said he, “I will send thee to Pharaoh.” Moses knew the
power and the pride of Pharaoh, and saw at a glance the difficulties
of this enterprise. No wonder he shrank back saying――“Who am I that
I should do this”? God replied: “I will certainly be with thee”――a
sufficient answer to any amount of conscious weakness and faintness of
heart. The Lord added――“This shall be a token to thee that I have sent
thee; when thou hast brought the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve
[_i. e._ worship] God in this mountain.” From that moment this token
was God’s pledge to Moses of success in bringing the people forth from
Egypt; and when it was fulfilled in the scenes of national worship and
consecration on Horeb, it became doubly a sign to all the people that
the Lord their God was in this great movement.
Moses anticipates that the people will ask for the name of God, and he
therefore inquires――What shall I answer them? To which the Lord replies:
“_I am that I am_”; and then abbreviating the phrase, adds, “Thus shalt
thou say to Israel, _I am_ hath sent me to you.” What immediately
follows should be carefully noted. God said moreover to Moses (still
reiterating the same thought though in other and more familiar terms):
“Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: The Lord――_i. e._
Jehovah, God of your fathers, hath sent me unto you; this is my name
forever and this is my memorial through all generations.” This v. 15
is without doubt the key to the true sense of the names as previously
given――“_I am that I am_,” and in briefer form, “_I am_.” Their
true meaning is in the name _Jehovah_. This name contemplates God
as evermore existing, the same unchangeable God, and therefore ever
faithful to his promises. This view of God assumes that he reveals
himself personally as the God of his trustful people, entering into
covenant with them and never failing to remember and fulfill that
covenant.
In order to see the full force and pertinence of the passage, it should
be considered that by common Hebrew usage, the names of persons were
significant. They were words with a meaning. This is true of all the
names by which the true God is made known. And when Moses suggests that
the people will ask for God’s name, it is not implied that they had
never heard any name for God and did not know what to call him; but
this――They would know what new or special feature of his character was
to be manifested then. Their question was equivalent to asking――What
does God propose to do now? What new movement does he contemplate? What
new development of God may we expect?――――To the question so understood,
the Lord made a direct answer:――I have come to reveal my eternal
faithfulness to my covenant with your fathers. I pledged myself to
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that I would bring their posterity into the
goodly land of Canaan: I have come down to fulfill that word and to put
into your national history an enduring testimony that my name is truly,
“I am that I am”――the immutable and eternal God, whose word of promise
faileth not forevermore.
The same course of thought appears again Ex. 6: 1–8――a passage
which should be studied in connection with this. “God said to Moses,
I am the Jehovah. I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob
by the name of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known
unto them”――the meaning of which is, not that the name Jehovah was
never used by them, or given of God to them; but that its special
significance had not been manifested to them as he was then about to
make it manifest. His _power_ God had revealed――his power to protect
them in their perils, his power to fulfill to Abraham the promise of
a son; but such a glorious testimony to his faithfulness in fulfilling
promise as was then to be given, the patriarchs had never seen. The
redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage was destined to stand
through all the ages of their history as the crowning manifestation
of God’s faithfulness――the standard and unsurpassed testimony to the
significance of his most honored name _Jehovah_. By this shall ye know
that I am Jehovah your God when I bring you out from under the burdens
of the Egyptians and bring you into the land given by solemn oath to
your fathers and to their posterity for a heritage (vs. 7, 8).
* * * * *
In entering upon this redemption of his people the Lord understood well
the difficulties to be overcome and fully comprehended the situation.
If Moses saw them at a glance, so did the Lord also. It was not
possible that Moses could have a deeper sense or a juster view than
God had of Pharaoh’s great pride, of his consciousness of power and
stubbornness of purpose. The Lord expected a conflict; was ready for
it; and by no means disposed to shun it. “I am sure that the king of
Egypt will not let you go; no, not by a mighty hand”――not even under
fearful visitations of God’s supernatural power. The precise sense of
this seems to be that Pharaoh would resist God’s will _for a long time_
despite the inflictions of his mighty hand and would yield only in the
last extremity. In fact he never honestly yielded his will to God’s
will, but only bent for the moment before the blast, to rally again
with more desperate madness after it had swept by. When at length he
saw that the people were really gone, his unsubdued will rose again
in towering hardihood, to rush more madly than ever before against the
uplifted arm of the Almighty and meet his doom in the bottom of the Red
Sea!
This chapter closes (vs. 21, 22) with directions to the children
of Israel to _ask_ the Egyptians for gold, silver, and raiment.
The Lord promised to give them such favor with the people that they
would readily grant them what they asked. Our English version puts it
“_borrow_”――as if the Israelites at least tacitly promised to bring
these borrowed things back, or if nothing more, left the Egyptians to
expect this. But this English word “borrow” misrepresents the Hebrew
and consequently the sense of the passage. The Hebrew verb used here
never has the sense of _borrow_, but means simply to _ask_. Indeed
borrowing was out of the question because the Israelites were not
coming back again. It was never God’s thought that they should come
back. He had come down to deliver them from their bondage and to bring
them into Canaan. There is no reason to suppose that the Egyptians
expected them back again. They gave what Israel asked, therefore, not
as a loan, but because the Lord brought them into such relations to
Israel that they were glad to get them out of the country any way, and
perhaps hoped to avert more fearful plagues by these gifts to God’s
people. The historian in this case says (Ex. 12: 33)――“The Egyptians
were urgent upon the people that they might send them out of the
land in haste; for they said――We be all dead men”; which the Psalmist
confirms (Ps. 105: 38)――“Egypt was glad when they departed, for the
fear of them fell upon them.” Manifestly the Lord counted it simple
justice that Egypt should pay her slaves for long years of unrequited
toil, and not send them away empty. Therefore he took measures to make
the old masters but too glad to do this tardy justice.
* * * * *
A new instrumentality of most vital importance now came to view,
designed to bring about the redemption of God’s people from Egypt,
viz. _supernatural agencies――miracles_ in the legitimate sense of the
word. Noticeably these miracles were two-fold in character and purpose;
one class designed to identify God to the people and be a witness to
his present hand, to confirm their faith in him as their Deliverer:
the other designed by terrible inflictions of calamity, to force upon
Pharaoh’s hardened heart the conviction of Jehovah’s power and compel
him to let God’s people go. These two objects were to be accomplished;
the Hebrew people were to be assured that their own God had indeed come;
Pharaoh must be made to know who Jehovah is; how fearful the judgments
of his uplifted hand are; and how vain it is for mortals, though on
thrones of human power, to lift up themselves against the Almighty.
In the list of miraculous signs sent to convince the Hebrew people, we
have (Ex. 4: 1–8) the rod of Moses turned to a serpent and then turned
back again to a rod; then his hand withdrawn from his bosom leprous,
white as snow; then again withdrawn, perfectly restored.
The narrative gives the reader a strong sense of the reluctance of
Moses to enter upon this new mission. Over and over again, in varying
forms, he pleads his want of adaptation; that he is slow of speech,
not eloquent; that he sees no improvement in this regard since the Lord
first spake to him; and finally he begs the Lord to send by any body
else he pleases, only (he implies) excuse me. Plainly he pushed this
plea for excuse not merely to the verge of modest propriety but beyond
it, for we read――“The anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses.”
Yet he did so far regard the plea of Moses as to give him Aaron his
elder brother to speak in his behalf. “Thou shalt speak to him and put
words into his mouth; he shall be thy spokesman to the people,” and to
Pharaoh.
The way is now prepared for Moses and his family to return from
Midian to Egypt. He took his wife and his two sons and proceeded on
his journey. The scenes of the first night at the inn are recorded in
these words: “And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD
met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and
cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast _it_ at his feet, and said,
Surely a bloody husband _art_ thou to me. So he let him go: then she
said, A bloody husband _thou art_, because of the circumcision.” This
account is very brief, leaving various points unexplained. Probably
the facts were substantially these. Of their two sons, one had been
circumcised; the other had not――the prescribed rite having been
disobeyed or at least neglected out of the deference of Moses to the
opposition or reluctance of his wife. But as Moses is now about to
assume the highest responsibilities between God and the Hebrew people,
it is vital that his example in this respect should be spotless.
The Lord therefore called him suddenly to account in this manner,
threatening his very life. The cause is instantly understood; the wife
of Moses yields and herself performs the rite, though perhaps not in
the most submissive and amiable spirit. After this transaction and the
developments attending it, we must suppose that Moses (prudently) sent
back his wife and the two children to remain with her father until the
redeemed Israelites should reach the home of Jethro. We hear no more of
her and her children till the narrative in Ex. 18 brings them to view
thus: “When Jethro had heard all that the Lord had done for Moses and
Israel, he took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, _after he had sent her back_,
and her two sons and brought them to Moses” etc.――――Shortly after this
scene at the inn, Aaron, sent of God for this purpose, meets Moses
yet in the wilderness and is introduced to his responsibilities in
the issues then pending before Pharaoh and the people. Their first
introduction to Pharaoh and the reception he gave to their message
(Ex. 5) revealed his character and gave pre-intimations of the conflict.
They put their case before him:――“Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,
Let my people go that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.”
“And Pharaoh said――Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice to
let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go.” Am
not I king over all Egypt? Do you tell me there is some higher king
than I and bid me obey his command? I know nothing of your Jehovah: I
will never submit to his authority! And as if to show how fearlessly
he could resist their summons he at once puts heavier tasks upon
the people, in proud defiance, daring the vengeance of their Great
Defender! Verily the issues hasten to their crisis!
The suffering people are entirely disheartened and evince a painful
lack of faith in the God of their fathers. When Moses rehearsed to
them the inspiring words recorded Ex. 6: 1–8, “They hearkened not
unto Moses for anguish of spirit and for cruel bondage.” Ah, how frail
is poor human nature! How weak is the faith of this long-oppressed
people! But God’s compassions are a great deep and he does not frown
severely upon them, broken down though they were in their manhood and
in their religious trust.――――Moses too seems to falter before this
stern reception from Pharaoh and this disheartening attitude of Israel
(6: 12); but the loving kindness of the Lord endures, despite of these
sad imperfections in his servants. For the glory of his own name and
not for the worthiness or virtue of his people, he has entered upon
this redeeming work and he will carry it through.
The narrative pauses a moment more (Ex. 6: 16–27) to give us the
genealogy of Levi, for the obvious purpose of showing the place of
Moses and of Aaron in this record; and then proceeds (Ex. 7 and onward)
with the impressive scenes of _the ten plagues on Pharaoh and on Egypt_.
* * * * *
A brief preliminary explanation of some of these plagues will be in
place, after which the following points will have special attention:
1. That these ten plagues on Egypt were really supernatural, miraculous.
2. That several of them were very specially adapted to Egypt.
3. The case of the magicians.
4. The divine purpose and policy in shaping the demand made upon
Pharaoh to let the people go.
5. The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.
6. The final result as shown in the last of the ten plagues.
* * * * *
The ten plagues in their historical order stand thus:
1. Water turned to blood (Ex. 7: 14–25);
2. Frogs (8: 1–15);
3. Lice (8: 16–19);
4. Flies (8: 20–32);
5. Murrain upon cattle (9: 1–7);
6. Boils (9: 8–12);
7. Hail (9: 18–35);
8. Locusts (10: 4–20);
9. Darkness (10: 21–27);
10. Death of all first-born (11: 4–8, and 12: 12, 29–33).
References to these plagues by name may be seen in Ps. 78: 43–51, and
105: 27–38.
By way of preliminary explanation it should be said――that the turning
of water into blood should not be toned down to a mere discoloration
of the waters of Egypt――a reddening of such sort as customarily attends
the annual rise of the Nile, only carried in the present case somewhat
beyond the ordinary degree. For, be it noticed, the record is that the
waters were _turned to blood_; that fish could no longer live in it but
died (were the fish deceived by the mere appearance, the color?); that
the river became offensive to the smell; its waters could not be drank;
“there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.” If this language
does not mean far more than a mere _discoloration_――something totally
different from a visual deception; in short, if it does not mean
“_turned to blood_,” then no language can be found to express it.
In the third plague, the Hebrew word for “lice”[29] were better
rendered _gnats_, yet an insect unknown to our country. Herodotus
(B. C. 400) speaks of the great trouble which they cause and of the
precautions used against them. Hartmann testifies: “All travelers speak
of these gnats as an ordinary plague of the country.”[30] “So small as
to be scarcely visible to the eye, their sting notwithstanding causes
a most painful irritation. They even creep into the eyes and nose, and
after harvest rise in great swarms from the inundated rice fields.”
(Keil.)
In the fourth plague, the word translated “swarms of flies”[31] does
not mean a mixed mass or swarm of various insects as our translators
assumed, but “a stinging, scorpion-like insect” [Fuerst], “so called
from its sucking the blood” [Gesenius]. Sonnini (in Hengstenberg’s
Moses, p. 117) says――“Men and animals are grievously tormented by them.
It is impossible to form an adequate conception of their fury when they
wish to fix themselves upon any part of the body. If they are driven
away they light again the same instant, and their pertinacity wearies
the most patient. They especially love to light in the corners of
the eyes or on the edge of the eyelids, sensitive parts to which they
are attracted by a slight moisture.” “They are much more numerous and
annoying than the gnats; and when enraged, they fasten themselves upon
the human body, especially upon the edge of the eyelids and become a
dreadful plague” [Keil].――――Obviously the American house-fly gives us
no adequate idea of this fourth plague on Egypt.
Of the sixth plague, “boils with blains,” it need only be said that
they were inflamed ulcers breaking forth into pustules, intensely
painful. The word for “boils” is the same which describes the plague
brought by Satan upon Job.
The seventh plague, _hail with lightning_, was not unknown in Egypt,
yet was by no means common, and was specially rare in Upper Egypt――more
frequent in Lower.――――The other plagues will be readily understood.
* * * * *
1. It is now in place to show that these plagues were really
_supernatural_――miraculous inflictions from the hand of the Almighty.
(1.) Note, they were wrought in response to Pharaoh’s challenge to
Moses and Aaron to “show a miracle for themselves” (Ex. 7: 9). The
Lord accepted this challenge. Of course the achievements wrought can
be nothing less than miracles. Given on the side of the Lord honesty
and power; then nothing less than miracles can follow.
His purpose in these terrible inflictions God announces to Pharaoh in
these words: “By this shalt thou know that I am the Lord” (Ex. 7: 19
and 9: 14). Events in the common course of nature do not suffice for
this purpose upon such a heart as Pharaoh’s. The case demands real
miracles――things done outside and apart from the ordinary laws of
nature.
(2.) The plagues came and went at the behest of Moses acting under
God; in some cases, at a definite time previously indicated. (9: 5,
18, 29, 33 and 10: 4); while some were removed at a time which Pharaoh
himself for his more full satisfaction was allowed to fix (8: 9, 10).
So I construe the somewhat disputed words (v. 8); “Moses said to
Pharaoh――Glory over me: When shall I entreat for thee,” etc. Moses
would say――I yield to you the honor of fixing the time: say when; and
I meet your time.――――Some critics translate simply――Explain; declare
yourself (Gesenius); or utter plainly, definitely (Fuerst); but the
usual sense of the verb, coupled with the preposition (“over”) which
follows, strongly favors the construction above given.
(3.) Most of these plagues if not all discriminated sharply between the
Hebrews in Goshen, and the Egyptians elsewhere in Egypt――_e. g._ flies
(8: 22, 23) and murrain (9: 4–7), etc. This discrimination assumes
that the plagues followed no general law of nature, but were altogether
special, _i. e._ were truly miraculous.
(4.) They surpassed and even totally eclipsed the achievements of
the magicians; in fact, routed them utterly from the field and showed
before all Egypt that the Almighty God was there!――――The case of the
magicians will be considered more fully below.
(5.) The conviction was forced upon Pharaoh and the confession extorted
from his lips (utterly against his will), that God’s hand wrought these
achievements; that these calamities came at his command, and could be
removed by his power and not otherwise. Hence over and over he begs
Moses to pray to his God for their removal. See this in the case of the
frogs (8: 8); of the flies (8: 28, 29); of the hail (9: 27–29); and the
locusts (10: 16–18). It is not easy to see how stronger testimony to
the reality of miracles can ever exist.
(6.) That these plagues were real miracles, direct from the hand of God,
it is unquestionably the intent of the whole narrative to set forth and
affirm. So much, no candid reader of the account has ever questioned.
Some may say, the narrator was himself deceived: none will deny that he
saw God’s finger there and meant to make all his readers see it. None
can deny that according to his account even proud Pharaoh saw and felt
the very finger of God in them. In fact the narrative makes this its
_main purpose_, viz. to show that these judgments were nothing less
than immediate visitations from the hand of the Almighty. Take out this
element and there is nothing left.
(7.) Or thus: If there is any truth in history, the children of Israel
were for a long period bondmen in Egypt. Ultimately the day of their
deliverance broke and they came forth free. _How came this to pass?_
Was it by forcible insurrection――the uprising of slaves cutting their
way out of bondage into freedom with brave hearts and strong arms
of their own? Or was it achieved by diplomacy? Or did Pharaoh relax
his grasp and let the people go, under the impulses of humanity, or
as a measure of political economy? All suppositions of this sort are
not only unhistorical but utterly chimerical. No solution of this
great problem――the redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt――can ever
find rational support save the one given in this record, viz. that the
Almighty wrenched them from the grasp of Egypt’s proud and hardened
king by a series of terrible judgments launched upon him and his people
in quick and hot succession, until they were only too glad to hasten
and drive the people out lest they should all be dead men. They were
made to feel that the battle was against Almighty God and that they
could not succumb too soon.
The events of this wonderful conflict and victory were stamped into the
national life of Israel; they reappear all along the course of future
ages, interwoven into the very warp and woof of her national history
and into the moral forces which developed the nation’s piety. It might
as reasonably be maintained that there never was any Hebrew nation as
that God did not bring them forth out of Egypt with a high hand, first
loosing Pharaoh’s grasp by these ten plagues, and last, burying his
pursuing hosts and himself in the waters of the Red Sea.
The supernatural character of these plagues will stand out yet more
distinctly when we shall place them in contrast with the things done or
attempted by the magicians.
* * * * *
2. _Several of these plagues were very specially adapted to Egypt._
This does not mean that they were at all less miraculous than any
other supposable inflictions would have been; but only that they had
more or less special fitness to the ends God had in view and were made
to touch the sensibilities of Egypt and her king in tender points.
Thus, the Nile was Egypt’s pride and glory, indeed her very life, and
not improbably (as some maintain) was worshiped by the Egyptians as one
of their gods. How terrible then to wake in the morning to find it one
vast sea of blood!――to have only blood for themselves and their cattle
to drink; blood every-where for the eye to rest upon in place of the
glory of the Nile! How terribly suggestive of their national sin――of
the male infants of the Hebrews murdered there, and of the resources
of Israel’s God to punish the guilty!
So we must suppose that frogs were often inconveniently plenty in
Egyptian waters. This visitation of such masses of them brought
an evil by no means foreign to their experience. The miracle lay
in their numbers and was none the less a miracle because there had
been frogs there before. It must have been excessively annoying and
humiliating,――if the frog as a near neighbor is as unamiable in that
country as in this.
Essentially the same must be said of the lice [gnats]; of the flies;
and of boils. All these were forms of evil not unknown in Egyptian
life; but yet in the present case were truly miraculous and fearfully
afflictive.
Their cattle were so useful and so highly esteemed that some of them
were made objects of idolatrous worship. The golden calf of Hebrew
history was an Egyptian idea. There was special pertinence therefore
in this fearful slaughter among Egypt’s gods!
The hail, with most terrific lightning, was by far the more appalling
because rain rarely falls there; hail and lightning yet more rarely.
In the natural course of events, locusts are among the fearful
visitations of Oriental countries――not unknown in Egypt. In this case
the fearfulness of the plague lay in their numbers, and the miracle was
none the less because they had had some experience before of this form
of desolation.
* * * * *
3. _The case of the magicians._
The entire account of them is in these words. After Aaron had cast
down his rod before Pharaoh and it became a serpent, “Then Pharaoh
called the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of
Egypt, did so with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his
rod and they became serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods”
(Ex. 7: 11, 12). Again, after the miracle of turning the water to blood,
“The magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments” (7: 22). After
the miracle of the frogs, “the magicians did so with their enchantments
and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt” (8: 7). Next, when all the
dust became lice “the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring
forth lice, _but they could not_: so there were lice upon man and upon
beast. Then the magicians said to Pharaoh――This is the finger of God”
(8: 18, 19). Finally, under the plague of boils, “The magicians could
not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boil was upon the
magicians and upon all the Egyptians” (9: 11). We hear of them in this
history no more.
The Hebrew word for “sorcerers” involves the practice of magic arts
and incantations. The word for “magicians of Egypt” contemplates them
originally as _writers_, the learned class, but couples with that the
idea of special skill in horoscopy――the interpretation of dreams and
the doing, or at least pretending to do, things beyond the skill of
the uninitiated. The word for “enchantments” originally suggests secret
arts, things covered, veiled from the public gaze.――――The passage
Deut. 18: 10–14, gives most if not all the nearly synonymous words by
which this class of men and their arts were designated, showing also
that they were regarded before the Lord with most intense abhorrence
as an abomination. By the Mosaic law the practice of these arts was
punishable with death (Ex. 22: 12).
In regard to the case of the magicians as presented in this history,
the point of chief interest will be this――Did they really perform
miracles? Did they in fact turn rods into serpents, and water
into blood, and produce some frogs in addition to what were there
before?――――I am not sure that we have data sufficient to determine
with certainty whether these things ascribed to them were simply tricks
of hand, arts of jugglery; or whether there was really some power
exerted, more and other than human.――――The cases were of a sort in
which deception was at least supposable. All the waters it would seem
were turned to blood before their effort was made. If so, they had to
do with what was already blood and had only to make it appear to be
water before they began operations.――――So of the frogs. When frogs were
every-where in such numbers, it would not be specially difficult to
make it appear that they produced yet more. The turning of rods into
serpents is not unknown in the tricks of jugglery the world over.
Of two facts we may be very sure. (1) They had no help from God. Their
wonders were not wrought by God’s power. We may put this denial on two
independent grounds:――――(a.) The moral purpose of their work utterly
forbids the least participation on God’s part. God never fights against
himself.――――(b.) Their power was infinitely less than divine. Compared
with God’s, it was shown to be simple weakness. “Aaron’s rod swallowed
up their rods.” Before the plague of lice they were compelled to
succumb, and (utterly against their will and against their interest)
they declare to Pharaoh――“This is the finger of God”! It utterly
distances all our skill. We can not approach it. Before the boils,
they writhed in agony. They could not even screen themselves from the
terrible infliction. Moreover it is made plain throughout the whole
transaction that they were powerless to remove even the slightest of
these plagues. If they had possessed this power Pharaoh would have put
them to this service. It is plain they shrank from even the attempt.
The whole scene was a competition between God’s power as manifested
through his servants, Moses and Aaron, and the power of Egypt’s
magicians――resulting in most overwhelming proof that the latter had not
the first element of God’s power in it.――――It follows therefore that
if the magicians had extra-human help――if they had any power beyond
human skill, _they obtained it from Satan_. We may readily suppose
they were in league with him, working according to his will. He may
have sharpened their wits by his influence, helped their arts by his
suggestions, and possibly may have given them superhuman aid in the
line of physical power. It is not given to us to know the exact limits
of his power to aid his servants. It is not essential that we should
know precisely where these limits are. We know enough to impress the
injunction――“Be sober, be vigilant, because of your adversary the
devil” (1 Pet. 5: 8). It may always be our consolation that whenever he
matches his power or his skill against the Almighty, he will come off,
as, in the case before us, utterly worsted in the fight, overwhelmed
with defeat and shame.
* * * * *
4. Some attention should be given to the divine purpose and policy
in shaping the demand made upon Pharaoh to let the people go.――――The
point of special importance here is one which has been thought to
involve the question of strict moral honesty――it being claimed that
the divine demand at first ran on this wise: “Let us go three days’
journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God”
(Ex. 3: 18)――leaving Pharaoh to assume that, this being granted, they
would return to his service.
The facts on this point are:
(1.) It was never promised or even intimated that they would return. If
Pharaoh construed the words of God and of Moses to imply this, he did
so on his own responsibility.
(2.) The demand made upon him that he should let the people go was
based in part at least on the religious duty of sacrificing to God in
the wilderness (Ex. 5: 1, 3)――an entirely appropriate demand――one which
Pharaoh ought to have appreciated, and one which would be more likely
to have weight with him than any other. For he was himself a worshiper
of his own gods; he knew the strength of the religious element in human
nature; he was able to recognize the universal rights of conscience
by which every man may claim to worship God according to his own
convictions of duty. If Pharaoh would not yield to this request he
would yield to none. The policy pursued was, therefore, the most
hopeful and the least likely to arouse opposition.
(3.) Even the severest honesty did not require that the Lord should put
this demand in its most revolting form in the outset. True, he might
have said from the beginning: “My people shall never return”; but this
would have at once foreclosed all hope of gaining Pharaoh’s consent.
(4.) If the question of the return of the people was thus left a very
little open――or more correctly, was not peremptorily closed, it served
the better to test the heart of Pharaoh. It left the way open to ply
him with inducements most likely to be successful; and at the same time
if he proved obstinate and self-willed, he might show it by bantering
over the conditions, higgling as tradesmen and their customers
sometimes do over the price, negotiating like diplomatists for the
most favorable terms. But this was the fault of Pharaoh, not of God.
(5.) Most frequently the demand was made in these significant words:
“Let my people go that they may serve me” (Ex. 8: 1, 20, and 9: 1, 13).
Israel is my son; his service is due to me and I claim it (Ex. 4: 22,
23). You have no right to his services; I demand therefore that you
let my son go that he may serve me.――――This is at least sufficiently
definite, and is by no means open to the slightest imputation of
lacking in the point of honesty.
5. _The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart._
In this topic, as in the one next preceding, the point of chief
interest is the moral one――that which locates the moral responsibility
for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart――that which defines and places
truthfully the really responsible agency in the case. Was this
hardening the work of God, by his immediate hand? Was it wrought by
his power so exclusively and in such modes as to overrule and throw
out of account Pharaoh’s own responsible agency?
Or was the responsible agency that of Pharaoh only, altogether his
and his alone? Did he harden his own heart, in the exercise of his
own free will, in carrying out the purpose and desire of his own soul,
essentially as other sinners and as all sinners do?
This question is one of immensely vital moment. Let us approach it with
both care and candor.
We may reach the true answer by studying,
(1.) The history of the case;
(2.) What is said of God’s purpose in this matter;
(3.) What he has taught us of his character, and of his agencies in the
existence of sin.
(1.) The history of the transaction will doubtless throw light on the
question――How came Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened? _How was it done?_
The history of the transaction, developing the steps of the process,
bears more vitally upon the question, Who is responsible?――than may at
first view be realized. For, let it be carefully considered: God’s ways
of working by his immediate, direct, exclusive agency will forever be
mysterious and inscrutable to us. It is idle for us to ask――_How_ does
God work a miracle? Of course it must be idle for us to inquire after
the natural law of such working because the very idea of a miracle is
that of a work _not_ wrought according to any known laws of nature. If
now the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart were wrought by God’s miraculous,
direct, immediate hand, we shall look in vain for the law of his
operations. It would be simply preposterous to inquire after the laws
of mind in accordance with which the thing was done――the supposition
being that it was done according to _no_ known laws of mind whatever.
On the other hand if Pharaoh hardened his own heart, there will be
no mystery about it. It so happens that we all know but too well how
sinners harden their own hearts. There is rarely the least difficulty
in tracing the operations of the human mind and the influences of
temptation which produce this result. Therefore, if the history of
the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart brings out the working of his mind,
according to the common modes of human sinning――if we see that his mind
worked as the minds of other proud sinners are wont to work under like
circumstances, then the whole question is settled at once and forever.
If we can actually _see_ how Pharaoh hardened his own heart and can
identify the whole process as being the very same which occurs in the
case of all proud sinners who resist God’s power and especially resist
the appeals of his love and mercy, what more can we ask? It were worse
than idle――it were impious to exonerate Pharaoh from the least portion
of the moral responsibility for his hardened heart and to seek to cast
it over upon God.
In entering upon the _history of the case_, it is well to note the
attitude of Pharaoh’s mind toward the God of Israel in the outset. We
have it brought out fully (Ex. 5: 1, 2): “Moses and Aaron went in and
told Pharaoh: ‘Thus saith the Lord God of Israel; let my people go that
they may serve me.’ And Pharaoh said――_Who_ is the Lord that I should
obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I
let Israel go.”――――This is plain; he says he does not know this God; he
does not recognize his authority or admit his claims. His soul is full
of practical unbelief in God――a fact which commonly lies at the bottom
of all the hardening of sinners’ hearts in every age.――――Pharaoh did
not at first contemplate crossing swords and measuring strong arms
_with the Almighty God_. If he had taken this view of the case, he
might have paused awhile to consider.――――So it usually is with sinners.
Unbelief in God conduces to launch them upon this terrible conflict.
Once committed, they become more hardened; one sin leads on to more
sinning till sin becomes incurable――shall we say it? an uncontrollable
madness.
We may now fitly proceed to give attention to each particular case.
The first miracle (Ex. 7: 10–13) that of changing Aaron’s rod to
a serpent, was rather a _test_ than a _plague_. Pharaoh met it by
calling in his magicians to try their hand――his thought being, My men
can do that! They did _seem_ to do it, and though Aaron’s rod-serpent
swallowed up theirs, yet Pharaoh did not love to be convinced and
therefore was not. Under this result, which perhaps seemed to him
a partial victory, he braced himself against God this time.
Next, in the turning of water into blood we read (Ex. 7: 22) “The
magicians did so with their enchantments, and Pharaoh’s heart was
hardened.” This seemed to him a complete success for his side.
Naturally, therefore, his heart is hardened to withstand God yet.
Under the plague of frogs――not by any means one of the most
severe――Pharaoh seemed to yield; he at least begged the prayers of
Moses and Aaron; and promised to let the people go (Ex. 8: 8). To make
God’s hand the more distinctly visible, Moses said――Set your own time,
and I will pray that this plague may cease. Done: “but when Pharaoh
saw that there was _respite_, he hardened his heart and hearkened
not unto them” (8: 15). Alas, how he abused God’s mercy! God lifted
the plague――and up springs the old rebellion of his soul against God.
Perhaps he flatters himself that this is the last, or he hopes that
Moses will pray the rest away as he has this; or, as often happens, the
simple sense of respite without any particular reasoning in the case
makes him feel strong again to withstand God. Not the least sense of
gratitude for the favor――the mercy of removing the plague! O how many
of the sinners of our world have done this very thing! Stricken down
with sickness, have they not begged for life and besought the prayers
of all the good, and promised the Lord that with restoring mercy they
would give him their hearts and their lives? But when the respite came
their vows were forgotten; their hearts were hardened.
The plague of lice brings out another element of depraved hearts.
The magicians try, but make an utter failure, and (what is to Pharaoh
more provoking still) they frankly declare to him, “This is the finger
of God.” They retire from the contest, and leave Pharaoh to fight it
out alone. They can help him no longer. He is apparently vexed and
maddened, but not at all subdued. Rather, he rouses himself to greater
desperation, for the record puts these points in the closest connection:
the frank admission, “This is the finger of God”; and the stiffening of
Pharaoh’s rebellious will――“_And_ Pharaoh’s heart was hardened and he
hearkened not unto them.”
The plague of flies brings out yet another element of human nature
which not unfrequently comes into play in the hardening of men’s
hearts against God――viz. the habit of bantering――shall we say dickering,
driving a bargain and quibbling over the terms and conditions of
God’s requirements. The flies are terribly annoying: Pharaoh sees
that something must be done; in fact he concludes he must make some
concessions: so he calls for Moses and Aaron and says――“Go ye,
sacrifice to your God _in the land_.” The last words were emphatic――in
_this_ land: stay here, and you shall have time to offer your
sacrifices. I can not let you go three days journey into the wilderness
lest ye never come back.――――Moses insists on the original terms; and
then Pharaoh concedes yet a little more: “I will let you go that ye may
sacrifice to the Lord your God in the wilderness, only ye shall not go
very far away. Entreat for me”――_i. e._ entreat the Lord to take away
these flies――the same word being used here as in v. 8. Moses entreated:
the Lord removed the plague, and according to the record “Pharaoh
hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people
go.” Allowing himself to make terms with God and to banter him upon the
conditions, coupled with the respite――the temporary relief found in the
removal of the plague――are manifestly the causes and modes in this case
of his hardening his own heart.
Next is the plague of murrain――a terrible loss of their cattle. In
the antecedent threatening of this plague, Moses said to Pharaoh,
“The Lord will _sever_ between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of
Egypt: there shall nothing die of all that belongs to Israel.” So it
was; for we read――“Pharaoh sent [_i. e._ to inquire] and lo! not one
of the cattle of the Israelites was dead. And the heart of Pharaoh
was hardened, and he did not let the people go” (9: 1–7). This
discrimination gave a keener edge to the plague; it cut the deeper;
but in the result it only maddened him the more. It showed most clearly
that God’s hand was in these plagues and that he was on the side of
Israel; but Pharaoh was committed to the contest and seemed to have
but the one ruling purpose――to fight it out to the bitter end.
The plague of boils was a visitation of physical suffering, perhaps
somewhat adapted to make a fretful man irritable. The narrative notes
the circumstance that the magicians were completely broken down by this
plague: “They could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for
the boil was upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians” [not upon
the Israelites]. As to Pharaoh, all human help fails him; every man
among his people seems to quail and give up the contest; yet his proud
heart is only the more maddened and the more determined! It is said,
“The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh and he hearkened not unto them;”
but such mad infatuation is wont to appear in depraved human souls
without any miraculous infliction of hardness from the hand of God.
There is not the least occasion to assume any other influences than
those of a proud, maddened human heart, working out its own obstinate
will against God.
The hail with attendant thunder and lightning (next in order) were
fearfully appalling. All Egyptian hearts seemed to quiver with terror
under this infliction. Pharaoh is brought (shall we say) to his knees:
he sends hastily for Moses and Aaron and says to them: “I have sinned
this time; the Lord is righteous and I and my people are wicked.” Truly
this seems hopeful. For the first time he appears penitent. “Entreat
the Lord (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings
and hail; and I will let you go and ye shall stay no longer.”――――This
seems to be a final victory over the proud heart and the long time
inflexible will of Pharaoh. He confesses sin; he begs again for prayer;
he promises to yield to God’s entire demand and let the people go.
Consequently the plague was removed. “And when Pharaoh saw that the
rain and the hail and the thunder were ceased, he sinned yet more and
hardened his heart, he and his servants.”――――Alas for man’s perverse
and false nature――his proud heart and his lying lips! How readily he
relapses back into his old and much-loved sin and becomes more hardened
than ever! The judgments of God extort confessions and tears and
prayers; but God’s mercies let off this pressure and leave the guilty
soul to fly back to its old sins again. So it was with Pharaoh. God’s
mercies, abused, worked out his ruin. But it were simply monstrous
to say that this showing of mercy is on God’s part a moral wrong and
that it throws over upon him the moral responsibility of hardening the
sinner’s heart. Yet it was precisely in this way――perhaps more really
and potently than in any other――that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh.
The plague of locusts brings to view a new group of elements. Egypt
had known something about locusts before: so when this scourge was
announced, Pharaoh’s servants beg him to yield the contest. “How
long shall this man” [Moses] “be a snare unto us? Let the men go that
they may serve the Lord their God. Knowest thou not yet that Egypt is
destroyed”? (10: 7).――――Pharaoh yields to their entreaty only so far as
to send for Moses and Aaron, and again try his hand upon bantering with
them and with God over the conditions. “Go serve the Lord, said he; but
_who are they that shall go_”? Moses answers, Every thing must go; we
with our young and with our old; with sons and with daughters; with
flocks and with herds――all, absolutely _all_ must go.――――No indeed,
replies Pharaoh――with what we must take as his royal oath――with the
most fearful threat he could make and the most solemn asseveration――he
says, “_Not so_; go _ye that are men_ and serve the Lord, for that ye
did desire.” That was all ye asked at first: it is the utmost I shall
give! “And they were driven out of his presence.” Pharaoh is thoroughly
mad! This allowing himself to banter them as to the terms of the
arrangement helped him to a stronger feeling of his own importance. He
seemed to himself to be yet more a king on his throne, and why should
not he dictate the conditions?――――Soon the plague comes, and for the
moment it quite changes the face of affairs. “Pharaoh called for Moses
and Aaron in haste, and said” [again]――“I have sinned against the Lord
your God and against you. Now, therefore, forgive, I pray thee, my sin
only this once, and entreat the Lord your God that he may take away
from me this death only.” Apparently he remembers that once before
he confessed, and more than once has begged their prayers, and more
than once has promised to let the people go. So he labors to give
a little more emphasis to his beseechings this time by confessing
his sin against Moses, and especially by the limitation――“_for this
once_”――once more _do_ hear me――this time only. But he has been through
this very process once before; most of its points, many times before;
and it is much more easy for him to turn back upon every promise and
break every most solemn vow than it ever has been before. It is safe to
predict that any sinner who has broken so many solemn vows of amendment
will never do any thing better than break vows when God’s mercy lifts
off the plague. So Pharaoh’s heart is hardened yet again. The statement
is――“But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart”――yet the way he did it,
here as before (9: 34), was by removing the plague; by hearing his
prayer for relief and apparently trusting his sacred promise to let
the people go. This was the way and these the agencies by which the
Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.
The plague of darkness is next in order. Again Pharaoh sets himself to
negotiate as to the terms. He will consent that not only the men may go,
but their wives and their little ones; _but their flocks must be left
behind_. He must have some hostages――something left in his hands that
will bring his bondmen back. Moses says _No!_ we need our flocks for
sacrifice; not a hoof is to be left behind! Pharaoh is more mad than
ever: he not only drives Moses out from his presence, but adds――“Take
heed to thyself; see my face no more; for in the day thou seest my face
thou shalt die.” In this case it is said――“The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s
heart”; but these terrible uprisings and outbursts of madness well up
from the depths of a depraved sinner’s soul. No supernatural miracle
of divine hardening is at all needful to create them. Pharaoh is too
proud a king to bear such confrontings of his will. Shall he yield to
such a man as Moses, or even to the God of Moses? Not he. It stirs up
all the elements of his pride and madness to have his propositions of
compromise so peremptorily rejected. It is this in special that works
in this present case to the hardening of his heart.
There remains but one more plague――that awful night on Egypt when the
wailing cry rang out over all the land, “for there was not a house
where there was not one dead”! and that the _first-born_! Under this,
Pharaoh for the time really broke down; he called for Moses and Aaron
by night and said――“Go ye and all your people, and take your flocks
and herds as ye have said and be gone, and bless me also.” This
conceded everything, closing off with begging their blessing upon his
consciously guilty soul! The Egyptians too were all astir; they were
urgent upon the people to send them out of the land in haste; for
they said――“We be all dead men.” And the people of Israel do really
go.――――But strange as it may seem, when “it was told the king of Egypt
that the people had really gone, then the heart of Pharaoh and of his
servants was turned against the people and they said――Why have we done
this that we have let Israel go from serving us”?――――Forthwith armed
chariots are made ready and are off in hot pursuit;――till they find
themselves battling the mighty waves of the Red Sea, quailing before
the awful eye and under the uplifted arm of the Almighty!――――This
last instance of hardening the heart seems most like pure and simple
infatuation. No doubt Pharaoh and his servants had a fresh sense of
what they had lost in letting go such a host of hard working bondmen.
No doubt they also felt the mortification of having been worsted in
the long-fought struggle over this national question of letting the
people go; but after all they had seen and felt of God’s power to
curse and to plague and to crush them, nothing but the most senseless
infatuation can rationally account for this last desperate dash upon
Israel with the armed force of the nation. Yet no one will say that
such infatuation does not often appear in the history of human sinning.
In his own sphere many a poor sinner is just as madly infatuated as
Pharaoh and his people were――is altogether as senseless, as void of
wisdom, as reckless of the hot thunderbolts of the Almighty! It is an
awfully sad fact, a most humiliating confession as to the manner of
human sinning; but it is only too true! There is no need of assuming
any direct supernatural divine interposition to produce it.
Nothing more seems necessary to complete the argument from the history
of the case unless it be to suggest that when we have accounted for the
hardening of Pharaoh’s heart satisfactorily on the one principle――the
well-known proclivities and activities of a proud, stubborn human heart,
it is entirely unphilosophical to bring in another principle, viz. the
miraculous, immediate, direct action of Almighty Power. When we have
proved the former power adequate to produce all the results, we have
virtually precluded the latter. There can be no reason whatever for
assuming a joint, co-ordinate action of both the natural laws of the
human mind and of the supernatural power of God. If the former suffices,
the latter is uncalled for. Miracles are never to be assumed where
non-miraculous agency is fully adequate.
If it be still argued that the very words declare, “God hardened
Pharaoh’s heart,” the answer is: God is said to do what he foresees
will be done by others and done under such arrangements of his
providence as make it possible and morally certain that they will do
it. Joseph said to his brethren (Gen. 45: 5, 7, 8), “Be not angry with
yourselves that ye sold me hither, for God did send me before you to
preserve life. So now it was not you that sent me hither but God.”
Yet it is simply impious to put the sin of selling Joseph into Egypt
over upon God. God did it only in the same sense in which he hardened
Pharaoh’s heart. He had a purpose to subserve by means of the sin of
Joseph’s brethren; and he did no doubt permit such circumstances to
occur in his providence as made that sin possible and as resulted in
their sinning and in the remote consequences which God anticipated.
It is of no particular use for us to find fault with the way in which
the Scriptures speak of God’s hand in the existence of sin. There is no
special mystery about it. It certainly does not involve the least moral
obliquity on God’s part; and it is therefore every way prudent and wise
to interpret such language in harmony with the common sense of the case
and with the well-known character of God.
* * * * *
2. We proceed to notice what is said of _God’s purpose_ in the
hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. It is the more important to speak of this
because an extreme view is sometimes taken of the central passage (Ex.
9: 14–16); “And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up for
to show in thee my power,” etc. The extreme view referred to is that
God made Pharaoh a great king, put him on a high throne, for the avowed
purpose of displaying his own great power in his sin and punishment.
By consent of Hebrew lexicographers, the verb translated “_raised
up_” means in this case _preserved alive_――have _caused thee to stand_
or continue among the living. The previous context moreover seems not
to be quite accurately put in our English version. It should rather
be thus, beginning with v. 14: “For at this very time I am sending
[present tense] all my plagues to thine heart and upon thy servants and
upon thy people that thou mayest know that there is none like me in
all the earth. For I might now have stretched out my hand and smitten
thee and thy people with pestilence [_i. e._ might have smitten you all
dead], and thou wouldest have been cut off from the earth. But truly
for this very reason have I preserved thee alive to the end that thou
mightest show forth [make others see] my power, and for the sake of
proclaiming my name in all the earth.” To the same purport are the
words (Ex. 14: 17, 18) with reference to the final destruction of
Pharaoh’s host; “And I will get me honor upon Pharaoh and upon all
his host, etc. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord when I
shall have gotten me honor upon Pharaoh and upon his chariots and his
horsemen.” The great thought is that God turns to account the sin and
madness of Pharaoh for the purpose of making known his power to save
his people and to crush their foes. He shapes his ways of providence to
this end. He might have swept off Pharaoh and his people with the same
pestilence which destroyed so many of their cattle; but he had a wiser
purpose. He could make a better use of their sin and of their life; so
he spared them till he had wrought all his wonders upon Egypt before
all the nations of the earth; and then he let them plunge into the
mighty waves of the Red Sea and make their grave there!――――Now if
wicked men _will sin_, who shall object against God that he makes the
best possible use of it? Why may he not reveal his power thereby and
exalt his name as one “mighty to save” or to destroy?
3. It only remains to ask――What has God taught us of his character as
bearing on the question before us, and of his agencies in the existence
of sin?
Here few words ought to suffice. Nothing can be more plain than the
revelations of scripture concerning God’s character as infinitely pure
and holy――as a Being who not only can never sin himself but can never
be pleased to have others sin, and above all can never put forth his
power to _make them sin_. God can not be tempted with evil, “_neither
tempteth he any man_” (Jam. 1: 13). When he declares so solemnly and
so tenderly: “O do not that abominable thing which I hate”! shall it
still be said――But he puts men to sinning; pushes them on in their
sin; inclines their heart to sin and hardens them to more and guiltier
sinning? Never!
Shall it be claimed that with one hand God gives his Spirit to impress
the truth on human souls unto their salvation; and with the other sends
his Spirit to augment the forces of temptation and to harden men’s
hearts unto their damnation? Shall the same fountain send forth both
sweet water and bitter? Shall the same God renew some human hearts unto
holiness and harden other human hearts in sin――all by the same direct
and similarly purposed agency, each work being done under the same
impulses of infinite love?――――Surely there must be some egregious
misconception of God’s character involved in supposing him capable
of acts so fundamentally opposite and incompatible――not to say, in
supposing him capable of tempting men into more and greater sin!
The fact that He wisely and mightily over-rules sin to bring good forth
from it should never be construed to imply that he abhors sin any the
less because he can extort some good results from its existence.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE PASSOVER.
THE first of the three great annual festivals of Israel, and the one
which above all was commemorative in character――a memorial service――was
the _Passover_. It was designed to commemorate the deliverance of
Israel from Egyptian bondage――the great birth-hour of the Hebrew nation.
Especially did it commemorate the scenes of that last eventful night
when God caused his angel of death to _pass over_ the houses of Israel
as he went through the land of Egypt, smiting the first-born in all her
households.――――The central thing in this institution was the slaying
of the paschal lamb――one for each household――and the sprinkling of
its blood upon the two side-posts, and upon the lintel over the door
of each house. This sprinkled blood, seen by the destroying angel,
became his authority for _passing over_ and by that house, sparing its
first-born, while he spared not one first-born of all the families of
Egypt.
There were numerous collateral points in the institution, designed to
fill it out more completely and make it most impressively a memorial
service for all the future generations of Israel; _e. g._ the following:
As to _time_; it was on the fourteenth day of the month Abib,
corresponding to our March or April――the night next following this
day being that of the last plague on Egypt――the night which broke
their yoke of bondage. Henceforth, this was made the first month in
the Hebrew year.
The paschal lambs were _taken by households_. If the family was large,
it stood by itself; if too small to consume one lamb, then two or more
were united, the aim being to have the flesh of the lamb eaten entire.
If any thing remained, it was to be burned in the morning.――It was to
be roasted with fire, not eaten raw, and not boiled in water. (Ex. 12:
8, 9.) The arrangement _by families_ looked toward the great fact of
the original event――that Egypt was _smitten by families_――there being
not a house in which there was not one dead. Its influence must have
been precious through all the ages of Hebrew history in cementing
family ties and sanctifying the family relation.
It was eaten with _unleavened bread_――the rule on this point being most
stringent. No leaven might be eaten or even seen in their households
during the entire feast of seven days. So prominent was this fact that
the feast was called interchangeably, “The Passover,” or “The feast of
unleavened bread.”――――The original design of this prohibition seems to
have been commemorative――the great haste of their departure precluding
the preparation of leavened bread for their journey. The allusions
to “leaven” in the New Testament (Matt. 16: 6, 11, 12, and Luke 12
and 1 Cor. 5: 7) indicate that leaven was associated with “pride that
puffeth up,” and is quite the opposite of that simplicity and purity
of heart which God loves.
It was also eaten with bitter herbs, the vegetable condiments of the
supper suggesting the bitterness of that bondage in Egypt out of which
they came (Ex. 12: 8).――――Yet another suggestive memorial usage was to
eat with loins girt, shoes on, staff in hand (Ex. 12: 11), and in haste,
as men ready to start a journey at a moment’s warning.
The feast continued seven days (Ex. 12: 14–20), beginning with
the evening of the paschal supper. The first day and the last were
specially sacred, all labor being prohibited except that which was
necessary in preparing their food (Ex. 12: 16).――――The object in
allowing so much time was to provide for extended religious ceremonial
services and for wholesome social communion, not to say also for
cultivating national sympathy and patriotism. As all the males from
every tribe in the whole land were required to come together on this
great feast to the one place which God should appoint, the convocation
was vast, and its social and religious influences were naturally both
wholesome and great.
In the original institution it was specially enjoined that the history
and purpose of this great festival should _be made known to their
children_. “And thou shalt _show thy son_ in that day, saying, This
is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth
out of Egypt” (Ex. 13: 7). “And it shall be when thy son asketh thee
in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him,
By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house
of bondage,” etc. (Ex. 13: 14, 15.) How naturally would this wonderful
story thrill the young hearts around the paschal board! How swiftly
would the hours fly away while fathers rehearsed to sons the great
national traditions, or read from the book of the law the narrative,
and sung again and again the song of triumph over Pharaoh fallen with
which this story closes! Jewish history has it that in ancient times
it became the custom, after the paschal table was fully spread and the
family had taken their places about it, for the servant suddenly to
remove the prepared food away. Then when the hungry children opened
their eyes wide and eager lips cried out――What does this mean? the head
of the household rehearsed slowly and solemnly the meaning and purpose
of the feast, with the history of its original institution; then when
the curiosity of the little ones had been both aroused and enlightened,
the provisions were replaced and partaken with a freshened sense of the
grand significance of the Passover.
Closely associated with this festival and fraught with solemn
significance as a memorial institution was the _consecration to God of
all first-born males_, both the first-born of man and the first-born
of beast (Ex. 13: 11–16). Of the lower animals the first-born males,
if without blemish and if suitable for sacrifice, were to be offered
in sacrifice to the Lord. If not suitable (_e. g._ the ass), it must
be redeemed with a lamb――in which case the lamb became the sacrifice,
and the ass might be used at the pleasure of its owner.
In the family, the first-born son was consecrated to God. In carrying
out this principle, a substitution was made by which the entire tribe
of Levi were put in the place of all the first-born males of Israel and
held to be specially consecrated to God. The language (Num. 8: 14–18)
is――“Thou shalt separate the Levites from among the children of Israel,
and the Levites shall be mine. They are wholly given unto me from
among the children of Israel, instead of such as open every womb, even
instead of the first-born of all the children of Israel, have I taken
them unto me. For all the first-born of Israel are mine both man and
beast: on the day that I smote every first-born in the land of Egypt,
I sanctified them for myself. And I have taken the Levites _for_ [in
the place of] all the first-born of the children of Israel.”――――The law
prescribed the rites by which the Levites were set apart (Num. 8: 5–15).
The original institution of the Passover is rehearsed quite fully
in Ex. 12 and 13; is referred to again briefly Ex. 23: 15, and 34:
18–20――this last giving emphasis to the consecration of the first-born.
A brief notice of it appears Lev. 23: 5–8; the accompanying ritual
services and offerings may be seen in Num. 28: 16–25; and a brief
resume of the institution as given in Exodus 12 and 13 stands in Deut.
16: 1–8.
* * * * *
The Paschal Lamb with its sprinkled blood became a pertinent and
impressive illustration of the central idea of the atonement by the
blood of Christ, the elements common to both being――the shedding of
blood――the blood of an innocent one――and especially the passing over
the sprinkled souls by the destroying angel, while the unsprinkled
were smitten by God’s angel of death.――――It is under the force of
these and similar analogies that Paul speaks of Christ as being “our
Passover”――[rather our Paschal Lamb], and as “sacrificed for us” (1 Cor.
5: 6–8). Pushing the analogies of the Passover feast one step further,
he thinks of the exclusion of all leaven; then of leaven as naturally
diffusive, and so as representing the pernicious influence of bad men
in the Christian church; and therefore exhorts the Corinthian church
to cast out the man guilty of incest lest his influence work like
leaven.――――These remoter analogies were forcible to persons familiar
with the feast and its usages; yet we can not say they were properly
involved in the typical significance of the Passover. The easy and
natural manner in which Paul speaks of Christ as our Paschal Lamb shows
that so far the resemblance was a well recognized fact, wrought into
the current views of inspired men, not to say, of the church of that
age. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission; with it
and by means of it remission comes to the guilty, accepting it with
penitence and with faith.
_The long route to Canaan._
Scarcely had the Hebrew hosts set forth for Goshen before the question
of the _route to Canaan_ must be determined. That Canaan was their
destination was settled long before. The first call of Abram designated
the land of Canaan as the home of his posterity. Every renewal of that
original promise specified the country which was given them. Now, for
the course of their journey, the route along the south-eastern shore
of the Mediterranean through the land of the Philistines was short
and direct; but it must have brought them into contact inevitably with
those powerful tribes from whom their descendants suffered so much
during all the centuries intervening between Joshua and David. Just
emerging from a bondage which spanned several generations and which
had emasculated them of all national courage and spirit――but slightly
trained moreover yet into the moral heroism which comes of living faith
in God――they were in no condition to encounter such enemies. The record
puts these points briefly: “God led them not through the way of the
land of the Philistines although that was near, for God said――Lest
peradventure the people repent when they see war and they return to
Egypt; but God led the people about through the way of the wilderness
of the Red Sea”[32] (Ex. 13: 17, 18). The long circuitous route is
therefore chosen.――――Wheeling suddenly to the right they put their
faces squarely toward the Red Sea, beyond which lay the vast Arabian
desert. Ultimately they entered Canaan on its Eastern and not its
Western side――the quarter most remote from the Philistines.――――In this
wilderness route there were great purposes to be accomplished in the
moral training and culture of the nation and in the manifestations of
the God of their fathers before their eyes. That way lay the passage
of the Red Sea which God provided as the burial-place for the proud
hosts of Pharaoh: that way lay Sinai――those grand mountain cliffs
which God was to shake with his thunders and invest with the smoke and
the flame of his glorious presence that the law might be written in
letters of fire upon the souls of the whole people: that way lay the
long, breadless, waterless route of almost forty years wandering and
sojourning in which the Lord fed the people with angels’ food――bread
from the lower heavens――the manna of the desert, and with water once
and again from smitten rocks, flowing in dry places as a river――that
they might learn the power and the love of their God:――that way lay
also their long tuition and training into their religious system――a
wonderful arrangement of sacrifices and ordinances for which the
life-time of a generation was scarcely too long. All these great
results and yet others were contemplated and provided for in this
choice of the wilderness route as their way to the land of Canaan.
_The March and the Pursuit._
The night of the fourteenth day of the first month was one to be
long and gratefully remembered. Little sleep was there in the homes
of Israel or in the dwellings of Egypt on that eventful night. The
feast of the Paschal Lamb beginning with the early evening; the dread
visitation upon Egypt of the angel of death at midnight; the hasty
preparation for their journey throughout all the families of the
children of Israel; the gathering and mustering of their hosts for the
march of the next day:――such was the work of that memorable night. The
stages of their march are definitely chronicled; one day from Rameses
to Succoth (Ex. 12: 37); another day from Succoth to Etham, “in the
edge of the wilderness” (Ex. 13: 20); another from Etham to Pi-hahiroth
between Migdol and the Sea over against Baal-zephon (Ex. 14: 2). The
same stages appear in the official record (Num. 33: 3–8) in which it
is added that “Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all
the Egyptians, for the Egyptians buried all their first-born whom the
Lord had smitten among them; upon the gods also, the Lord executed
judgment”[33]――so that the shock of such and so much death and their
funeral services for the dead diverted their attention from Israel and
detained them from the pursuit for a season, giving the slow moving
hosts of Israel time to reach the Red Sea before Pharaoh’s swift
chariots could overtake them.
_The guiding Pillar of cloud and fire._
At this stage commenced that striking but most precious manifestation
of God’s guiding presence, of which the first record is――“And the Lord
went before them in a pillar of a cloud to lead them the way; and by
night in a pillar of fire to give them light; to go by day and night.
He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of
fire by night, from before the people” (Ex. 13: 21, 22). If the order
of the narration corresponds in time to the order of the events, this
manifestation of the pillar commenced on the second day of their march
as they moved from Succoth to Etham “in the edge of the wilderness.”
All through those otherwise dreary days of their marching and halting
for forty years in the wilderness, this pillar was before them,
appearing as a pillar of cloud by day but of fire by night――the symbol
of Jehovah’s presence in all their way, leading their path as they
journeyed; marking their place of rest where they were to halt and
pitch their tents.――――Subsequent allusions to this pillar of cloud or
of fire are somewhat numerous, _e. g._ Ex. 29: 43――showing that _in_
this pillar God met his people and sanctified the tabernacle with his
glory: Ex. 40: 34–38, setting forth that when the tabernacle was in
readiness, the cloud covered it and the glory of the Lord filled the
most holy place, making that henceforth his special locality. Yet
the pillar of cloud was lifted above the tabernacle as the signal
for striking tents and moving forward. Its service as the signal
for marching or resting is detailed minutely and beautifully in Num.
9: 15–23; and the prayer of Moses on these special occasions in Num.
10: 35, 36. When the ark set forward――“Rise up, Lord, and let thine
enemies be scattered and let them that hate thee flee before thee”;
and when it rested――“Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of
Israel.”――――Other allusions may be seen, Deut. 1: 23 and Neh. 9: 12,
19 and Ps. 78: 14, and 99: 7, and 105: 39 and Isa. 4: 5.
Remarkably when the Egyptian chariots and horsemen drew near toward
evening of the third days’ march, “the Angel of God, [embosomed in this
pillar] which had been in front of their host, removed and went behind
them”――putting himself thus between the men of Israel and the armed
hosts of Egypt――“And it was a cloud and darkness to Egypt’s hosts but
gave light by night to Israel, so that the one came not near the other
all night.” Thus the angel of God in the cloud became, not their guide
only, but their protector, their guardian angel. If there were godly
men in Israel who like Moses could appreciate the salvation and the
glory of Jehovah’s presence, their hearts must have been a thousand
times gladdened, and inspired with ♦inexpressible hope and consolation
as they lifted up their eyes in their otherwise deepest darkness to
see the pillar of fire ever near, the witness that God was near in all
their wanderings. But especially _there_ with the Red Sea before them
and the chariots of Pharaoh behind――how safe they might have felt! for
who is not safe under the wing of God’s pillar of fire?
When Pharaoh’s chariots and horsemen came in sight, rapidly gaining
upon the slow-marching footmen of Israel’s host, the latter were sore
afraid and cried unto the Lord (Ex. 14: 10). This crying to the Lord
would have been all right if only they had believed and trusted; for
then they would have honored their great Protector, and they would
_not_ have chided Moses for leading them out of Egypt, nor would they
have thought so readily of turning back to their cruel bondage.――――With
touching forbearance and grace the reply of Moses (from God) breathes
scarce a whisper of rebuke: “Fear ye not; stand still and see the
salvation of the Lord which he will show to you to day; for the
Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see no more again forever.
The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.” The Lord
did not propose to bring the people into direct battle with the trained
hosts of Egypt at this early stage of their new life of freedom. They
were in no manner prepared for the conflict of arms. This time the Lord
alone would go into battle against Egypt. Israel might stand still and
look on!
Moses, it seems, cried unto God; but whether because there was some
implied unbelief in it, or because there was no time and no further
need of prayer, the Lord answered――“Why criest thou unto me? _Speak
unto the people that they go forward!_” The time for action and for
placid trust in God had fully come.――――But that deep Red Sea lies
across thy path; lift up thy rod and stretch out thy hand over the sea
and _divide it_; let Israel march through it dry-shod. The uplifted rod
of Moses was the signal for the uplifted hand of God by which he forced
the waters from their channel by a strong east wind all that night and
made the bed of the sea dry for his people to pass over. The miracle
in this case was exerted upon the wind rather than upon the water. God
caused the east wind to blow strongly just when its effect was needed
for the end in view. He turned the wind and hurried the waters back
upon the Egyptians just when the opportune moment came for burying
them beneath its mountain waves. If his wisdom had chosen to do so, his
Almighty hand could just as easily have annihilated so much of the Red
Sea waters as lay in the way of his people till they had passed its dry
bed, and then have reproduced them for the destruction of Egypt. But
in his mighty works God does not seek display but rather results, and
these ordinarily by using only the least amount of supernatural agency
which will suffice. It is of little account to attempt to fix the law
of miracles, yet we may not infrequently observe the same method as is
apparent here.
The historian alludes to yet another element of divine agency. In the
morning watch as the host of Pharaoh were pressing on through the very
midst of the bed of the sea, “the Lord looked unto the host of the
Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of cloud, and troubled [rather
confounded, smote with panic] their marching hosts; and took off their
chariot wheels that they drave them heavily; so that the Egyptians
said――“Let us flee from the face of Israel, for Jehovah ♦fighteth for
them against the Egyptians.”――――It may not be possible, certainly is
not specially important, to draw the line here between the natural and
the supernatural. We may suppose that the pillar of cloud which had
been darkness to them blazed forth fearfully in their faces, appalling
the stoutest hearts with fear; that both horses and drivers were
confounded; that wheel crashed into wheel and made advance impossible;
that turning back for flight, their disorder and confusion became a
rout, and that in this hour of crisis the returning waters surge and
dash upon them and bury them en masse beneath the mountain waves! So
perished the slave-holders and oppressors of God’s ancient people! Thus
signally did Jehovah exalt his name and win glory to himself as the
Avenger of the oppressed and the faithful God of his Israel. The case
falls into the same class with the flood and the fires on Sodom, to
show before the ages how readily the Lord can find fit instruments
of retributive justice for the swift punishment of the wicked even in
this world whenever examples are needed to set forth his ♦displeasure
against sin, and the certainty of his retributions upon the wicked.
Under a system which normally puts over this retribution till after
death, it might obviously be wise in the early ages of time to give
some exceptional cases to stand as illustrations squarely before the
eyes of living men, witnessing to the terrors of that retribution which
can not linger long under the government of a just and holy God.
* * * * *
The night of doom to Pharaoh was the night of redemption to
Israel. With the morning light they “saw the Egyptians dead upon
the sea-shore”――men in their armor of battle; horses in the proud
trappings of Egypt; broken chariots, all powerless now――are dashed
up by the waves of the turbid sea and lie strewn upon the eastern
shore――memorials at once of the danger that was and of the victory and
triumph that are, and that are to be, the joy of God’s redeemed people.
Most fitly the deep emotions of the people seek expression in song. The
oldest song known to history and one of the grandest, is here before
us. “I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously:”――Ah,
indeed, it was the Lord who wrought the victory; who went down alone
into that eventful battle and who came back the mighty conqueror! “The
horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.” Over and over this
central idea appears: “Pharaoh’s chariots and his host hath he cast
into the sea; his chosen chariots also are drowned in the Red Sea.”
“Thou didst blow with thy wind; the sea covered them; they sank as lead
in the mighty waters.” Let the Great God of Israel be praised for all
this! Appropriately this is the burden of the song: “The Lord is my
strength and my song, and he is become my salvation.” “Who is like unto
thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like to Thee, glorious in holiness,
fearful in praises, doing wonders”?
Let us hope that the hearts of the saved people were deeply moved in
the spirit of this sublime song; that they saw God as never before, and
gave him the homage of their hearts, grateful, trustful, and adoring!
It may be noticed that Moses leads the thought of the people forward to
the remote results of this redemption: “The nations shall hear and be
afraid; sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestine; all the
inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away; fear and dread shall fall upon
them ... till thy people pass over and thou hast planted them in their
promised inheritance.”
The moral results of this scene, we may hope, were really wholesome
and effective upon the multitude. It amazes us to find that so soon
afterward there were some among them who murmured for water, rebelled
against Moses, made and worshiped a calf of gold: but the young, less
depraved by their Egyptian life and perhaps more impressible by such
manifestations of God, seem to have drank in the solemn lessons of
these grand events.
_The locality of the Red Sea crossing_ has been not a little
controverted――until the researches of modern times. Since Dr.
Robinson’s personal examination of that region, including the site of
Goshen, the route of their three days’ travel till they reached the sea,
the width of the sea at the various points between which the selection
must be made, there has been a general if not universal concurrence
in the conclusions to which he came. The location a little below Suez
where the sea was supposably not far from one mile in width; where a
strong easterly wind would drive out the waters from the channel――seems
to fulfill all the historical conditions of the problem. See his
Researches in Egypt and Palestine, Vol. I. pp. 74–86.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE HISTORIC CONNECTIONS OF MOSES WITH PHARAOH AND EGYPT.
THE thread of our history having now reached a point where we leave
Egypt and have seen the last of that one particular Pharaoh, it is in
place to take a final review of the questions――Who was this Pharaoh?
Can he be identified in the annals of Egyptian antiquities? Have any
points of chronological contact between the records of Egypt and the
records of Moses been fixed reliably so that the one system can be laid
alongside of the other and positive correspondence be made out?
Comparing the Hebrew records with Egyptian monuments and history, the
following points of coincidence may be regarded as established.
1. That (as already observed) the kingdom of Egypt was thoroughly
organized, was powerful, and had, apparently, the ripeness of age,
in the times of Joseph and of Moses. In all these respects it was
far in advance of the adjacent populations of Northern Africa and of
South-western Asia.
2. That the state of the arts, the attainments of the learned in
science, the usages of the people, the reign of law and of social
order, indicated a state of civilization much in advance of any thing
else known in that age.
3. That all the minute references in sacred history to the common
life of the people, to their occupations, to their skill in the arts,
to the productions of the country, to their political relations with
outside powers, are abundantly verified in the numerous monuments and
authorities which testify what the Egypt of that age really was. The
reference to many of these points in the history of the ten plagues
admits of most ample verification from the ancient Egyptian authorities.
4. Particularly we find in Egyptian history the means of explaining how
a new king might arise who “knew not Joseph” (change of dynasty being
a chronic infirmity); and how the monarch of an empire so magnificant,
wielding a sway so despotic, might be tempted to defy Jehovah and
proudly scorn to obey his command to “let the people go.”
5. Yet again as to the sort of labor exacted unmercifully of the Hebrew
people the evidence from Egyptian antiquities is fully corroborative.
“They built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses,” and were
put to the severest toil in making brick; in the erection of buildings,
including the transportation of the heaviest materials; and to “all
manner of service in the field” (Ex. 1: 11, 14).――――These treasure
cities are identified with a high degree of certainty; and proximately
some of the very kings by whom this service was exacted. Mons.
Chabas[34] thinks he has found the Hebrews under name in official
Egyptian records. He argues well that it must be in vain to look in the
public monuments [_e. g._ in their temples] for any thing disastrous
to the king or to his people――those monuments being consecrated to the
triumphs and glories of the kingdom――official bulletins for this very
purpose. This consideration rules out the ten plagues; the escape of
the Hebrews; the overthrow of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Events
so disreputable and disastrous to Egypt need not be looked for on her
sacred monuments.――――But the records on papyrus, consisting of both
official and private correspondence, military reports, surveys of
public works, financial accounts, etc., may furnish their name. The
Hebrews were an important colony, held forcibly upon the soil of Egypt,
employed largely upon her public works. Consequently some notice of
them may be reasonably looked for in the class of documents pertaining
to the business of the realm.――――Mons. Chabas maintains very sensibly
that we should look for this people under the name “_Hebrews_;” not
“children of Israel”――this being rather a religious than an ethnic
designation; not “Israelites”――this name not having then come into use;
not Jews, this name being first used many centuries later.
Three documents have been recently discovered which speak of a
foreign race under the hieroglyphic name “Aperiu.” On principles of
comparative philology, Mons. Chabas makes this word the equivalent of
_Hebrew_.――――In the first document the scribe Kanisar reports to his
superior: “I have obeyed the command which my master gave me to provide
subsistence for the soldiers and also for the Aperiu who carry stone
for the great Bekhen of King Rameses. I have given them rations every
month according to the excellent instructions of my master.”[35]――――The
second is similar: “I have furnished rations to the soldiers and also
to the Aperiu who carry stone for the sun of [the temple of] the sun,
Rameses Meriamen, to the south of Memphis.”
Furthermore, Egyptian records show that they put their prisoners of
war to such labors; for their kings record on the temples the number
of captives they have taken to labor upon the temples of their gods.
Two of these documents on papyri belong to the reign of Rameses II,
whom Mons. Chabas assumes to be the king whose daughter adopted Moses
and whose son and successor, Mei-en-ptah, experienced the ten plagues
and fell in the Red Sea. (Bib. Sacra, Oct., 1865, p. 685.)
6. It is a well-established fact of history that at one period――not
yet located definitely――Lower Egypt was subdued and held by a Shepherd
race, called by Josephus, “Hyksos,” supposed to have come from adjacent
provinces of Arabia or from Phenicia or both, and to have held the
country from 350 to 500 years――a Vandal race, savagely desolating the
noble monuments of Egyptian art and civilization, and known by the
native Egyptians as “the Scourge.” This Shepherd race was ultimately
driven out by the kings of Upper Egypt (a Theban dynasty)――probably
before the age of Moses; perhaps before Jacob went down into Egypt. It
may be considered certain that Josephus and others err in confounding
them with the Hebrew people.――――Geo. Rawlinson [in Aids to Faith,
p. 293] says――“The period of the Shepherd Kings is estimated variously
as continuing 500, 600, 900, and even 2,000 years; that historic
monuments were generally destroyed during their dominion; that no
reliable historic records exist older than the beginning of the
eighteenth dynasty which expelled the Shepherd Kings; and that
previously to their times, ‘Association’ in Royalty was practiced,
two or even three kings sitting on the same throne at the same time,
dividing its labors and its honors between themselves.”
As to the date of this Shepherd rule, the diversity in opinion
among the best informed students of Egyptian antiquity is by no means
comforting or assuring. Dr. Lepsius and others have placed their
invasion of Egypt directly after the twelfth dynasty (B. C. 2101), and
their expulsion about B. C. 1591. In his chronology, Jacob went down
into Egypt B. C. 1414; Moses led the people out B. C. 1314――neither
date having the least regard to the scripture chronology.――――Mons.
Mariette dates it in the eighteenth century B. C., _i. e._ between
B. C. 1700 and B. C. 1800. With this we might compare the sojourn
of the Israelites in Egypt from B. C. 2033 to B. C. 1603; or on the
chronology of Usher, from B. C. 1706 to B. C. 1491.――――Brugsch dates
their incursion B. C. 2115, and supposes them to have been Arabs from
Arabia Petraea.――――Bunsen’s latest recension places their invasion
B. C. 1983; their expulsion, B. C. 1548; and the Exodus of the Hebrews
B. C. 1320――the last date being certainly wide of the truth.――――The
evidence is conclusive that their expulsion preceded the resplendent
eighteenth dynasty whose kings ruled over all Egypt, and among whom was
the Pharaoh “who would not let the people go.” Dr. Thompson argues at
considerable length that the entire occupation of Lower Egypt by the
Hyksos must have _preceded_ the residence of the Hebrews there; but
feels the difficulties of the problem. He says――“As yet the _terminus
a quo_ remains in obscurity” [the point at which their occupation
begins]; “while the _terminus ad quem_ is beginning to take a fixed
place in history.” The date of their expulsion is mostly relieved
of doubt. The war which resulted in their expulsion was begun by
Seneken-Ra, about the commencement of the 18th dynasty of Thebes [Upper
Egypt], and was prosecuted by Ahmes I, otherwise called Nebpeh-Ra, in
whose fifth year they were finally expelled. The reign of Ahmes I is
proximately assigned to the 17th century B. C., _i. e._ from B. C. 1600
to B. C. 1700.――――A curious inscription has recently been discovered
by Mons. Dumischen, referring to a brilliant triumph over the Lybians,
achieved by a certain king Menephtah――this war being dated nearly
400 years after the expulsion of the Hyksos. The scribe appended the
remark――“One could not have seen the like in the time of the kings of
Lower Egypt when the country of Egypt was held by the ‘_Scourge_,’ and
the kings of Upper Egypt could not drive them out.”――――This authority
seems to prove that the Hyksos held only Lower Egypt; that Upper Egypt
was under another dynasty, for a time unable to expel the Shepherd race,
but ultimately successful, and subsequently attaining much greater
military power; also that the Hyksos people were accounted a savage and
barbarous race.
In conclusion I am constrained to say that the study of Egyptian
antiquities, though richly remunerative and satisfactory in regard to
almost every thing else, is still very dubious and perplexing in the
point of _definite chronology_. The views of the ablest scholars are
widely conflicting; the original authorities still wait for some master
mind to put them into system, or what is perhaps nearer the truth, for
the discovery of competent data from which a system can be constructed
which shall harmonize all the authorities in the case. We want to know
the Pharaoh to whom the Lord sent Moses, whose reign synchronizes with
the Exodus. We find a series of powerful monarchs in the eighteenth
dynasty and also in the nineteenth; but which of them answers to
this particular Pharaoh, it seems yet impossible to determine with
satisfactory certainty. Rameses II, all agree, was a powerful king;
built immense public works; reigned at least sixty, perhaps sixty-six
years;――but some authorities place him in the eighteenth and some in
the nineteenth dynasty, and the extreme difference in the assigned
dates for his reign is three hundred years.
The difficulties that invest Egyptian dates and dynasties seem at
present to be aggravated rather than relieved by the progress of modern
discoveries. Thus we find in the Bib. Sacra, Oct. 1867, (pp. 773 and
774) four parallel lists of the first three Egyptian dynasties, viz:
(1.) That of Manetho; (2.) The Turin Papyrus; (3.) The Tablet of Sethos;
(4.) The Tablet of Sakharah or Memphis. Compared with Manetho, the last
three are of quite recent discovery. They are somewhat defective; yet
it is not specially difficult to discover a striking similarity and
in many cases an obvious identity in the names given. But the names
in Manetho’s list almost utterly lack even similarity; much more do
they refuse to come into identity. The authority of the last three
must, it seems to me, be decidedly greater than that of Manetho.――――The
same difficulty appears when we compare Manetho’s names in the later
dynasties (_e. g._ 18th–20th) with names constantly coming to light
in recently discovered Egyptian monuments. I know not how this fact
affects other minds. It can not but lessen my confidence in the
lists of Manetho. It certainly goes far to lessen their practical
value.――――It is somewhat disheartening that these chronological
difficulties clear up so slowly. It still remains to be hoped that
light will yet break in and that conclusions will be reached in which
all important authorities will be shown to concur.[36]
It would be a very great acquisition historically if we might know
what Egypt was doing while the Hebrews were wandering in the wilderness
forty years. Various circumstances conspire to favor the opinion that
during this period her king made a vast military crusade upon Palestine
and the regions farther north, occupying several years and greatly
crippling the powerful tribes [kingdoms so called] then in possession
of the land of Canaan. Both Josephus and Herodotus give accounts of
a great military expedition of this sort――leaving, however, the main
chronological problem _When?_ to be determined.――――As to the great
power of the kings of Canaan, the Lord said to Moses, “I will send a
hornet before you to drive them out,” _i. e._ to break down their power
and facilitate the subjection of the country before the arms of Joshua.
The original word translated “hornet” does not suggest the insect
now commonly known by that name; but is equivalent to _scourge_, yet
not precisely defining of what sort. It is supposable that Egypt and
her next kin after the Exodus, were more maddened than subdued by the
escape of Israel and by the humbling disaster at the Red Sea; that this
great expedition was inspired by the expectation of finding the Hebrew
people in Canaan and of punishing them there; that God’s providence
shielded them with perfect protection in the great Arabian desert
where no Egyptian host could follow them or even subsist; and then with
that marvelous wisdom which so often turns the wrath of man to his own
praise, used their prowess in arms to break down the military strength
of Canaan and prepare that land for easy conquest before the arms of
Joshua. It seems obvious that in point of military strength a great
change had come over the tribes of Canaan between the visit of the
spies and the conquest by Israel. Did the Lord use the chariots and
horsemen of Egypt to produce this result? To have done so would be
quite in keeping with that great law of his operations in this sinning
world under which he so often turns the wrath of wicked men to account
most signally and even gloriously to promote the ends of his own
kingdom.
♦CHAPTER XV.
THE EVENTS NEAR AND AT SINAI.
_The Manna._
THE divine plan of leading Israel to Canaan by the way of the great
desert involved the question of _subsistence_――bread and water for
such a host through so long a journey. It was perfectly obvious that
the ordinary resources of this desert were entirely inadequate, so
that the alternative was simply, miracle, or starvation. In the choice
of miracle God had in view not only physical subsistence but moral
culture――the perpetual impression upon the millions of Israel that
their covenant-keeping God was feeding them every day with bread
immediately from his own hand.
This bread took the name “manna” from the question asked by the people
when they found it upon the ground in the morning――_What_ is this?
Their Hebrew words were――Man-hu; what this? All the ancient versions
and most ancient authorities concur in deriving the name “manna” from
this original question as put in Ex. 16: 15. [Our English version has
the only correct rendering in the margin.]
The manna fell by night as the dew falls, and it would seem, fell with
and in the dew so that when the dew evaporated under the morning sun,
there remained this very fine deposit――“a small round thing, as small
as the hoar frost upon the ground.” “It was like coriander seed, white,
and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey” (Ex. 16: 13–15,
31). A subsequent description (Num. 11: 7–9) adds――“The manna was as
coriander seed and the color thereof as the color of bdellium. And
the people went about and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat
it in a mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes of it; and the
taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil. And when the dew fell upon
the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it.”――――The gathering, the
preparation of it for cooking, and the cooking itself, cost labor,
yet obviously none too much for the health and morals of the million.
The physiological facts to be noticed are that it was sufficiently
palatable for all practical purposes and had the necessary elements
for the real bread――the staff of life――for a whole nation during
forty years of wilderness life, with its alternations of marchings and
encampments; of labor and of rest.
The points which evinced the miraculous hand of God were――that it came
from no known or possible source of supply in the kingdom of nature;
that it fell in the full amount needed for the thousands of Israel;
fell on each of six mornings but not at all on the seventh, the Sabbath;
that the average amount on five of these mornings was a supply for one
day, while on the morning next preceding the Sabbath, a double quantity
fell, being a supply for two days; that the gathering for the first
five days of the week could be kept only one day, but the double supply
of the sixth day remained sweet and pure for two days; and moreover, a
quantity laid up by God’s command in the sacred ark remained unchanged
for many generations. Thus wonderfully did the Almighty impress his
hand upon every feature of this bread from heaven![37]
The allusions to manna in the Scriptures take note of the fact that
“God _suffered them to hunger_” before he sent them this supply (Deut.
8: 3, 16). The record (Ex. 16: 1) states that it was already the
fifteenth day of the second month since they came out of Egypt when the
whole congregation murmured for bread and seemed to themselves about
to perish of hunger in the wilderness. One month and a half must have
quite exhausted the hasty and scanty supplies which they brought from
Egypt. The marvel is how they could have subsisted upon this so long,
even though coupled with all the supplies possible in that desert.
That “God suffered them to hunger” is however only in harmony with his
usual method of dealing with his people――subjecting them to a certain
pressure of want for purposes of moral trial――the object being to test
their faith in himself; to draw out their soul in prayer for help and
in trust under darkness and in straits; and to make the blessing when
given doubly precious. What Christian has ever lived long under any
circumstances of this earthly life without some discipline under this
great law of the Christian life――“He suffered thee to hunger” and then
“fed thee with angels’ food”?
Moses (Deut. 8: 16) makes a special point of the fact that this bread
was such as neither they nor their fathers had ever known before. The
Psalmist (Ps. 78: 24, 25) takes the lofty poetic view of this great
gift of God: “He commanded the clouds from above and opened the doors
of heaven and rained down manna upon them to eat and gave them of
the corn of heaven. Man did eat angels’ food: he sent them meat to
the full.”――――Josh. 5: 12 shows that the manna ceased as abruptly as
it began, precisely when it was needed no longer. The people having
arrived in Canaan and supplies being within reach from the old corn
of the land, the manna ceased and fell no more.
An article of commerce known under the name of “manna,” produced in
the Arabian desert and in other Oriental regions, has scarcely any
points in common with the manna of Scripture save the name. It exudes
from shrubs; does not fall from the lower heavens in and with the dew;
it is obtained at the utmost only about four months of the year; is
most abundant in wet seasons――fails in the dry; is somewhat useful as
a condiment and a medicine, but can never take the place of bread; and
never has been known in such quantities as would supply bread for the
hosts of Israel.
How long the pot of manna was preserved in the ark of the covenant
can not be known definitely. We have the fact that the Lord directed
its preservation there (Ex. 16: 32–34); and the further fact that
when the ark was placed in the new temple of Solomon there was nothing
in it save the two tables of stone (1 Kings 8: 9). It was doubtless
kept long enough to subserve all the valuable purposes of a memorial
to the generations of Israel. It has been embalmed in the Christian
consciousness of the Christian age by its symbolical use in the
teachings of our Lord in which it represents his flesh which he gave
for the life of the world――the far more real bread of life from heaven
(John 6: 31–35, 47–58).
_Water Supplied by Miracle._
The subsistence of the Israelites during forty years in the desert of
Arabia involved not only a supply of bread but of _water_ also. On two
distinct occasions――the first at Rephidim, close to Horeb, during the
last half of the second month from Egypt; and the second at Kadesh, in
the northern border of the great desert, and during the first month of
the fortieth year from Egypt,[38] water was supplied them by miracle.
So great a multitude of people, including their animals, must have
required a large supply of water. Nothing therefore is more probable
than that the supply should often be short, and sometimes utterly fail.
At Rephidim the people most unreasonably chode with Moses as if he
alone was responsible for bringing them out of Egypt and for the lack
of water, and as if their sufferings were so great as altogether to
eclipse all the blessings of that great deliverance. Moses had no help
but in the Lord his God. In answer to prayer the Lord provided for a
miracle, to be well attested by the presence of a body of the elders of
the people. “Take them with thee,” saith the Lord, “and take also thy
rod wherewith thou smitest the river” (the Nile) “and go. I will stand
before thee there upon the rock in Horeb and thou shalt smite the rock,
and there shall come water out of it that the people may drink.”――――The
names given were significant――“Massah” of their _tempting_ the Lord by
their unbelief; Meribah, of their _chiding_ and _strife_ as to Moses.
The scenes at Kadesh (Num. 20) were almost forty years subsequent, and
consequently involved another generation. The spirit of their complaint
was quite the same however――chiding Moses most unreasonably, petulantly
wishing they had died before the Lord as so many of their brethren
who had fallen under God’s judgments in the wilderness since the
unbelieving report of the spies and the consequent wrath of God upon
the people. Sadly we must note here that this unreasonable and even
cruel reflection upon Moses stirred his indignation, excited him unduly,
and found expression in ill-advised words from his lips. The Lord
had told him to take Aaron his brother, to gather the people together
before the rock, and then _speak_ to the rock before their eyes and
it should give forth water. When the eventful moment came, Moses,
instead of saying――Ye have sinned against the Lord your God, yet in
his mercy he will give you rivers of water from this rock upon the
word of command from his servant――said as in the record――“Hear now, ye
rebels, must _we_ fetch you water out of this rock”? In circumstances
where man should be nothing and God all in all――man only a consciously
unworthy instrument, and God the Supreme and ever to be honored Power,
it was one of the sad infirmities of the best of men to put himself
so prominently forward and thrust the Great God so ungratefully into
the back-ground. Then, moved by the same excited passion, instead of
speaking to the rock, he smote it with his rod, not once only but twice.
Yet the Lord did not rebuke him with failure, but despite of his bad
spirit, gave forth water abundantly. The rebuke upon both Moses and
Aaron came shortly after in the form of an absolute prohibition upon
their entering the land of promise. They had _so_ dishonored the Lord
in this case at Kadesh that he must needs express his disapprobation
by denying to both of them the long-desired consummation of entering
the goodly land.――――If the Lord’s rebuke of Moses seem severe, let it
be considered that his sin was very great because he had been admitted
into so near communion with God――such communion as had never been
granted to any other man. If the guilt of sin be as the light sinned
against, we are not likely to overestimate the guilt of his. The Lord
speaks of it as rebellion (Num. 27: 14). And manifestly his sin was
so public as well as so flagrant that it became vital to the honor of
God’s name and government to rebuke it unmistakably.
The exclusion from Canaan fell sorely upon the heart of Moses. He
prayed earnestly that God would reverse this decree, but in vain. The
Lord shut off all hope, saying, “Let it suffice thee; speak no more
unto me of this matter” (Deut. 3: 23–27). Sorrowful are the words of
Moses: “I must die in this land; I must not go over Jordan” (Deut.
4: 21).
The question arises naturally: Were these two cases――at Rephidim and at
Kadesh――the only supplies by miracle during those forty years? One of
them occurred during the first year of the forty; the other, during the
last: was the whole intervening period barren of all miraculous supply?
Or were these two cases put on record rather as specimens than as
exhaustive history?――――Yet another question comes up: How long did the
supply in each of these two cases continue? Rephidim was adjacent to
Sinai, and the hosts of Israel remained before and near that mountain
many days. Did the supply from the Rephidim rock hold good during this
entire period? Did it follow them along their journey in the wilderness
still further?
To these questions the first answer is――that the history is silent as
to the duration of the supply in either case. Moses might have told us
definitely, but he has not.――――Beyond this it only remains to take note
of the allusions to this supply, made elsewhere in the Scriptures, and
to suggest the probabilities of the case.――――The writer of Ps. 78 sings:
“He clave the rock in the wilderness and gave them drink as out of the
great depths. He brought streams also out of the rock and caused waters
to run down like rivers” (vs. 15, 16). In Ps. 114: 8, we read――“Who
turned the rock into a standing water; the flint, into a fountain of
water.” These words imply a great abundance for the time and seem to
assume an ample supply so long as the hosts of Israel remained in those
places. They do not necessarily imply that the waters followed them as
a river in their journey onward from Rephidim or from Kadesh.――――The
allusions in Isa. 43: 19, 20, and 48: 21 are decisive as to the
temporary supply but indefinite as to its duration.――――The words of
Paul (1 Cor. 10: 4) should be noted. “Our fathers all drank the same
spiritual drink (for they drank of that spiritual Rock that _followed_
them and that Rock was Christ).”――――In this passage, drinking of the
Rock can be nothing else than drinking _of the waters_ that issued
from the rock. The only question of importance exegetically is――whether
the words “followed them” refer to the waters or to the presence of
Christ as in the pillar of cloud and of fire. The former seems the more
obvious and natural reference, and, in so far, favors the view that
these waters, furnished miraculously, did follow them to some extent
on their journey――perhaps in the way of fresh supplies provided for
them in a similar manner. It can not be doubted that the hosts of
Israel _had water_ through all their journeyings; they could not have
subsisted long without it. The natural supply must have been vastly
greater in that age than in this if it sufficed for this great host at
all other points of their journey save at Rephidim and at Kadesh. The
fact of a constant supply of bread by miracle favors the assumption of
water miraculously provided whenever the supply from natural sources
failed to meet their necessities. This is perhaps the utmost we can say
in the way of probabilities.
_The Battle With Amalek._
While Israel was on the march near Rephidim, the Amalekites fell
savagely upon their rear in a dastardly, unprovoked assault, described
by Moses (Deut. 25: 17, 18): “Remember what Amalek did to thee by
the way when ye were come forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the
way and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind
thee when thou was faint and weary; and he feared not God.” The day
following, Moses summoned Joshua to choose men for war and go out
against Amalek, proposing for himself to take his stand upon a hill
adjacent with the rod of God in his hand. His uplifted hand and rod
became the symbol or rather the visible manifestation of prayer. While
held up aloft, Israel prevailed; let down, Amalek prevailed. To achieve
victory despite of the weariness of Moses, a stone was placed for
him to sit upon; then Aaron and Hur on either side held up his hands
until the going down of the sun. Thus victory was achieved; Amalek
was defeated, and what is specially to be noted, a signal illustration
was afforded of the power of prayer and a sublime testimony placed
on record before all Israel that in God they were mighty against
their foes and could have nothing to fear. So important were these
great moral lessons that the Lord directed Moses to “write this for
a memorial in _the_ book” [not merely _a_ book]――the well-known public
record in which the wonderful works of God for Israel were to be
permanently preserved.――――Another reason for the record was that Amalek
was doomed for this outrage, and the future kings and warriors of
Israel received from time to time their divine commission to execute
this sentence of extermination. (See Deut. 25: 19, and 1 Sam. 15,
etc., etc.)
There are some differences of opinion as to the history and
geographical location of these Amalekites. The name “Amalek” appears
(Gen. 36: 12) as the grandson of Esau; whence some have found the
origin, genealogically, of this people there; but they appear much
earlier (Gen. 14: 7).――――As to their _home_ geographically, their
nomadic habits require a somewhat wide range of territory within which
they may be found. The passages 1 Sam. 15: 7, and 27: 8, locate them in
the district lying between the Philistines and Egypt, along the eastern
shore of the Mediterranean in Arabia Petrea. We find them repeatedly
associated with the Midianites, Moabites, and Ammonites in raids upon
the children of Israel during the time of the Judges and onward to the
reign of David (Judg. 3: 12, 13, and 6: 3, and 1 Sam. 30: 1). They come
to view in the visions of Balaam (Num. 24: 20), spoken of there as “the
first of the nations”――a phrase which can scarcely refer to their high
antiquity (though this construction is barely possible); more probably
it refers to the fact that they were the first to make war upon
Israel after the latter assumed her distinctly national character. So
understood, the description of Amalek looked historically back to the
facts before us Ex. 17. Balaam foresaw their early destruction――their
case being in this respect solemnly admonitory to the king of Moab.
Let us not pass this historic fragment without a passing allusion
to its admirable fitness as the opening scene in Israel’s relation
to hostile foreign powers. She had and was destined to have national
enemies. It was clearly in the policy of the Lord her God that she
should fight these enemies with arms in deadly combat. Hence it was
vital that she should be taught in the outset where her strength
for victory actually lay. This onslaught of Amalek upon her rear and
the ensuing battle, terminating in victory through prayer without
ceasing――the uplifted arms of their Moses sustained till the sun set
upon the victorious arms of Joshua――became their standard lesson――the
first and the permanent example to show them the fountain of their
strength――the ground of assured victory while they lived in obedience
to God and trusted his arm alone.――――It scarcely need be said that
all the spiritual conflicts of God’s people with sin and Satan fall
under the same general law――victory through prayer sustained and
unfaltering――victory in the strength of Israel’s God alone.
_Jethro._
In Ex. 18, Moses narrates a visit from his father-in-law who brought
to him his wife and children, left in his care ever since the scenes
of which we read Ex. 4: 18–26. Jethro is before us here as both a good
and a wise man――_good_ in that his heart is shown to be with God and
with God’s people, “rejoicing for all the goodness which the Lord had
done to Israel whom he had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians”
(18: 9); and _wise_ in that he saw at a glance that the burdens then
borne by Moses in the administration of justice among the people would
soon break him down; and in his admirable suggestions of a better
method which from that day became established among the Hebrew people.
For both reasons such a visit deserved a permanent record. It refreshes
us to think of that good man who had known Moses forty years as his
worthy son-in-law, yet moving only in the humble sphere of a shepherd’s
wilderness life; but now meeting him God’s recognized Leader of the
thousands of Israel and hearing from his lips the wonders God had
wrought on Egypt and on Pharaoh; the deliverance from national bondage;
the passage of the Red Sea and the entrance upon a wilderness march
underneath the cloudy pillar; subsisting on the “corn of heaven” and
on rivers of water from the rock of Rephidim; and withal having just
then achieved their first victory over the first foreign power that
dared assail them:――all this recital from the lips of such a son must
have moved the aged father’s heart with unwonted emotions. We are not
surprised that he should exclaim: “Blessed be the Lord” [your nation’s
own Jehovah] “who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians
and out of the hand of Pharaoh. Now I know that the Lord is greater
than all gods, for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly, he was
above them” (18: 10, 11).――――Then, being a priest, [“priest of Midian”
Ex. 2: 16 and 18: 1], he proceeded to offer sacrifices in the manner
which had come down traditionally from the earliest fathers. “He took
a burnt offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came and all the
elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God”
(v. 12). The term “burnt offering” is usually applied to a sacrifice
which is burnt entire upon the altar. The phrase “sacrifice for God,”
refers here to a peace-offering upon portions of which the worshipers
partook in the manner of a religious feast――an act at once religious
toward God and social toward man.
The next day Moses resumed his accustomed routine of labor, sitting for
the administration of justice to the people from morning till evening.
The spirit which we see in Moses where he appears first in active life
(Ex. 2: 11–13) would naturally put him to this service. His prestige
as the recognized Leader of Israel under God would turn the eyes of all
the people to him as their Judge. Hence naturally this overwhelming
burden, from which relief came through the wise suggestion of Jethro.
This was that a gradation of subordinate courts be instituted so
that cases of lesser magnitude and difficulty might be administered
by others, and only the more difficult be brought before Moses. The
guiding principle in the classification was at first both tribal and
numerical――following their division into tribes and their numbers.
After their location in Canaan the numerical element gave place to
the geographical. Judges had their province and their responsibility
limited, not by thousands and hundreds directly but by cities and
localities. With this modification the system passed into established
usage among the Hebrews.――――In a parallel passage (Deut. 1: 9–18)
Moses recites the same transaction, omitting all allusion to his
father-in-law, and giving prominence to the qualities requisite in
judges, and to the principles of justice and righteousness by which
they were to be governed.――――At the close of this brief interview
Jethro returned to his home and people. His son Hobab, brother-in-law
of Moses, appears in the history somewhat later (Num. 10: 29–32), and
seems to have consented to act as guide to Moses and Israel in their
march from Sinai to Kadesh, and not improbably until they reached the
Jordan. The home of the family had been on the East and South of Horeb.
In the period of the Judges and onward they are in the Northern border
of the great Arabian desert. (See Judg. 1: 16 and 4: 11 and 1 Sam.
15: 6).
THE SCENES AT SINAI.
_The National Covenant and the Giving of the Law._
Events of most vital bearing upon the national life of the Hebrew
people are now before us. No longer one family as in Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob; no longer a mere tribe, clustering several families under
one or more patriarchs, but a group of many tribes, enlarging fast
toward the proportions of a great nation;――and what is more, a people
no longer under the emasculating incubus of bondage, but emancipated,
and free to rise and assume the duties of self-government with all its
possibilities of growth and improvement, personal and national――this
great people, were at this point summoned of God to enter into solemn
national covenant with himself. In its spirit and significance this
covenant differed in no essential point from that which God made with
Abraham more than six hundred years before. In that earlier covenant
Abraham spake for himself, and so far as it was naturally possible,
for his posterity as well; and God on his part promised to be a God not
to him only but to his seed after him; yet when this seed of Abraham
became a great people, there was special fitness in summoning them to
renew this covenant _for themselves_. Precisely this was done before
Sinai.
The Lord reminded them most appropriately of what he had so recently
done for them. “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I
bare you on eagle’s wings and brought you unto myself.” It was as if
he had lifted them up from earth toward heaven and borne them forth and
out from their national bondage――as the eagle might take up her young
and bear them aloft beyond the reach of whatsoever hostile power were
tied down upon the earth’s surface. God had done this for the definite
purpose of _bringing them to himself_. “Now, therefore, (he proceeds)
if ye will obey my voice indeed and keep my covenant, then ye shall be
a peculiar treasure to me above all people, for all the earth is mine;
and ye shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex.
19: 4–6). In this divine proposal the central word, translated here
“peculiar treasure,” appears in Ps. 135: 4 translated in the same way;
but in Deut. 7: 6 with a different translation――“A _special people_
unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
The sense is――a special property――a people by the choice of God and
by their own voluntary consecration, made peculiarly his own. Moses in
Deuteronomy (as above) labors to impress upon the people the thought
and purpose of God in this covenant relation: “The Lord did not set his
love upon you nor choose you because ye were more in number than any
[other] people; for ye were the fewest of all people; but because the
Lord loved you and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn
unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand and
hath redeemed you out of the house of bondmen from the hand of Pharaoh
king of Egypt.” Of kindred significance are the other phrases used to
express their new proposed relation to God――“A kingdom of priests and
a holy nation.” This strong language――“a kingdom of priests”――gives
us the thought of a _whole people_――every man in all the nation,
personally consecrated to God, as if the nation were made up of priests
and of such only. God would have them understand that the holiness he
required of them was not the professional service of a chosen few, but
the free-will offering of every man’s own heart and life. The whole
people――every individual man――was summoned to come into this national
covenant. Would they come?
Moses called for the elders――who acted as the representatives of the
whole people and “laid before their faces all these words from the
Lord.” At once all the people answered together and said――“All that
the Lord hath spoken we will do.”――――Let us hope that a fair proportion,
including at least many of the representative men of the nation, were
thoroughly sincere in this profession. It would be grateful to our
feelings to believe that they all both understood and meant what they
said. But, alas! subsequent developments forbid this belief. It was
however the formal consent of the nation. As a whole people they gave
their voice to this definite proposal from the Lord their God――that he
would be their God and that they would be his people.
* * * * *
The next thing in order, is the _giving of the law_. A people who
propose to be the Lord’s and to obey his voice, should be made
acquainted with his will in the form of _law_. They must be informed
what he would have them _do_. Rules of heart and life, precepts
defining the reverent homage and worship due to God, and the acts
required or forbidden as toward their fellow-men should be made
unmistakably plain. Preparations are accordingly made for the formal
and solemn promulgation of this great moral law. It is noticeable that
in these preparations nothing seems to be omitted that might conduce
to a deep and solemn impression. The people are specially enjoined to
sanctify themselves, and two full days are set apart for this purpose.
They were commanded to “wash their clothes”――significant of the
personal purity of heart which God required.――――Then the surroundings
were of the most imposing and impressive character. The whole people
were gathered in an open plain which lay at the foot of Sinai. The most
stringent precautions forbade all curious, irreverent approach. Not a
man or beast might touch the mountain on pain of death. Definite bounds
were set for the people over which no one might pass. There before them
full in view stood the awful mount――rugged, grand, cleft with fissures,
broken with deep ravines, towering in sublime height and all enwrapped
in thick clouds out of which lightnings flashed――the whole mountain
rocking under the footsteps of the Almighty and reverberating with
his awful thunder, and the voice of trumpet exceeding loud so that all
the people in the camp trembled. The written description of this scene
gives us a sense of its ineffable grandeur and sublimity. “Mount Sinai
was altogether on a smoke because the Lord descended upon it in fire;
and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole
mount quaked greatly. When the voice of the trumpet sounded long and
waxed louder and louder, Moses spake and the God answered him by a
voice.”――――Essentially the same descriptive points are repeated after
the record of the law as promulged from Sinai (Ex. 20: 18–21). “All
the people saw the thunderings and the lightnings and the noise of
the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they
removed and stood afar off, and said to Moses: Speak thou with us and
we will hear; but let not God speak with us lest we die.” See also the
renewed mention of this scene in Deut. 4: 10–12.[39]
_The Moral Law as given from Sinai._
Passing from the natural surroundings and scenes of Sinai to
the law itself, let it be observed carefully that this law of ten
commandments (Ex. 20: 1–17 and Deut. 5: 6–21) is to be somewhat broadly
distinguished from the other “statutes and judgments,” whether civil
or religious, which the Lord gave to Israel by the hand of Moses;――this
distinction being apparent in the following points and for the reasons
which they suggest:
1. It was proclaimed by God himself in a most public and solemn manner
in the hearing not of Moses alone, but of the elders of the people at
least, if not of the people en masse, assembled before and around the
glorious mount.
2. It was given under circumstances of most appalling majesty and
sublimity――the mountain being enveloped with clouds and thick darkness,
yet at some moments all ablaze with the lightning’s flash and rocking
beneath Jehovah’s feet.
3. It was written by the finger of God on two tables of stone (Deut.
5: 22).
4. It differed from any and all other laws given to Israel in that it
was comprehensive and general rather than specific and particular.
5. It was complete, being one finished whole to which nothing was to be
added――from which nothing was ever taken away. (“And he added no more”
Deut. 5: 22. See also Mat. 5: 18). The other statutes, as we shall see,
were subjected to future modification.
6. The law of the ten commandments was honored by Jesus Christ as
embodying the substance of the law of God enjoined upon man. With
a master’s hand he grasped and brought out its two great principles,
underlying all the precepts: Love supreme to God: love equal and
unselfish toward fellow-men. “Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy
heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.” (Mat. 22: 36–40, and 19: 18, 19
and Mk. 12: 28–34).
7. It can scarcely be doubted that Jesus had his eye specially
if not exclusively on this law (Mat. 5: 18) as _one never to be
repealed_――from which not one jot or tittle should ever pass away.
To this great moral law of ten commandments we now give special
attention and note――That its introduction (Ex. 20: 2), “I am the Lord
thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt――out of the
house of bondage”――is special――not general and universal; is adapted
to the circumstances of Israel, and gives a special reason why _they_
should honor this law as coming from the God of their national covenant,
the Redeemer and Savior of their nation. On the one hand this special
reason why Israel should render supreme homage to Jehovah as their
Deliverer from Egyptian bondage neither applies specifically to all
mankind, nor does it imply that this law is not binding on other people
than Israel. It was pertinent that as given originally to them it
should be preceded and introduced by this special consideration, so
pertinent to their case. Yet it should be thoughtfully considered――God
might have said most truly to every child of his great human family――I
am He who gave thee thy being and every good; and therefore I claim
thy supreme love and homage.――――I see no reason to question that this
clause was put on the two tables of stone――its special introduction as
given to the children of Israel.
I. In the first precept, the words “before me” are construed variously.
The most usual and obvious translation of the Hebrew words is――_before
my face_. In some connections the preposition might mean _upon_ or
_above_. “My face” is thought by some to be merely equivalent to
_myself_. Keil translates――“literally _beyond me_, or in addition
to me, equivalent to except me, or by the side of me.” He rejects
the construction, “before me” (in my presence) as incorrect, and
also condemns _against me_――in opposition to me. Fuerst has it “above
_i. e._ except me.” Murphy says――“before me” is literally “upon my
face.” It supposes those other gods to be set up _before_ the true
God as antagonists in the eye of God and as casting a shade over his
eternal being and incommunicable glory in the eye of worshipers.――――The
two constructions――_beyond_ me and _above_ me――are open to the
objection that they seem tacitly to admit other gods provided they
are inferior and that God is supreme. I prefer as the more obvious and
natural construction――_before my face_. Thus the precept forbids homage
to any other god in the presence of the supreme and omniscient Jehovah;
and by consequence, forbids divine honor to any other being or thing
whatsoever. “Thou shalt have no other gods _before my face_” seems
to imply that the least acknowledgment of other gods is in its very
nature an insult to Jehovah, as if it thrust those gods into his
very face――held them up before his eye as more worthy of homage than
he. Moreover, as no possible worship of other gods can escape his
eye, or be otherwise than thrust up before his face, the prohibition
necessarily shuts off all such worship. You may never worship other
gods than the One Supreme Being, for it is simply impossible that any
such worship can elude his eye, and you must not put it before his face.
II. The second command prohibits the making and worshiping of images
designed to represent idol gods――imaginary powers, supposed to have
more or less control over human welfare. It equally prohibits images
designed to represent the true God. All such sensuous conceptions of
God are necessarily debasing. They rest on false views of God; tend
to fearful and fatal degeneracy; and must therefore be forbidden under
most stringent penalties. The whole history of our race witnesses to
the infinite mischief wrought by such sensuous conceptions of God, as
well as by the notion of subordinate powers, lower than the one supreme
yet more than human. This has been one of Satan’s devices to rule God
out of his universe and transfer to other objects the worship due to
God alone.
This prohibition as it stands here is not enforced by specific
penalties, but in a way far more impressive it bears us back to the
very heart of God, revealing his holy _jealousy_ of any rival to his
throne who would wrest and steal away from him the supreme love and
homage of his creatures, and give it to supposed gods that are no Gods
at all. “For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
hate me.”――――By the very law of the family relation, the great sins
of the father send their curse down upon his children. He makes them
heirs to an inheritance of shame and sorrow. He entails calamity upon
his offspring. Godless and idolatrous himself, he makes his family also
godless and idolatrous. The influence of his sin will naturally and
almost inevitably blight the morals and the souls of his children after
him, and of his children’s children. Let this fact throw its shield
like a wall of fire around him and his family, so that, if not for his
own sake, at least for the sake of his unborn offspring, he will most
sacredly obey this command and abstain from the least infringement of
it in spirit or in letter.
“Visiting iniquity” and “showing mercy” are set over against each
other――the penal visitations of judgment for this sin warning men
against it; and the great promises of mercy to the obedient alluring
them to its most diligent observance. Judgment is God’s strange
work, while mercy is his delight. Therefore we have here the forceful
antithesis――the visiting of the iniquities of fathers upon children
to the third and fourth generation, but the showing of mercy unto
thousands of generations of them that love and obey. To a Hebrew mind
this last clause of the second command would naturally suggest God’s
mercies to Abraham, the well-known friend of God, upon whose posterity
God was shedding forth his blessings to thousands of generations. So
richly does the loving God reward his dutiful and trustful children! So
much more grateful to his heart it is to bless even to the thousandth
generation than to visit iniquity even so far as to the third and
fourth!
It should be carefully noted that the visiting of the iniquities of
fathers upon sons falls only _upon those who hate him_. If sons in
any future generation turn from their sinning to the love of God,
his merciful loving-kindness to them is sure. The curse visits only
those who persist in the sin of their fathers despite of all the
warning judgments that should admonish them to fear God. (See Ezek.
18).――――This injunction against image-making and worship would
naturally suggest to the men of Israel the idolatrous Egyptians. Their
early fathers received from Noah the knowledge of the one only true
God. But they did not love this knowledge, nor the God whom it revealed;
therefore, not liking to retain these views of the pure and holy God,
they chose to think of him as being like some of his works and began to
worship such imaginary gods; or they put in his place some lower beings
or powers as objects of worship. Hence the terrible judgments which the
children of Israel had seen falling upon Egypt and her idols.
“Upon those that love me” is delightfully suggestive of the great
truth that the essence of all acceptable worship is love. God looks
complacently on his human children when they delight in his glory, love
his character, rejoice in his blessedness, and make it the best joy of
their souls to please him by doing all his will. Such love legitimately
flows out in reverent worship and adoring homage. Over against this the
worship of idols in place of God is congenial only to the souls that
hate God. This command assumes that those who worship other gods really
hate the one Supreme Jehovah. Therefore it is that his jealousy burns
against them. They withhold from him the love and the homage of their
hearts.
III. In the third command the exegetical question is whether it refers
primarily and properly to perjury, or to profanity, _i. e._ whether the
Hebrew word for “_in vain_”[40] is precisely falsehood, or emptiness, a
nothing, a thing of no worth. The current of critical opinion (Gesenius,
Fuerst, etc.) goes for the former, falsehood; and makes the precept in
its strict sense condemn perjury. Thou shalt not take up the name of
Jehovah to a falsehood――shalt not use it to affirm the more solemnly
what is false. Yet as what is false has no foundation in fact, and in
point of truth is nothing――is only an emptiness――it comes to pass that
this Hebrew word takes not infrequently this secondary sense; what is
_empty_, _vain_. Hence some able critics [_e. g._ Keil] construe this
precept to prohibit “all employment of the name of God for vain and
unworthy objects so as to include not only false swearing, but trivial
swearing in the ordinary intercourse of life and every use of the
name of God in the service of untruth and lying――for imprecations,
witchcraft, or conjuring.”――――The construction of Keil, being the
more broad and comprehensive, and withal being clearly within the
established usage of the original word, is to be preferred. The
doctrine of inspiration is――“Thy commandment is exceeding broad” (Ps.
119: 96).――――The _name_ of God is associated closely with the idea and
thought of God. Hence all irreverent use of this name naturally begets
irreverence of spirit toward God, and must be fearfully pernicious.
Using God’s sacred name to affirm the more solemnly a falsehood is more
than mere irreverence, and must incur his highest displeasure.
The fourth command――the law of the Sabbath――has been already treated
somewhat fully in connection with the original institution of the
Sabbath in Eden. I must dissent entirely from those critics who deny
the existence of any Sabbath law prior to Sinai. To “bless the seventh
day and sanctify it” (as said in Gen. 2: 3) has no meaning if it do
not mean that God required the day to be one of rest from labor――a day
of holy time, devoted to other than ordinary uses.――――Fully in harmony
with this construction of these words is the allusion to the Sabbath
in the history of the manna (Ex. 16: 22–30), and also the _form_ of
the precept here (Ex. 20: 8), which is not precisely――Thou shalt do
all thy work during six days, but none on the seventh;――but it is this:
“_Remember_ the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” The implied injunction
of the words spoken in Eden was――make it a holy day. God blessed the
seventh day and made it holy: now, therefore, _remember_ that original
injunction. To remember a previous day made holy, must surely imply a
precept setting it apart as holy time.
As given here the law of the Sabbath is expanded into its
legitimate details. The prohibition of labor is applied to children,
to servants, to cattle and to strangers. Then the reason for the
command, essentially as given in Eden, is reiterated; “For in six days
the Lord made heaven, earth, sea, and all creatures; but rested on
the seventh day; therefore he blessed and hallowed this Sabbath-day.”
Noticeably, the statement following “therefore,” uses the same Hebrew
verbs――“bless,” and “sanctify” [or “hallow”] which are used Gen.
2: 3.――――It seems plainly implied that God places before men his own
example of creative work during six day-periods and of rest from this
work on the seventh as a reason or motive for their observance of the
Sabbath――one day of rest after six of toil. A secondary consideration
is doubtless that by this arrangement the Sabbath would be perpetually
suggestive of man’s relation to God as his Infinite Creator and Father.
The linking of the Sabbath to God’s creative work and rest would
naturally make that work a fact ever present to human thought――blending
its influence with the sacredness and with all the employments of this
holy day. Man desists from labor. Why? Because God did. After what
labor? That of making the heavens and the earth and man. Therefore let
man remember God as his Creator and render him the homage of obedience
and the homage of adoration, gratitude and praise. Thus the historic
origin of the precept became suggestive of the thoughts, the words, and
the divine worship appropriate to this holy day.
It is scarcely in place here to discuss the Christian change from the
seventh to the first day of the week, further than to remark that a
similar suggestive influence came in as the purpose and object――_the
choice of the day suggesting the resurrection of Christ_. The original
reference to God as Creator need not be practically lost: but we
may practically gain a second group of suggestive and most vital
truths――those which cluster round the resurrection of our Lord.
V. The fifth command consecrates its strength to the family relation.
Addressed to children it requires them to honor their father and their
mother, and makes obedience the condition of long life and prosperity
in the land of their promised inheritance. As read in Ex. 20: 12 the
command specifies only long life, but as repeated in Deut. 5: 16,
“that it may go well with thee”――is added. General prosperity is
however involved and implied in length of days.――――Obviously this
honor carries with it obedience as well as due respect. Such honor is
vital to the happiness and the value of the family relation. Without it
no foundation can ever be laid for a useful and worthy after-life. It
should not be overlooked that the earliest training of the infant mind
Godward should begin with cultivating the honor and obedience due to
father and mother. Through all the earliest developments of the infant
and youthful mind, the parent is to the child in the place of God.
The same qualities of character, the same obedience, respect, and
deference, which God requires toward himself are to be first implanted
and developed in the mind toward the human parent. Failing of their due
development in this antecedent relation, they are almost certain never
to be developed toward God: a fatal defect in character is fastened
upon the child; a cast of mind is determined which but too surely ends
in hopeless ruin.――――It is noticeable that this very association of
ideas, uniting the homage due to parentage and years with the honor
due to God appears in the Mosaic law (Lev. 19: 32); “Thou shalt rise
up before the hoary head and honor the face of the old man; and _fear
thy God_: I am the Lord.”
VI. The next four precepts are a series beginning with the most vital,
designed to protect the rights of person and life; of chastity; of
property; and of reputation. The precepts forbid murder, adultery,
theft, false witness, or defamation. The prohibition of murder must
be construed broadly enough to forbid personal injuries on the one
hand; and on the other all those passions――hate, malice prepense――which
naturally lead on toward violence and murder.――――The prohibition of
adultery in like manner forbids not only all illicit sexual connection,
but even unchaste desire (Matt. 5: 27, 28). So the prohibition of theft
devolves the duty of caring for our neighbor’s property so far as the
law of loving our neighbor as ourself would require. It is not enough
that we do not take his property and appropriate it to our own use.
We must protect his right to his property as he should ours. In like
manner the law forbidding the bearing of false witness against our
neighbor involves the duty of protecting and cherishing his reputation.
We may never forget that our neighbor’s good name is a treasure to him
which we not only must not steal away, but must so far as in us lies
guard and defend as if his good were worth as much as our own. The one
comprehensive principle which embraces all these points of law toward
our neighbor and determines their true interpretation is given in the
law of Moses as well as in the law of Christ――“Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself” (Lev. 19: 34 and Matt. 22: 39 and 19: 19). As to
this passage from Moses it should be noted that _in terms_ it speaks
not precisely of one’s neighbor but of the _stranger_――one toward
whom you are wont to think your obligations less than toward any other
human being; for he is not a brother born of the same father――not a
relative of the same tribe――not a citizen of the same commonwealth
or nationality; but an alien, a foreigner, a stranger toward whom you
recognize no other relation than that of a fellow-being of human kind.
Of such an one the law holds――“The stranger that dwelleth with you
shall be unto you as one born among you, and _thou shalt love him as
thyself_; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord
your God”――and I enjoin upon you this all-embracing love for the lowest
of human kind.
It should be carefully noted that although this group of four commands
(6–9) in each case specifies the extreme form of the sin, the law
by no means limits its prohibition to this extreme form. Killing is
the extreme of personal violence; adultery (strictly the crime of the
married) is the most aggravated form of unchastity; theft is more than
simply being reckless of your neighbor’s property; and false witness
naturally contemplates a case in court――public, formal, and of most
grave and momentous consequences;――yet in each and every one of these
prohibitions it behooves us to remember that God looks at the heart;
that the spirit is more than the letter; that the law which specifies
the extreme form of a special sin forbids with its full force all
the lower grades and all the less flagrant and revolting forms of the
same sin. We wrong ourselves most fearfully when we labor to ease our
conscience by limiting the prohibitions of God’s law to the extreme
forms of sin which may be named in the statute. It is always our
highest wisdom to deal very honestly with our own conscience as before
God in the construction and application of his law.
The tenth and last commandment is peculiar, as compared with all others
of the second table, in this point――that it specifies no external act
whatever but lays its prohibition directly _upon the heart_. “Thou
shalt not covet”――shalt not allow thyself to _desire_ in such a way as
might tempt thee to try to obtain――thy neighbor’s house, wife, servants,
cattle, or any thing that he has. This law aims to forestall temptation.
It strikes at the root of such sins as theft and adultery by forbidding
any such desire as might move you toward the sin. It may be regarded
as shielding both of the two parties; the one who might commit the
sin, and the one against whom the sin might be committed. It throws
its shield over him who might otherwise be tempted, and it also becomes
in so far a safeguard around him who holds treasures which lustful eyes
might covet.
Let us not omit to notice that it was this precept which opened the
spiritual eye of Paul and gave him a new view of the breadth and true
significance of God’s law. “I had not known sin, (said he) but by the
law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not
covet” (Rom. 7: 7). His Pharisaic training (we may suppose) had been
scrupulous over the tenth part of the mint and anise and cummin――had
taken even ostentatious care of the external matters of the law;
but, alas! had _left the heart out_. Here at the close of the
law of Sinai――last among the precepts that treat of duty to our
neighbor――stands one which puts its finger squarely upon the _heart_.
It says――“Thou shalt not _covet_.” It not only suggests that God
looks within the soul of man for sin, but it demands that every man
shall look there too and put his own restraining hand directly upon
those rising desires which, indulged, would push him into overt sin.
Moreover, this one precept may be supposed to have suggested to the
mind of Paul that the whole law of God must be construed on this
heart-principle――that every precept it contains goes beyond the letter
to the spirit――pushes its demand deeper than the outward act, even to
the inner thought, passion, and purpose of the soul. This view put the
law of God in a new light――we might even say――revealed a new law to his
soul. It gave him a new field for self-examination; brought up new sins
never seen or dreamed of before, and at once demolished hopes of favor
before God and of salvation on which he had perilously leaned through
all his Pharisaic life.――――“Thy commandment” (said one of the Psalmists)
“is exceeding broad” (Ps. 119: 96). We are not to think of all the Old
Testament saints as Pharisees. Let us rather hope that many of them
read in the law of Sinai the law of love, and adjusted to it, not the
outward life only but the very heart as well.
_Progress in the Revelation of God to Man._
The first twenty chapters of Exodus cover a period eminently rich in
point of _progress_ in revealing God to the race.――――More fully than
ever before God manifested those special elements of his character
which are unfolded in the new name Jehovah――I am that I Am (Ex. 3: 14).
He had given promises before; then he came forth to _fulfill_ them. He
had talked with the patriarchs about faith, and had sought to inspire
it in their souls. In these great deeds for his people he gave them
demonstrations of his eternal faithfulness――a basis on which their
faith might rest, and also the faith of every child of his through all
the future ages. God came exceedingly near to his afflicted people in
Egypt, and never missed any opportunity of suggesting and impressing
the idea that these tender testimonies of his love were in proof of
his _fidelity to promise_――were the very acts which his covenant with
Abraham involved and called for――called for of their covenant God not
in vain.
Again, we see here the _possibility of very great intimacy of communion
between God and man_. As bearing on this point the reader will review
the scene between Moses and the Lord at the burning bush; in his
mission to Pharaoh; in the special directions given him in regard to
the sending of each several plague, and usually as to its removal as
well. Did ever earthly Potentate stand on more intimate terms with his
prime minister? Or military chieftain with his subordinate officer? If
Moses was at any point reluctant, under a conscious sense of capacities
unequal to the work and of difficulties he could not surmount, did he
not bring the matter before the Lord with at least as much freedom as
the case could justify?――――Especially when we think of Moses coming
so near to Jehovah in his majesty wielding the terrific agencies of
flood and storm and fire, of darkness and lightning and the voice of
trumpet exceeding loud――Mt. Sinai rocking beneath his feet, and Moses
alone drawing near the Awful Presence and talking with God face to face
there――what shall we say of the possibilities of communion between man
and his Maker? Whatever speculations we may have as to the means and
methods by which the thought of God was borne to the mind of Moses and
the thought of Moses to the mind of God, the great fact of _communion_
of mind with mind――thought meeting thought――of command from the
superior party, received and obeyed by the inferior――is on the outer
face of the whole history and admits of no question. God can speak to
man so that man shall know the voice to be his and comprehend perfectly
its significance. Relations of obedience, confidence, and love on the
part of man toward his Maker are established, and God meets them with
appropriate manifestations of his favor.
This great fact is one of telling significance in the whole province
of Christian experience. Its significance can not terminate with the
present life but must pass on to be unfolded far more gloriously in
the revelations of the eternal world. “It doth not yet appear” [in all
points] “what we shall be”――but it does appear that God has made us
capable of exceedingly intimate relations to himself――as we shall know
more perfectly when we shall see as we are seen and know as also we are
known.
Yet again; This portion of historic revelation _abounds with
testimonies to the power of prayer_ and to its place in the relations
of God to man and of man to God. We see these revelations in the
history of the plagues on Egypt. So palpably manifest was the power
of Moses with God in prayer that even proud Pharaoh saw and recognized
it. Over and over again the king besought the prayers of the man of
God――apparently with unlimited confidence that God would grant whatever
he should ask. Though he never had seen such power in prayer before,
the force of the facts was too great to be resisted. For once he became
so far a believer in the communion of man with God, and also in the
power of God to work wonders which man’s power alone could never reach.
The war scenes with Amalek and the prayer which turned the victory
to Israel’s side will be readily recalled. As already suggested, this
specimen case, brought out so perfectly in the first national conflict
of arms, was well adapted to send down to future ages the great secret
of success against their national enemies. How happy for Israel if
it had never been forgotten! How well for the Christian world if the
lessons of that scene were faithfully transferred and applied in all
spiritual conflicts against foes within and foes without which pertain
to this ever militant state!
It is scarcely necessary to speak in fuller detail of the revelations
of God to man _through miracle_. Every page of this history teems with
miracles. Take the miracles away, and truly there would be nothing left.
The revelations of God’s will to Moses; the judgments on Egypt; the
redemption of his people from bondage there; the scenes at the Red Sea;
the bread and the water for his needy people; the pillar of cloud and
of fire; the glories of Sinai and the giving of his law in voice of
majesty:――what are all these but miracles――the Great God over-stepping
the ordinary course of nature to impress himself, the power of his arm,
the mandates of his will――upon human minds? No other such chapter on
miracles appears in the Old Testament. Nowhere else do they cluster
so grandly; not elsewhere do they so much supersede the common laws
of nature and give character to the entire course of the divine
administration. Most abundantly do they testify that the arm of the
Lord is equal to any result which his wisdom may devise. If he has
purposes to accomplish he can not lack the means or the power necessary.
The age of miracles can be brought round again if so he wills it. But
more to our purpose is the inference to the adequacy of his resources
in general, whether with or without miracle.――――Yet let us not miss
the more vital truth that this cluster of miracles aimed to witness
to God’s present hand working with Moses, endorsing his mission and
accrediting his words from the most High. God was then specially active
in “making history” (shall we say?)――_making history to put into his
Bible_. The Bible was growing; the great crisis which developed into
the birth of the Hebrew nation was then transpiring; God’s plans for
training a people who should be holy to himself――the repository of his
truth――the church of the living God――were then rapidly unfolding; and
no vital step in this process could spare the agency of miracle.
Yet again; In this portion of sacred history much new light has been
thrown upon _God’s management of great sinners_. Pharaoh was a standard
case of this sort. As already suggested, there are many aspects of this
management. On one side we see the strong arm, putting his hook into
the jaws of Leviathan――curbing his spirit, breaking down his power;
burying him and his hosts in the sea. On another side are unfolded
the nice relations of even this resistless power to the free moral
activities of the great sinner; the wonderful blending of mercies with
judgments; the patient waiting――if possibly these manifestations of
God’s hand may bring the proud king to real submission; and coupled
with this, the steady purpose on God’s part to turn all Pharaoh’s pride
and guilt and moral obduracy to best possible account――setting forth
his mode of dealing with wicked men in making known his power to save
his people and to crush their foes, and his unfailing wisdom in making
the wrath of the proudest of mortals evolve his own glory and praise.
* * * * *
_The scenes of Sinai_ were a long and magnificent step of progress in
the revelations of God to men. We may think here not so much of the
external surroundings――the bringing into service of all the grandest
agencies of nature to impress men with reverence and fear and awe, and
so to plant the more deeply in their souls the idea of law as emanating
unmistakably from the Infinite One; but we may consider the _great
fact itself of a revealed law_. It is surely a point in the progress
of God’s revelations of himself second to nothing that has gone
before――second to nothing in all the ages save the greater mission of
his Son for the purposes of redemption. God revealing to man a rule of
duty; expressing it in terms at once so simple and so comprehensive;
including the duties we owe to God on the one hand and to fellow-beings
on the other; putting it on permanent record; accompanying it with
demonstrations of majesty and glory, endorsing it so surely and so
sublimely; adjusting it so nicely in harmony with the intelligent
convictions of rational minds, and so commending it to every
man’s conscience as intrinsically and eternally right:――truly the
promulgation of such a law through such agencies is surpassingly grand
and glorious; and, in the line of our present thought, is one of the
great epochs in the march of God’s revelations of himself to mortals.
We pause before it to take in the value of this revealed law; the new
relations into which the race are brought thereby toward their Great
Father; and the bearings of this law upon the whole plan of God’s moral
administration toward our fallen race.
CHAPTER XVI.
THE HEBREW THEOCRACY.
NATURALLY following the national covenant (Ex. 19) and the giving of
the law from Sinai (Ex. 20) and preliminary to the civil code――“the
statutes and judgments”――comes in the _Theocracy_――a term used to
designate the system of government established for the Hebrew people.
Here we may consider briefly the following points:
I. _The Supreme Power._
II. The powers of _Jehovah’s vicegerents_――his chief executive officers.
III. The _general assembly_ or congregation, and their _elders_.
IV. The scope afforded for self-government-democracy.
V. The fundamental principles of this entire system.
VI. Its union of church and state.
VII. Its principles and usages in respect to _war_, with a notice of
the war-commission against the doomed Canaanites.
I. _The Supreme Power._
God himself was _king_. In every respect the supreme power was his.
Precisely this is the sense of the term “_theocracy_”――_a government
of God_.
This comprehensive fact appears in the following particulars:
1. God demanded supreme homage as their king (Ex. 19: 6 and Deut. 6:
4–15, and 7: 6–11, and 10: 12–21, and 33: 4, 5 and 1 Sam. 8: 6–8, and
10: 18, 19 and Judg. 8: 23).
2. God enacted the statutes. He was the Supreme _Lawgiver_. We
sometimes speak of the “Mosaic code,” of the “statutes of Moses,”
meaning by these phrases only that the statutes came from God to the
people by the hand of Moses; never that Moses was himself the author
of these statutes――the true legislator. (See Ex. 21: 1 and Deut. 6: 1).
3. God _nominated the chief executive_. He called Moses (Ex. 3: 10, 12,
and 4: 16 and 1 Cor. 10: 2); and Joshua (Num. 27: 18–23 and Deut. 3: 28,
and 31: 3 and Josh. 1 and 5: 13–15). The same was true of the Judges,
raised up for special emergencies (Judg. 2: 16, 18, and 3: 9, 15, and
4: 6, and 6: 12, etc., etc.) God called the kings:――Saul (1 Sam. 9: 17,
and 10: 1); also David (1 Sam. 13: 14, and 16: 1 and 2 Sam. 5: 2 and
Ps. 78: 70, 71); and to name no more, Solomon (1 Chron. 28: 5).
4. In all cases not otherwise provided for, the ultimate appeal was
to God. In point we have (Num. 16 and 17) a case of resistance to
the authority of Moses――incipient rebellion. God interposed with his
supreme authority. We have a case in civil law, not reached by the
statutes, viz. the entailment of real estate in a family of daughters
only. Moses brought it before the Lord for adjudication (Num. 27: 5). A
special provision respecting the marriage of daughters holding property
in land became necessary: this new law was sought from God (Num.
36: 6).――――A criminal case occurred in which the law was not explicit;
“it was not declared what should be done” with the criminal (Num. 15:
32–36). The Lord gave them the law for the case.――――In the case of
Achan (Josh. 7) the Lord interposed, not so much because there was no
law for its decision as because the sin was flagrant and the demand
for exemplary punishment was very great.――――In cases which would
appropriately require the calling of a Supreme Council, the people
sought direction from God. (See Judg. 1: 1, and 20: 18, 27, 28 and 1
Sam. 14: 37, and 23: 2, 4, 9–12, and 28: 6, and 30: 8 and 2 Sam. 2: 1).
God made provision through the prophets for a direct revelation of his
will to the people in special cases not otherwise provided for (Deut.
18: 18).
5. In later times the demand of the people for a human king seemed to
be constructive treason. It might be so understood, and therefore the
Lord reasserted his prerogative, although he yielded to their demands
(1 Sam. 8: 6–9, and 10: 17–25).
6. It scarcely need be said that God bound himself by promise to reward
the people with all national prosperity if obedient, and by threatening,
to punish them with national calamity for disobedience. These points
are expanded fully Lev. 26 and Deut. chapters 27–30.――――That God
inflicted these threatened punishments early in their nation’s history
may be seen Num. 11: 33, and 16: 1–50.
Thus it appears that in every appropriate way and in numerous vital
respects God manifested his supreme authority over his people Israel.
II. _The powers of Jehovah’s vicegerent._
Of this we have illustrations in the cases of Moses, Joshua, the Judges,
and the kings. These cases show that they were precisely the Lord’s
prime ministers, commissioned to execute his will. If a law touching
the case existed and its application was clear, they simply adjudicated
the case and put the law in force. If no statute touching the case was
extant, they sought one. If the application of the law baffled their
wisdom, they sought counsel from God. Hence the Scriptures speak of
these prime ministers as the Lord’s “servants,” to serve him in this
high capacity. (See Num. 12: 7 and Heb. 3: 2, 5 and Josh. 1: 1, 2, and
5: 13–15 and 2 Sam. 7: 8, etc.)
Of the officers holding under the chief executive there is no occasion
to speak in great detail. The system of subordinate judges――lower
courts――has come to view in the history of Jethro (Ex. 18). In Canaan
they held their courts in the gates of large cities, and (for certain
criminal cases) in the cities of refuge which were cities of the
Levites――from which tribe judges seem largely to have been drawn.
The “elders”――“heads of the house of their fathers”――held important
responsibilities――a fact due largely to the influence of the
patriarchal system which had come down from the earliest times, the
usages of which, therefore, had essentially the force of common law
in Israel. It was in great measure due to them that after the death of
Joshua the processes of government went on without any chief executive,
with no king, and with no Supreme Judge except as the High Priest may
have performed that function.
III. _The General Assembly or Congregation, and the Elders._
We read of great conventions, congregations, assemblies, in which
it is not definitely said that _all the people_ were there; and
also of convocations in which “all the people” were present. In some
at least of the cases of the latter sort, the elders seem to have
acted distinctly from the masses of the people, being the media of
communication (as the case may be) between the Lord or his servant
Moses of the one party and the people at large of the other. Thus
shortly before the giving of the law from Sinai when God ratified
a national covenant with the people, we read――“Moses called for the
elders of the people and laid before their faces all these words
which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together
and said――All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Ex. 19: 7, 8).
Moses spake to the people _through_ their elders. It was naturally
impossible that any one human voice could be heard by six hundred
thousand men.――――So in 1 Sam. 8: 4–10 “the _elders_ gathered together
and said to Samuel, Make us a king;” “and the Lord said unto Samuel,
Hearken unto _the voice of the people_.” “And Samuel told all the
words of the Lord _unto the people_ that asked of him a king.”――――These
elders――chiefs of the people――seem to have been a well-defined class.
Note how they are designated (Num. 1: 16); “These are the renowned
[Heb. the _called ones_] of the congregation, princes of the tribes
of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel.” Also Num. 16: 2: “Two
hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation”
[Heb. the _called ones_ of the congregation, _i. e._ the men summoned
to represent their constituents], “men of renown.”――――The question
will arise whether these _called men_, the recognized heads and
representatives of the people, held specially delegated powers; whether
they were appointed for an occasion and were instructed by the people:
or whether they held the headship, this representative power, by virtue
of the ancient usages of the patriarchal system. The latter is the true
view, for the patriarchal system had the prestige of common law; and
we find not the least hint of any _election_ of these “heads of the
house of their fathers” for any special function――no notice of their
receiving special instructions to act as delegated representatives
of the people.――――Let it be noted carefully that on all really great
occasions when the vital issues of their covenant relation with God
were pending, “all the people”――the solid masses――were convened, and
of course their elders and high officers with them. We see such a case
before Sinai (Ex. 19); another, shortly before the death of Moses, in
a solemn ratification of their national covenant: “Ye stand this day
_all of you_ before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes,
your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel” (Deut. 29:
10–12), “that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God,”
etc.――――Again; after they had entered Canaan in the scene of rehearsing
the blessings and the curses of the law from Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal:
“And all Israel and their elders and officers and their judges, stood,”
etc. (Josh. 8: 33). See also Josh. 23: 2 and 24: 1 and Judg. 20: 1 and
1 Sam. 8. It was supremely appropriate that every man of Israel should
give his voice and heart in these great national consecrations of
themselves to their nation’s God. The Lord sought to call into action
every mind――to make a deep moral impression on every heart. Therefore
none could be exempted; no man could be excused for absence.
IV. The scope afforded under this system
for _self-government――democracy_.
It is readily obvious that under this theocracy, the function of
_legislators_ was out of the question. The people did not make their
own laws: these were _given_ them――made by the Lord alone. It only
remained for them to say whether they would accept the Lord their God
as their Lawgiver and Supreme King. Such assent and consent on their
part was appropriate; and precisely this they gave――as we may see in
the case of the moral law of Sinai (Ex. 19: 3–8 and Deut. 5: 27, 28);
and of all the statutes and judgments of their civil code (Ex. 24: 3).
This national recognition of God as Supreme Lawgiver was renewed from
time to time with subsequent generations of Israel (Deut. 29: 10–15 and
Josh. 24: 15–27 and Neh. 10: 28, 29), etc.
Thus it appears that the laws under which they lived were not
arbitrarily imposed upon them without their consent――much less, against
their will; but only with their formal and solemn consent. So far forth,
their government involved an element of freedom and of self-control.
They were not tyrannously coerced into subjection to laws which they
repudiated. A system of law, in itself most excellent and entirely
unexceptionable, was presented to them for their adoption or rejection.
They adopted it――apparently with the warmest approbation.
Essentially the same principle obtained in regard to their highest
human executive officer. They did not nominate and choose Moses of
their own motion. No caucus, no primary meeting, no formal election
brought out his name as the choice of the people. The Lord alone raised
up Moses, prepared him for the position he was to hold and brought him
before the people. Then they received him as their leader (Ex. 4: 29–31
and 20: 19 and Deut. 5: 27). In the same manner they accepted Joshua
(Josh. 1: 16–18). In the case of Saul, their first king, the Lord
nominated, and the people ratified his nomination (1 Sam. 10: 24
and 11: 14, 15). The Lord called David also (1 Sam. 16: 1–12), but
the people accepted him as king and cordially ratified his divine
nomination (2 Sam. 5: 1–3). Through his prophet Nathan the Lord gave
the kingdom to David’s posterity (2 Sam. 7) and prophetically indicated
Solomon (1 Chron. 22: 8, 9 and 1 Kings 1: 13, 29, 30); but the people
still gave their full-hearted consent (1 Kings 1: 39, 40). The same
powers were asserted by the people in the case of Rehoboam (1 Kings
12: 1–20).
It should be specially noted that when the government assumed the form
of a _human_ monarchy――an earthly king reigning under God in this real
theocracy, it was a limited, not an absolute monarchy. The Mosaic law
anticipated this change and imposed certain constitutional limitations
upon the prospective king (Deut. 17: 14–20). He must be one whom the
Lord should choose; of native and not foreign birth; must not multiply
horses, nor wives, nor treasures of silver and gold; must keep by him
a copy of the law given through Moses, must read it and regard it as
the constitution under which he reigned. When the demand for a king
arose Samuel forewarned the people of the assumptions of power which,
by the usages of mankind, they must expect in their king (1 Sam. 8:
10–17), and took the precaution to put in writing “the manner of the
kingdom”――the constitutional provisions and safe-guards under which
he was to reign (1 Sam. 10: 25). No copy of this constitution has
come down to us; but it doubtless corresponded essentially with the
limitations made by the law of Moses as in Deut. 17: 14–20.
The voice of the people in self-government appears also in the
appointment of the judges who were to administer the law in courts
of justice. We have seen how the old patriarchal system was enlarged
and modified at the suggestion of Jethro (Ex. 18: 13–26). This first
narrative seems to rest the appointment of these judges entirely
with Moses; but his own more detailed account (Deut. 1: 9–18) shows
that the people were heard in the nomination: “Take you wise men and
understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers
over you. And ye answered me and said――The thing which thou hast spoken
is good for us to do. So I took the chief men of your tribes, wise men
and known, and made them heads over you,” etc. Plainly these men had
acquired position by merit, and held their place and power (before
this special appointment) by the general consent of the people.――――The
general law in the case runs――“Judges and officers shalt thou make
thee in all thy gates, etc., and they shall judge the people with just
judgment” (Deut. 16: 18).
Self-government is further developed in the independent action which we
may notice occasionally in the several tribes. Especially in the period
from Joshua to Saul, the several tribes acted singly, or in union with
one or more of their fellow-tribes at their option (Judg. 1: 1–3, 22
and 4: 10 and 7: 23, 24 and 8: 23, and 20: 11–46). Special cases of
this independent action appear in 1 Chron. 4: 41–43 and 5: 18–23.――――On
great occasions, the people convened en masse for deliberation and
united action as in Josh. 22: 12, 16 and 23: 2 and Judg. 20 and
21.――――Obviously they assumed the right to disapprove the action of
their princes as in the case of the Gibeonites (Josh. 9: 18, 19)――“All
the congregation murmured against the princes.”
V. _The Fundamental Principles of this entire System._
1. Jehovah being their Supreme King, supreme love and worship must be
rendered to him.
2. Idolatry was a state offense, nothing less than high treason, and
therefore a capital crime, punishable with death. Any one of their
cities, given to idolatry, must be utterly exterminated (Deut. 13: 1–18
and 17: 2–7).
3. The most stringent laws ordained non-intercourse with idolatrous
nations and non-conformity to their customs. Inter-marriages with them
were strictly prohibited; trade and commerce were at least discouraged
if not forbidden. These laws may be seen in Ex. 34: 11–17 and Deut.
7: 1–5, 16, 23–26; and cases of their application in Num. 25 and 31;
also in Ezra 9 and 10 and Neh. 13: 23–31.
Sundry customs, some of which might in themselves be of small account,
were prohibited, apparently because associated with idolatry in the
usages of other nations and in the ideas of the people of Israel
(Deut. 14: 1–21 and Lev. 20: 23– 26). The distinction between clean
and unclean beasts seems to fall under this principle.
4. This Hebrew Theocracy was engrafted upon a previously existing
patriarchal government, and therefore it recognized this previous
system as substantially the common law of the land, to be in force
except so far as modified by special legislation under the new regime
given from the Lord through Moses. This principle is illustrated in
the powers and functions of the _elders_, known as “heads of the house
of their fathers”; “princes”; “heads of the thousands of Israel” (Ex.
6: 25, and Num. 3: 24, 30, 35, and 1: 16, and 10: 4).
5. It was manifestly an accepted principle, underlying the entire
system, to give the people as wide a range of free responsible action
as a theocratic government would admit. Democracy must of necessity be
subordinate to _theocracy_; the self-ruling of the people must find its
place _under_ the supreme ruling of Jehovah. Consequently the law must
come entire from God, not from the people. The chief executive must
receive his commission from God, though he might be formally accepted
and his appointment in this way ratified by the people. The Lord sought
the willing homage of the people――the obedience of their heart――and
therefore encouraged the most cheerful and hearty expression of their
will and of their homage in entering into covenant with himself, and
from time to time in solemnly renewing it. He would have them feel that
they were the people of the Lord by their own real consent and hearty
acceptance. So much democracy therefore entered into their scheme of
national polity. So much there might be. In the nature of a theocracy,
there could not be more.
6. As elsewhere shown, the statutes were within certain limits
graduated in moral tone to the moral status of the people, being as
high as they would bear――as near theoretical perfection as could be
made effective――_i. e._ as could secure a general obedience.
VI. _Its union of Church and State._
By this modern phrase is currently meant the subordination of the
church to the civil or state authorities. Such a union in the Hebrew
nation was a natural consequent upon a theocratic government. The civil
code coming from God himself, the religious code must come from him by
obvious fitness, not to say necessity. In his entire policy with Israel,
God sought the most effective moral culture. We find this purpose
underlying the entire civil government with its code of civil laws; it
must of course underlie their religious institutions. Hence the church
and the state were worked not only by the same hand but for the same
general purpose.
In practice certain crimes against the religious law were enforced
by the state. Idolatry was a state offense, punishable as other state
crimes. So of perjury and blasphemy. (Deut. 19: 16–19.)――――It was due
to the common relations of church and state that to a great extent the
religious orders were civil judges. In the absence of a king or other
chief executive, the High Priest seems to have held that function.
(See Deut. 17: 12 and 2 Chron. 19: 8–11). The subordinate judges were
largely taken from the priests and Levites (Deut. 21: 5, and 33: 10).
Since the system provided for an ultimate appeal to God, extreme cases
were taken up for the sake of such appeal to the one place which was
for the time the seat of God’s special manifestations to his people
(Deut. 17: 8–13, and 19: 17).
The wisdom of this joint action of the civil law with the religious
admits in their case of no question. It may suffice to refer in proof
to the omnipresent power of idolatry through all the ages from Moses to
the captivity, to show the vital need of the civil arm to sustain the
true worship of God and save the nation. On the other hand the state
was the stronger for her religious institutions. The great religious
festivals, bringing the masses of the male population from every
tribe three times a year for a sacred week of communion must have been
of priceless value in sustaining the national unity and a national
patriotism. Jeroboam was sharp enough to see that the calves at Bethel
and Dan must take the place of the festivals at Jerusalem, or his
kingdom would melt away from under him, and his people give their civil
fealty as well as their religious homage at the old center. Hezekiah
would have brought the ten tribes back if he could have drawn their
people in a body to the great Passover, as he sought to do.――――Hence
it is quite safe to say that the state was the stronger for the
national religion, and their religion the stronger for the aid of the
state.――――Yet let none rush to the inference that such mutual relations
of church and state are therefore wise and useful in the Christian
age of the world. The providences of God shut off from the primitive
church the possibility of such union and shut up Christianity to make
her first great conquests under the sturdy opposition of the greatest
civil power of the age. Experience has long since disproved the
inference above referred to. The cases are too dissimilar to admit of
any logical reasoning from that age to this.
In the Hebrew economy we are struck with the fact that both the
religious and the civil code were enforced chiefly by considerations
and influences, rewards and punishments, coming in from the present
world――not from the future. Let it be supposed that religious duties
were in our age enforced by such motives chiefly――and we should see at
a glance the change that has passed over the world since Moses uttered
the concluding chapters of Deuteronomy. Idolatry, then the head sin
of the ages, was fitly resisted, not only by the civil arm, but by the
most fearful array of civil pains and penalties. The capital sins of
Christendom are now of quite other sort; and the motives to repentance
come appropriately from the other worlds yet before us and not from
this. It may be difficult for us to realize how stern the necessity
was that God should in the earlier ages govern the world, and not least
his own people, by motives from the visible and not from the invisible
world――from earth and time and the present life, and not from the
eternal, the future and yet unseen state.
[This subject will receive further attention near the close of this
volume.]
VII. _The principles and usages of the Hebrew code in respect
to war_; with some notice of the _war-edict_ for the
extirpation of the Canaanites.
By their constitution the war-power was with God. The power and the
right to declare war rested in him alone. He forbade them to make
war on Edom; he commanded them to exterminate Amalek and the devoted
nations of Canaan, and to “vex the Midianites and smite them”. (As
to Edom, see Deut. 2: 5; as to Amalek, Ex. 17: 8, 14, 16 and Deut.
25: 17–19; as to the Midianites, Num. 25: 17, 18, and 31:).――――Their
rulers were expected to bring the question before the Lord――Shall I in
this case go up to battle, or shall I forbear? (Judg. 1: 1, and 20: 18,
23, 28).――――Any one tribe might go out to war alone, or might call in
the aid of another or of all:――a fact which shows that the tribes were
confederated rather than united and consolidated. On great occasions,
of common danger, all the tribes associated together, and, with certain
specified exceptions, every man able for war was required to go. The
exceptions are given (Deut. 20: 5–8); viz. the man who had built a
house, but had not dedicated it; he who had planted a vineyard but had
not eaten of its fruits; he who had betrothed a wife, yet had not taken
her; and finally, every fearful and faint-hearted man;――_i. e._ all
who had special attractions homeward which might tempt them to desert
the ranks, and they whose timid hearts made them worthless and might
be contagious:――in the words of the statute, “Lest his brother’s heart
faint as well as his heart.” Personal heroism was of prime account――a
heroism inspired by faith in Israel’s God. The history every-where
shows that such armies, fired with religious enthusiasm, strong by
faith in the mighty God, were terrible in battle, and for the most part
certain of victory. Often as we read these annals of the wars of Israel,
we can not resist the conviction that they were means of grace as well
as of manhood――an illustration of which may be seen in David before
Goliath the Philistine (1 Sam. 17).――――When only a small number of men
were needed, they were chosen, picked men, naturally the brave, skilled,
and renowned. See Joshua’s first battle (Ex. 17: 9); his assault upon
Ai (Josh. 7: 7), and the sifting of Gideon’s army (Judg. 7: 1–8).
* * * * *
_The grant of Canaan to Israel and the commission to extirpate the
Canaanites._
These points call for special examination.
It has been objected against the morality of the Old Testament
Scriptures that this war-law enjoining the extirpation of the
Canaanites was cruel and unjust; hence that it either misrepresents God
and therefore disproves the divine authority of the Old Testament; or
if it truly represents the God of the Bible, then he does not deserve
the homage and the love of his creatures.――――These are grave charges
and should be candidly examined.
The grant of Canaan and the commission to destroy the Canaanites have
been vindicated by Michaelis and others on the following grounds.
1. The right of prior possession and occupation.
2. This right kept good by burial there, and not by any means
relinquished when Jacob was driven by stress of famine into Egypt and
then detained there by force.
3. This right protected according to their ability by reassertion,
perpetually holding forth their purpose to return and their recognition
of Canaan as their land of promise.
4. That no argument prejudicial to their right of war against the
Canaanites can be drawn from the absence of formal manifesto, setting
forth the causes of the war, inasmuch as such a setting forth of
grounds and causes of war is a thing of modern and not of ancient usage.
* * * * *
This course of argument in defense of the war-law in question seems to
me defective and quite below the truth in the following points:
1. Its primary position――_prior occupancy_――seems not fully made out.
2. It makes too little account of God’s original and perfect title to
all the earth, and his consequent right to give his people any portion
of it at his pleasure.
3. It fails to give due prominence to the moral grounds assigned by
God himself for the extirpation of the Canaanites, viz. their extreme
debasement in character; their abominable wickedness; their horrible
violations of the common humanities of social life.
* * * * *
As to prior occupation, Michaelis says the original home of the
Canaanites was Arabia; that Herodotus testifies that at first they
dwelt near the Red Sea; Justin, that they had another country before
they came to Palestine; and Abulfeda that they dwelt in Arabia. But
in proof that they were in Palestine before Abraham was, Moses affirms
(Gen. 12: 6) that when Abram first passed through, “the Canaanite was
then in the land;” also that when Abram and Lot, being rich in cattle
and “the land unable to bear them,” “the Canaanite and the Perizzite
were then in the land” (Gen. 13: 7); and further still in his earliest
account of the location of primitive families after the flood, he
says――“The border of the Canaanites was from Sidon as thou comest
to Gerar unto Gaza as thou goest to Sodom and Gomorrah,” etc. (Gen.
10: 19). This is the oldest known historic testimony, and unquestionably
locates the Canaanites in the original land of Canaan.――――Moreover, it
is said that Abraham went with his flocks and herds wherever he would
as if lord of the country. It may be replied――So apparently did the
Canaanites also. If Abraham dug wells, so did they; if he buried his
dead there, so did they――with this incidental fact in their favor; viz.
that Abraham bought ground of them and paid money for his cemetery at
Macpelah. This special argument from prior possession can scarcely be
sustained.
But it may be maintained that Abram was there _very early_; and what is
more, God’s first call to him to leave his native country named Canaan
as his promised land; and every successive promise reaffirmed this
gift. Abraham’s title to Canaan therefore rests on God’s right to give
a perfect title. If the Lord of heaven and earth, the Great Creator of
all lands in all the ends of the earth had not a right to give Canaan
to Abraham and his posterity, then _he is not God_. Unquestionably
he assumed this right and in the exercise of it pledged Canaan to
the posterity of Abraham with perpetual reiteration and most solemn
covenant. This fact is the more significant because it is the first
step in a series of acts all of which aimed to reveal himself before
the world of mankind as the true God and the Lord of the whole earth.
With these ends in view he chose this people and made them his own;
manifested himself among them and before all the world as their
covenant-keeping God; gave them Canaan, and by manifold miracles helped
them to gain possession of it. Nor is this argument weakened by the
fact that by means of a special series of providences he led them down
into Egypt to dwell there 430 years; suffering the Canaanites meanwhile
to hold Canaan, not driving them out earlier because “the iniquity of
the Amorites was not yet full” (Gen. 15: 16). Here is suggested the
real ground on which the edict for extirpating the Canaanites was made
to rest. God suffered them to remain there until they had forfeited
their title not to Canaan alone, but to life itself and to any further
national existence.
This point is too vital to be passed without careful attention. In Lev.
18 we meet with a series of crimes against moral purity――violations
of the seventh commandment――culminating in sodomy and bestiality; and
classed with these is the burning of children in the worship of Moloch
(v. 21). Then God says――“Defile not yourselves in any of these things;
for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you,
and _the land is defiled_; therefore do I visit the iniquity thereof
upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.”――――The same
sentiments are repeated (vs. 26–30). Unnatural lusts had sunk both men
and women not only down to a level with beasts, but even below them.
Idolatry had so far quenched the sweet humanities from the parental
heart that fathers and mothers could burn their own sons and daughters
to Moloch. These horrible, unnatural crimes were not only an outrage
against the heart of God the Great Father; but, as he forcibly puts it,
they defiled the very land itself. The earth was nauseated with these
abominations and spued out such inhabitants. God’s fair and much abused
world could bear them no longer. Nature herself lifted her voice of
protest against such wickedness; or, as the strong figure suggests, her
stomach sickened even to nausea over such unnatural lusts and such a
torturing death of innocent sons and daughters. What could a holy and
righteous God do with such a people but wipe them out of existence and
wash the land they had defiled clean of such pollutions?――――Lev. 20
reiterates substantially the same list of abominations against which
God warns his people;――“Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes and
all my judgments and do them, that the land whither I bring you to
dwell therein, _spue you not out_. And ye shall not walk in the manner
of the nations which I cast out before you; for they committed all
these things, and therefore I abhorred them” (vs. 22, 23).――――Perfectly
definite and explicit is the repetition of the same point in Deut. 12:
30, 31. When the Lord shall have cut off the Canaanites before thee,
be not snared into their ways; inquire not after their gods and ways
of worship:――“Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God, for every
abomination to the Lord which he hateth have they done unto their gods;
for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in the fire
to their gods.” No fact could be more telling; none more damning. A
people so given up to devil-worship as to burn their own offspring at
his supposed behest, must be too debased and corrupt to live! The earth
itself cries out against them, demanding their utter extirpation!
A more full description of the varieties and forms of the devil-worship
and fellowship common among the Canaanites may be seen in Deut. 18:
9–14, to which it must suffice to refer the reader.
I am well aware that some Jewish doctors, wishing to vindicate their
fathers from crimes so unnatural have sought to prove that “causing
children to pass through the fire” was a rite of purification and
not actual murder. The attempt is futile:――――(1.) Because some of
the expressions are perfectly unequivocal; _e. g._――“Even their sons
have they burnt in the fire to their Gods” (Deut. 12: 31). See also
the cases in 2 Kings 17: 31, and 2 Chron. 28: 3, and Jer. 7: 31, and
19: 5.――――(2.) The phrase――“To make to pass through the fire unto
their gods” is used in the same sense as the phrase――“to burn in the
fire.”――――(3.) That the Phenicians and Carthagenians, closely related
to the ancient Canaanites, did offer human sacrifices is a well
established fact of history. (See Smith’s Bible Dictionary; “Moloch.”)
* * * * *
We have seen that the title of Israel to Canaan falls back upon
God’s prior title――upon his right to deed it to whom he would.
On the same principle the question whether it was right and just
for them to extirpate the Canaanites falls back upon two prior
questions――(a.) Was it right and just for God to extirpate
them?――――(b.) Was it wise for Him to command the Israelites to do
this work of extirpation, rather than do it himself by miracle, and
without human hands? Here are our two great questions.
(a.) As to the first――the right of God to destroy them for their
crimes and the justice of doing it――I see not how it can be denied
or questioned without denying to God the right to punish sin at all.
Has God any right to govern his own universe――any right to resist the
influence of sin and rebellion in his kingdom――any right to protect
innocent children from being burned to death in homage to the devil?
Alas for the universe if this doctrine can be maintained!――――Truly we
may say――If God has no right to exterminate from the earth any one
individual sinner, or a nation of many thousands who are too corrupt
to live, then he lacks the essential rights of a God! If he has not the
power to do it, he lacks the power necessary to a God. If he has not
the firmness――the nerve (shall we say?)――the sense of justice and right
that would forbid his evading the duty, then he lacks the essential
attributes of a God. If he has so little love for his offspring that
he can see their welfare sacrificed in the worship of the devil and in
the sweep of unutterable social pollutions, then he is incompetent to
govern a world of sinners!
(b.) But the objector will make his chief stand upon the secondary
question――Was it wise for God to employ Israel to extirpate the corrupt
Canaanites?
The objector will perhaps say――He might have sunk all Canaan under a
second flood like that of Noah’s time, and no complaint could stand
against him. He might have engulfed those cities in fire as he did
guilty Sodom, and all the living, cognizant of the moral grounds of
the act, would have said, Amen! But that he should set such an example
of _war_――the most horrid of all wars――before the nations of all
history――before the ages of all time, giving it his holy sanction――nay
more, setting his own most holy people to the bloody work――this is
unpardonable. That he should put them to such barbarities――subject them
to such demoralization of all the finer sensibilities of the human soul,
seems too horrid to be thought of!
It is perhaps well to meet this question in its strongest form, with
its objectionable points in their most revolting aspect.
I do not feel called upon to say one word to soften down any man’s
sense of the horrors of war. War _is_ horrid――but sin is more
horrid――certainly such sin as that of the old Canaanites. In fact war
is horrid――not mainly because of the suffering but because of the
_sin_ that may be in it. And this suggests the true and just reply to
be made to the objection now before us, viz. that such a war as that
of Israel against the Canaanites, waged in obedience to God; waged
for the destruction of such sinners and to cleanse the earth from such
unutterable abominations and pollutions, is _not_ demoralizing――is
not so either necessarily or even naturally; but if done in honest
obedience to God and with a due sense of the grounds on which God
commanded it, must have been the very opposite of demoralizing;
must have educated the nation of Israel to a juster sense of the
abominations of idolatry and of the righteous moral government of God
over the wicked in the present world. It can not be doubted that these
were the ends which God sought to secure in putting this service upon
Israel. A lower object to be reached was to vacate the land of Canaan
for Israel to occupy; but the far higher object was to wash the land
of its moral pollutions; to break down and blot out nations too corrupt
to live. The Lord devolved this extirpation upon Israel that they
might thereby get a deeper sense of his abhorrence of such sin――not
to say also, a juster view of the intrinsic abominations which God
commissioned them to punish.
Or we may put the argument thus: Given――the great historic fact,
the moral corruption of the nations of Canaan and the moral purpose
of God to exterminate those nations for their corruption. The
choice of methods lies between _miracles_ on the one hand, and the
war-force of Israel, backed up by God’s providential agencies, on the
other:――miracles as in the flood and on Sodom: or the war-commission
given to his people Israel.
Now consider.――――1. Miracles had already been employed repeatedly
before the eyes of mankind, and the Lord might for this reason wisely
vary his methods, for the greater and better effect.
2. As already argued, the moral effect upon Israel of being made the
executioners of God’s righteous justice may be presumed to have been
naturally wholesome. But not to push this argument――we may at least
maintain,
3. That seen historically――estimated in the light of the facts of
the case, this method _was morally impressive, instructive, elevating,
wholesome_. Recur to the first war――that against Amalek; and to the
scope it gave for illustrations of prayer, and to the sense it inspired
of their relations to their covenant God. Turn to the record of the
war against Moab and Midian (Num. 25 and 31). Mark its powerful protest
against the lewdness involved in those forms of idol-worship, and note
how Phineas arose to the sublime grandeur of the emergency and made
a record for himself and for his whole tribe indeed in the history of
the nation (Num. 25: 11–13 and Mal. 2: 4–7). Study the wars of Joshua
and the moral heroism developed there, and ask if any generation of
Israel appear on the page of her national history, exhibiting a truer
consecration to God or a more conscientious devotion to his will. And
what shall we say of Deborah and Barak, and of the heroism that shines
and gleams in the record of their achievements, or of the piety that
flavors their triumphal song? The same may be said of the wars under
David, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah, and of the songs of praise and
of proud triumph in Israel’s God which gave expression to the moral
results of those wars and victories. That man reads the history of
the heroic age of Israel very imperfectly who does not see in it ample
demonstration that staunch obedience to God in this matter of war
against the idolatrous, corrupt Canaanites, fostered piety, developed
Christian heroism and toned up the standard of morality. When they
compromised, accepted tribute, and tried their own policy of living
side by side with such idolaters instead of God’s policy of vigorous
extermination, then came disaster, religious decline, and most perilous
moral corruption.
4. The great conflict of those early ages between God and Satan was
fought on the point of idolatry――the real question being whether God or
the devil should have the worship of men; whether the supremacy and the
moral right to rule the world are with God or with Satan. This being
the great conflict of the ages, it should not surprise us that God
should let Israel’s land of promise be in a sort the battle-ground, and
should bring into play the physical force of arms and let his covenant
people come into the fight hand to hand against the hosts of his foes.
This arrangement gave scope for his own hand in various providential
agencies――thunder, hail-storm, the day prolonged miraculously; panics
often smiting the hearts of his enemies, and victories that witnessed
visibly to Jehovah’s present hand. In an age when men were waiting
for God to manifest himself visibly and tangibly; when their spiritual
perceptions were but dim, and when of necessity the first step in the
process of revealing God to men demanded an appeal to the senses, it
was certainly no mistake in wisdom for God to suffer this great fight
to take on visible form and stand out palpably before human eyes. In
the result God made it unmistakably manifest that his soul abhorred
such unnatural and horrid crimes as those of the men of Canaan, and
also that he had both the power and the will to inflict on them the
extremest and most fearful judgments.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE CIVIL INSTITUTES OF MOSES; OR THE HEBREW CODE OF CIVIL LAW.
IN scripture phrase, the code is most often called “The statutes and
the judgments”――the “commandments and precepts” which the Lord gave by
Moses (Deut. 6: 1 and Ex. 21: 1).
I approach this subject with a feeling of regret that the necessary
limits of this volume forbid any attempt to make my presentation of
this topic exhaustive. The utmost I can do within the limits prescribed
is to give an outline rather than a full development of this code.
I shall aim to make this outline full enough to show the _steps and
stages of progress_ in the science of legislation which are obvious in
these “statutes and judgments.”
I must first call attention to certain points of a general nature, most
of which will need only a brief statement.
1. This code of laws was _given to the Hebrews by God himself, through
the hand of Moses_. For the sake of brevity and to distinguish it from
other codes we may speak of it as the code of Moses and may speak of
Moses as the Hebrew lawgiver; yet let it be said once for all that we
recognize no authority――no authorship other than that of God himself.
2. This code was built upon the moral law of Sinai――the ten
commandments. It simply expands and applies the general principles
expressed or implied in that summary.
3. It was framed with the purpose of reaching the highest moral
standard practicable in the circumstances of the people――the highest
which it was possible to enforce. This doctrine assumes that any
special statute which is so far above the moral status of the people
as to be practically inoperative and void may be for this very reason
an evil rather than a good inasmuch as it may break down rather than
build up the law-abiding spirit of the people. Consequently the best
statute for any given people may be the best that can be in the main
enforced――the best which they can be brought up to respect and obey.
Hence it may happen that some of the statutes in the best practicable
system will be only second best――_i. e._ not theoretically perfect,
but only the best practically for the circumstances. We may illustrate
this by the law of divorce, as to which Jesus himself remarks that
Moses “because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put
away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Mat. 19: 8).
The provisions for an easy divorce were a concession to a sadly low
morality among the people――the best under the circumstances――the
best that could be made operative with that people, but by no means
theoretically perfect.――――The reader will take note that we had
no occasion to apply this principle to the moral law of the ten
commandments, nor indeed to the underlying principles of this code
of “statutes and judgments,” but only to some of its practical
applications of these principles.
4. It is an inference from our last-named point that this code must
needs _take the people as they were_; must have regard to existing
usages, to the common law under which they had been living, and perhaps
must be compelled to tolerate some undesirable usages until better
principles could be inculcated and a higher moral tone of public
sentiment could be established. Illustrations of this principle appear
in the prevalent system of servitude, and in polygamy.
5. Another inference from the point above made is that this code
can not be held responsible for what was in existence before its
promulgation; _e. g._ personal slavery. It can be held responsible
only for doing the best that could be done with such a people――a people
so educated, accustomed to such usages and trained in such ideas.
6. That this code, though given by the Lord himself, was not
theoretically perfect but only the best practicable, is obvious from
the fact that it was from time to time modified. Cases of this appear
in the law respecting the six years’ emancipation of Hebrew servants
(compare Ex. 21: 2–7 with Deut. 15: 12–17); the taking of pledges from
the poor for the payment of debts: (compare Ex. 22: 26 with Deut. 24:
6, 10–15). See also the law of inheritance in a family consisting of
daughters only (Num. 36).
7. That this code was framed with the design of a special adaptation
to the Hebrew people appears in such facts as these, viz. that though
it went into immediate effect and continued in force during their
wandering life in the wilderness forty years, yet it anticipated
their ultimate residence in Canaan, especially in its land-law and its
provision for the entailment of real estate. Also it anticipated the
future demand for a king according to the usage of contiguous nations
and provided for this modification in the general government.
8. At the point where the administration of justice first appears,
the sole responsibility seems to have rested on Moses (Ex. 18). At
the suggestion of Jethro (as we have seen) important modifications
were introduced. Further modifications were made after the settlement
in Canaan. In consequence of the close connection between the church
and the state――the religious law and the civil――the same class of men
were to a great extent put in charge of both. The tribe of Levi became
the ministers of religion and the administrators of civil law as well.
Exempted chiefly from agriculture and from military service, they
became the learned class――the lawyers of the nation. “The priests’
lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth”
(Malachi 2: 7).
9. The question how far this divinely revealed code of law is
authoritative upon human legislators and should control legislation
in this Christian age, should be carefully considered. With no attempt
to exhaust this question, I may suggest briefly:――(1.) That the great
principles of this code should underlie every code of human law.
These principles must be good for all time――for man in his social and
civil relations every-where. For example, its doctrine of equity; its
law of love; its regard for the personal rights of life, chastity,
property; its doctrine of the essential equality of every man’s rights
before the law; and its assumption that the poor, being otherwise
defenseless, have special need of the protection of law, and should
be regarded therefore as the special wards of government and its
officers.――――(2.) As the moral law of the ten commandments is obviously
the compend and summary of the great principles which underlie this
Hebrew code, so should this moral law be the compend and summary of
the principles that should underlie every human code of law in whatever
age of the world and in whatever stages of civilization.――――(3.) As
the Hebrew code while accepting the supreme authority of the ten
commandments and aiming to embody and apply its principles did yet
allow to itself a certain latitude in adjusting its “precepts and
statutes” to the condition of the people, so may human legislators.
Lessons of wisdom may be drawn from this code in both these lines
of its example; viz. its fidelity to the principles and doctrines of
the perfect moral law of Sinai; and its careful adaptation of these
principles to the actual status of the people so as to reach the
highest possible amount of practical efficiency in securing the ends
of justice and of virtue.
* * * * *
The brief analysis and treatment of the _civil code_ here attempted
will follow mainly the same order of subjects which appears in the law
of Sinai; thus:
I. Crimes against God:
1. Idolatry;――2. Perjury;――3. Presumptuous sins;――4. Violations
of the Sabbath;――5. Blasphemy;――6. Magic.
II. Crimes against parents and rulers (Fifth commandment).
III. Crimes against the person and life (Sixth commandment).
IV. Crimes against chastity (Seventh commandment).
V. Crimes against property; laws respecting property (Eighth
commandment).
VI. Crimes against reputation; violations of truth (Ninth commandment).
VII. Hebrew servitude.
VIII. Judicial procedure.
IX. Punishments.
* * * * *
I. Crimes against God:
1. _Idolatry._ The laws against idolatry included both the professed
worship of the true God by means of images, and the worship of
other gods. As the law of Sinai forbade both these practices with
no special discrimination between them, so did the “statutes and
judgments”――the law apparently holding it of small account to attempt
any discrimination. In the case of the golden calf (Ex. 32) Aaron
having more knowledge of the true God than the body of the people, may
have thought only of worshiping the Lord (“To-morrow is a feast to the
Lord”); but the people bringing their notions from their Egyptian life,
may have had no thought beyond the calf, and so may have worshiped
it as their God. Plainly the professed worship of God by means of
images was a perpetual temptation to let slip all just conceptions
of God and to worship images only, or some other object than God. No
discrimination in point of penalty appears in the law. Both forms seem
to have been condemned and punished with no attempt to discriminate
between them. Individual idolaters, after careful examination and clear
proof of guilt, were stoned――the witnesses casting the first stone
(Deut. 17: 2–7). No man might allow himself to be seduced into the
worship of other gods――no, not by a brother, or a son, or a wife, or
by friend dear as his own soul, but must expose the sin of his seducer
and spare not his very life (Deut. 13: 6–11). A city given to idolatry,
if the case be proven, must be utterly destroyed and made a perpetual
desolation (Deut. 13: 12–16). The statutes were absolutely sweeping
against any possible form of similitude, image, or representation, made
for an object of worship; and also against the worship of the heavenly
bodies――a form of idolatry both ancient and widely diffused (Deut. 4:
13–19).――――To guard them against temptation in the social line, they
were forbidden to eat in idolatrous festivals (Ex. 34: 15). Apparently
many special usages were forbidden because of their associations with
idol worship (Lev. 19: 27, 28). The prohibition to eat blood or fat
may have been in part sanitary, but probably was also anti-idolatrous.
The distinction between things clean and unclean helped to make them
a peculiar people, and may have been so intended.
* * * * *
2. _Perjury._ The law of Sinai tacitly indicates that the Lord himself
would take the perjurer in hand, would never hold him guiltless, and
would be responsible for his punishment. The statutes touch only a
single case――“A false witness rising up against any man to testify
against him that which is wrong”――ordaining that the case be brought
before the judges who are to make diligent inquisition. If found
guilty, the evil he thought to bring upon another must be visited upon
himself (Deut. 19: 16–21).――――In general the sanctity of the sacred
oath was shielded by Jehovah himself, searching out and punishing the
guilty. Oaths seem to have been far less frequent than in the modern
administration of law――less frequent, but more sacred, this binding
force being laid on every conscience and left to the awful sanctions
of Jehovah.
* * * * *
3. _Presumptuous sins._ The law against such sins sought to impress
due reverence for God’s authority. A broad distinction was made between
sins of ignorance and sins where knowledge of duty was presupposed and
the offense involved deliberate contempt of God. The external act was
of smallest consequence. The law said, “The soul that doeth _aught_
presumptuously”――no matter what it be. Certain cases are specified
having these common elements――that the law was plain; the duty palpable;
and innocent ignorance not even supposable;――_e. g._ the law of the
Sabbath against all [needless] work (Ex. 31: 14, 15 and 35: 2, 3). The
case (Num. 15: 32–36) of the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath,
stands in the closest connection with the law against “presumptuous
sins,” showing that the offense was seen in that light. The most
emphatic condemnation of presumptuous sins immediately precedes (vs.
30, 31) in these words: “The soul that doeth aught presumptuously, the
same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among
his people” (_i. e._ by capital punishment). “Because he hath despised
the word of the Lord and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall
be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.” He must bear it
himself, with no atonement provided for his pardon.――――Other cases
specified are――the eating of unleavened bread during the Passover (Ex.
12: 15); neglect of the Passover when its observance was practicable
(Num. 9: 13); eating certain sacrificial offerings while unclean (Lev.
7: 20, 21); eating fat or blood (Lev. 7: 23–27).
The reason for laws of this sort, apparently so stringent and severe,
lies in the facts――that God was their king; that he looked on the heart;
and that whatever acts manifested contempt of his authority and treason
against his throne were in their very nature the highest possible
crimes.
* * * * *
4. _Laws against violations of the Sabbath_ have been indicated
sufficiently under the previous head. The statute was so entirely
definite; the line of duty so easily defined and understood, it seemed
to be assumed that palpable violations of the Sabbath were presumptuous
sins, and they are treated accordingly. The case of the man who
gathered sticks was carried up to the Supreme King, apparently because
though the law was clear, the external act was in itself trivial. God’s
answer amounted to this; No offense _can be trivial_ if the spirit of
it contemns God’s authority and reproaches his name.
* * * * *
5. _Blasphemy._ A case of blasphemy is specially described (Lev. 24:
10–16, 23). It was referred to God, the Supreme Ruler. “They put him in
ward that the mind of the Lord might be showed them.” The Lord replied
through Moses: “Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp;
and let all that heard him lay their hand upon his head, and let all
the congregation stone him.” The law was enacted accordingly: “He that
blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, and all
the congregation shall certainly stone him.” The majesty of the Great
King――the infinitely holy God, must be held sacred. No punishment could
be too severe for a crime which struck so fatally against the reverence
and homage due to Jehovah.
* * * * *
6. _Magic Arts._ In examining the statutes on this point, we are
struck with the number and variety of names which designate these arts.
The standard enumeration (Deut. 18: 10, 11) gives at least _eight_;
viz.――――(1.) “He that useth divination”――professing to gain knowledge
and power more than human and in some sense divine:――――(2.) “An
observer of times”――the Hebrew word being related to _cloud_, perhaps
in the sense of covering, hiding, as the cloud shuts off the sun’s
light; practicing covert arts:――――(3.) “An enchanter”――the original
suggesting the serpent, and implying either a hissing, in imitation of
the serpent; or the practice of charming serpents, yet always connected
with the arts of divination:――――(4.) “A witch”――the Hebrew word
signifying one who mutters incantations, its cognate words having the
sense of praying, but in Hebrew only in the bad sense of seeking help
from others than God:――――(5.) “The charmer”――a word which suggests
_binding_ as with the spell of enchantment――“spell-bound”; often
used of the charming of serpents:――――(6.) “A consulter with familiar
spirits”; (Heb.) one who prays to the bottle-man――the Hebrew word
for bottle being applied to the ventriloquist from whose body came
forth unearthly sounds as from a second being imprisoned within him.
Ventriloquism was one of the arts practiced by the ancient magicians
to excite the wonder and to command the belief of the credulous.――――The
English phrase――“familiar spirit”――signifies spirits who stand in such
a relation to the performer that they _come at his call_, like servants
of his _family_, he having the power to evoke them at his will. Of
course it is pretended that these spirits are other than human and
greater than human spirits can be while yet in the body. The original
Hebrew [Ob] comes down to us in the African “Obe-man” who still follows
the same profession, by means of similar arts.――――(7.) “The wizard”
is one who claims superhuman wisdom――the old English accurately
translating the Hebrew: the distinctively _wise one_. Of course the
word is restricted in usage to this sort of superior wisdom――that which
is gained by the arts of magic.――――(8.) “The necromancer”――precisely
the spiritist of modern times――or rather, of all time――who claims to
have communion with the spirits of dead men.[41]
I have led the reader through this analysis of the original words,
to aid him toward some just conception of the associated ideas which
cluster round the _magic arts_ of the Hebrew age. Their name and
their arts are legion. Think of so many classes――professions――of
men and women naturally shrewd, sharp, cunning; practicing upon the
superstitions, the fears, the gullibility of the millions; gaining
an almost unlimited control over them; working upon their imagination,
haunting them with the dread of unknown powers, bringing up to
them ghosts froth the invisible world, claiming to give auguries of
the future, playing in every way that may be for their own selfish
interests upon their fears and their hopes to extort their money or to
make sport of their fears, or to gratify their own or others’ malice.
Or go still deeper and see all this machinery subsidized by the devil
to impress men with his supremacy, to extort their homage, or at least
their fear of himself; and perhaps, most of all, to turn them utterly
away from the true God and to displace him from his proper sphere as
the supreme hope and joy and trust of mortals.――――It will always be an
unsettled question――How much help in the line of superhuman knowledge
and power does Satan give to his servants who work the infernal
machinery of magic arts? But on the point of his interest and sympathy
in these arts, there need not be the least question whatever. A system
so near akin in spirit and influence to idolatry――which so thoroughly
displaces God from the hopes and fears of men, and which seeks so
successfully to instal these horrible superstitions in his place;――a
system which perverts the powers of the world to come to subserve
ungodliness and which practically rules out the Blessed God from the
sphere of men’s homage, fears, and hopes;――this system has always
been worked by wicked and never by good men――has always subserved all
iniquity, but piety and morality never;――this has been a master stroke
of Satan’s policy and one of the most palpable fields of his triumph
through all the ages.――――Let it not surprise us that God’s law given
through Moses denounced it unqualifiedly and made it punishable with
death.
The nations whom God drove out of Canaan were steeped in its
abominations and ripened under its influence for their righteous
doom.――――I am not aware that even one pagan, idolatrous nation,
known to history since the world began, has been free from this
abomination――the arts of magic. Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, India, Africa,
historic Greece and Rome; the old nations of Northern Europe, the
savages of America――all come up to testify that they have been cursed
by its presence and power. The latest edition, modified slightly
to adjust it somewhat to an age of Christian civilization, is the
“spiritism” of our day――of which I need at this point to say but
two things:――(1.) That its principles and policy, its spirit and
its influence, are essentially the old “_necromancy_” of the ages of
all history: and (2.) That it naturally becomes the nucleus around
which chrystallizes whatever elements in society are irreligious and
unchristian.――――This last remark would not deny that some are attracted
toward it temporarily by curiosity; but it would maintain that the
animus, the soul of the system, is congenial to those who know not God,
and who choose not to know him;――who therefore gladly seek a substitute
for God, for his Bible, for prayer, and for trust in his providence in
these new revelations from the future, unseen world.
Passages in the Old Testament treating of this subject are Ex. 22: 18
and Lev. 19: 26, 31, and 20: 6, 27, and Deut. 18: 10, 11, 14, and 1 Sam.
28: 7–20, and 1 Chron. 10: 13, 14, and 2 Kings 21: 6, and 2 Chron.
33: 6, and Isa. 8: 19, 20.
II. _Crimes against Parents and Rulers_;
(Violations of the Fifth Command).
Of crimes against parents, the statutes of Moses specify smiting and
cursing (Ex. 21: 15, 17); the penalty in both cases, death. The precept
forbidding to curse a parent is repeated impressively (Lev. 20: 9);
“For every one that curseth father or mother shall be surely put to
death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon
him.” This crime stands in the list of those that are anathematized――in
Deut. 27: 16: “Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his
mother; and all the people shall say, Amen.”――――In Mat. 15: 3–6 and
Mk. 7: 9–13, our Lord seems to give this law forbidding a son to curse
father or mother, coupled with the fifth command, a construction broad
enough to require him to give them an adequate support――of course in
their years of infirmity and want.――――That God had a high regard for
this filial duty toward parents is manifest in the place of priority
accorded to the fifth command and in the special promise made to those
who fulfill its obligations.
In Deut. 21: 18–21, the case is supposed of a son incurably stubborn,
rebellious, gluttonous, and drunken, upon whom parental chastisement
is unavailing. The law very considerately provides that his father and
his mother shall lay hold of him and bring him before the elders of his
city unto its gates (_i. e._ into open court), and there, as a public
example and warning, the men of his city shall stone him with stones
that he die:――“So shalt thou put evil away from you and all Israel
shall hear and fear.”――――Parental love and partiality would guaranty
this law against abuse. It is pleasant to note that no case of its
execution is on record. Perhaps the severity of the law forestalled its
violation.――――The spirit of this precept is so fully in harmony with
the book of Proverbs that we naturally expect to find it there. (See
Prov. 20: 20 and 30: 11, 17.)
A precept forbidding insult and reproach of magistrates stands in Ex.
22: 28: “Thou shalt not revile the gods [Elohim used probably in the
sense of _judges_], nor curse the ruler of thy people.” The word “gods”
here can not refer to false gods, idols (as the English reader might
suppose), for the Hebrew word can not bear that sense, nor would it be
pertinent. The parallelism with “ruler of thy people” favors the sense
above suggested――_judges_――acting under God and in his behalf before
the people. Their sacred office under God is assumed to be good reason
for treating them with respect and against offering them insult.――――No
penalty is attached to the violation of this law――perhaps because
the penalty ought to depend so much upon the aggravation of the
offense.――――Under the kings, it was apparently a capital crime, for
when Shimei cursed king David (2 Sam. 19: 21–23) Abishai assumed that
he ought to die; and his temporary pardon was manifestly due to David’s
sad consciousness of deep personal ill-desert and of God’s righteous
visitations upon him.
III. _Crimes against Person and Life_;
(Violations of the Sixth Command).
Under this head the salient and vital points are:
1. That the _real murderer must be put to death_, and no “satisfaction”
be ever taken in place of his life.
2. That the law discriminated with the utmost care and wisdom between
real murder, and homicide, more or less justifiable. [Special laws
touching injuries done to servants will be treated under the head of
Hebrew servitude.]
3. A special law provided cities of refuge.
4. Another special law met the case of murder by unknown hands.
5. Inexcusable carelessness causing injury or death was punished.
6. Personal injuries not fatal were specially punished by statute.
1. Real murder was punished capitally. “He that smiteth a man so that
he die shall be surely put to death” (Ex. 21: 12 and Lev. 24: 17).
The law appears fully in Num. 35: 9–34 and Deut. 19: 4–13, 20, 21,
in connection with provisions for the cities of refuge. With firm and
solemn tone the law declared “Ye shall take no satisfaction for the
life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall be surely put
to death. So shall ye not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood
it defileth the land, and the land can not be cleansed of the blood
that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it. Defile not
therefore the land which ye shall inhabit wherein I dwell, for I the
Lord dwell among the children of Israel” (Num. 35: 31–34).――――This
reaffirms and amplifies the doctrine of the law as given to Noah and to
the repeopled world; “And surely your blood of your lives [life-blood]
will I require at the hand of every beast will I require it, and _at
the hand of every man_; at the hand of every man’s brother [such a case
as that of Cain and Abel] will I require the life of man. Whoso [with
no exception] sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed;
_for in the image of God made he man_.” Human life is sacred, and God
protects it under the sternest possible penalties――nothing less than
the life of the murderer. That God intended this law _for the whole
race, for the entire repeopled world_ from and after Noah, is too plain
to be denied or even doubted. It is not easy to see how another word
could be said to make this more plain. The law of Sinai and the code
given through Moses are intensely emphatic, indeed, perfectly decisive.
The law does not prescribe the mode of this capital punishment. In
various other crimes punishable with death, the mode is by stoning,
done, however, not by any one executioner, but by many; in some
cases by “the men of the city.” The penalty for murder would often be
executed by the blood-avenger――the nearest relative of the murdered man;
and it seems to be assumed that he would use any deadly weapon he might
choose (Num. 35: 19, 21, 27 and Deut. 19: 6, 11–13).
2. The law discriminated with the utmost care and wisdom between real
murder, and homicide, more or less justifiable. Real murder was to be
proven as follows:
(1.) By previous hatred and enmity. Of course this could be known by
human judges only by its manifestations.
(2.) By violent passion in the act――which I take to be the sense of
the words in our translation: “If a man come _presumptuously_ upon his
neighbor; [in Heb.] if a man _boil up with rage_ against his neighbor
to slay him with guile,” etc. (Ex. 21: 14).
(3.) By evidence of premeditation――“lying in wait” (Ex. 21: 13, and
Num. 35: 15–23, and Deut. 19: 4–6).
(4.) By the sort of instrument used (Num. 35: 16–18). “An instrument of
iron;” “a stone;” “a hand-weapon of wood,” _i. e._ _wood of the hand_,
large enough to fill the hand and deal a death-blow.
On the other hand it would be in favor of homicide if one had killed
his neighbor “ignorantly”――“whom he had not hated in time past;” or
thrust upon him suddenly without enmity; without lying in wait; or
cast upon him a stone seeing him not, nor seeking his harm, etc. (Num.
35: 22, 23 and Deut. 19: 4–6). A case for example is given――the head
of a man’s ax flying off when he is at work and killing his neighbor.
3. A special law provided for _cities of refuge_. (See Ex. 21: 13 and
Num. 35, and Deut. 19 and Josh. 20).――――At the era of Moses it was
already a time-honored usage that the nearest blood-relative should
avenge the blood of his slain friend. The prevalence and strength
of this sentiment were due of course, primarily, to the instincts
of human nature; but secondarily to the fact that as an institution
for the protection of person and life, the family was prior to the
state.――――The Goel [as he was called in Hebrew]――the blood-avenger
or Redeemer, could not be expected to exercise cool and impartial
discrimination over the questions lying between murder in the
first degree and homicide. To obviate this evil the Lord introduced
an important modification upon the previously current usages of
blood-revenge. It was this. Six cities in Palestine――three on each side
of the Jordan were selected in such convenient geographical position
that from any point of the whole country the man-slayer might make the
nearest one within less than one day’s run.――――All these were cities
of the Levites; hence the leading men of the city would be competent
to hold a preliminary investigation. The man-slayer fled for his life
to the nearest of these cities. The legal authorities there protected
him against the Goel――the blood-avenger. The elders of his own city,
if the case seemed to demand it, might send and fetch him; try him, and
deliver him up to the blood-avenger; or remand him back to his city of
refuge. Thus this city shielded him against sudden and indiscriminate
vengeance, and secured for him a trial before the congregation or
elders of his own city. If his case was proved to be homicide, he
must remain within the city of refuge till the death of the high
priest, after which the avenger’s right to take his life (outside
the refuge-city) ceased and he could go at large in safety. This
provision affixed a limit to his quasi-imprisonment. Perhaps it was
also significant of the pardon for sin provided for in the death of our
Great High Priest.――――If the man-slayer allowed himself to be caught
by the blood-avenger outside his city when he should be within it, the
avenger might take his life with impunity.
The law was specific on the point that human life must not be taken
on the testimony of one witness only――a plurality of witnesses being
required (Num. 35: 30, and Deut. 17: 6, and 19: 15).――――It was no
crime before the law to kill a thief breaking into a house by night
(Ex. 22: 2, 3). After sunrise, it became a crime of blood to take
his life――it being assumed that he might be caught and compelled to
make restitution, and that the peril to your own life and that of
your family is materially lessened. The law carefully guarded the
defenseless hours of sleep by night. If a thief in defiance of this
law played the burglar by night, he must run his own risk of death in
the attempt.
4. A very remarkable statute met the special case of a murder done
by unknown hands (Deut. 21: 1–9). The authorities from all contiguous
cities took up the case; measured carefully to fix upon the city lying
nearest to the bloody spot. Then the elders of that city were to take
a heifer never worked in yoke; bring her down into a wild, uncultivated
valley――the home of all weird and thrilling associations――and there
strike off the heifer’s head――the priests coming near and all the
elders of that city washing their hands over the headless heifer,
solemnly protesting――“Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have
our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, and lay
not innocent blood unto thy people Israel’s charge.” “And the blood
shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent
blood from among you when thou shalt do that which is right in the
sight of the Lord.”――――The entire scene was well adapted to make the
impression that murder is no trifle, and that God held the whole people
responsible to some extent for the safety of every human life.
5. _Inexcusable carelessness_, followed by fatal results, was
punishable by law. A supposed case for a specimen appears in Ex. 21:
28, 29. The goring ox――wont to push with his horns――reported to his
owner but not “kept in” by him――killing man or woman――must be put to
death and _his owner also_, for his culpable negligence.
6. Personal injuries, not fatal, came under special statute. In the
case of a mutual quarrel and fight, personal injuries, less than fatal,
were punished by requiring their author to pay for the wounded man’s
loss of time and for his being “thoroughly healed” [nursing and medical
services].――――The master who smote his servant unto immediate death,
must surely be punished. But if the servant survived a day or two, the
presumption would be that the master did not intend to kill. His loss
in the services of his servant was considered his punishment.――――Other
special cases appear Ex. 21: 22 and Deut. 25: 11, 12 which were
better read than rehearsed.――――The principle of punishment by
retaliation――[“lex talionis”]――like for like――was applied in all
appropriate cases (Lev. 24: 18–21). “If a man cause a blemish in his
neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him: Breach for
breach; eye for eye,” etc. (Ex. 21: 23–25 and Deut. 19: 21).
IV. _Crimes Against Chastity_;
(Violations of the Seventh Command).
The necessity for laws on this point at once discriminating, wise,
and stringent, will be sufficiently obvious when we consider (1.) The
strength of the passion to be controlled――constitutionally common to
all ages of the world:――――(2.) The sacredness of the marriage relation
and the inestimable value of moral purity in all human society――also
common to all ages of the world’s history:――――(3.) (Peculiar to the
earlier ages) the necessity of defining the limits of consanguinity
within which marriage should be prohibited, and all sexual connection
sternly forbidden. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that the race
having sprung from a single pair and the world having been repeopled
a second time from one family, those primitive examples may have sent
down for many generations a certain looseness which called for special
restraint and a carefully defining law:――――(4.) The crimes of Sodom,
their polluting influence in so good a family as that of Lot; the low
morals of Egyptian life; some sad manifestations in the early history
of Jacob’s family; the horrible contagion of Moab and Midian when the
tribes of Israel came socially near them;――these and kindred facts
will be readily recalled as in point to show the necessity of vigorous
legislation in the Mosaic code to counteract these untoward influences
of their antecedent life and of surrounding society.――――The thoughtful
student of the Mosaic code as expanding and applying the seventh
commandment will be painfully impressed with the disadvantages under
which it labored by reason of the toleration of polygamy, concubinage,
and domestic servitude. In some points the law bore with special
severity upon woman as compared with man――a sort of imperfection
which was simply an inevitable result of tolerating those ancient
evils.――――It scarcely need be suggested that the value of this part
of the Mosaic code as a definite model for Christian legislation is
greatly lessened by this class of facts. Woman’s place in society then
was by no means that which the genius of Christianity has given her.
Unquestionably this code alleviated her condition as compared with what
it had been, and brought to her relief as large a boon of blessing as
the genius of the age would bear.
In view, partly of the difficulty of treating this subject with
minute detail in a way to make its discussion really useful, and
partly of its inferior value in some points as an example, for reasons
above indicated, I shall excuse myself from any minute and extended
presentation of these laws.
In general: The laws accord ample space to the condemnation of the
unnatural crimes of sodomy and bestiality (Lev. 18 and 20, and Deut.
23: 17, 18, and 27: 21): also to incest, which for historic reasons
needed to be thoroughly and stringently defined (Lev. 18 and 19
and 20): to adultery proper; to the case of a suspected wife (Num.
5: 11–31);――to seduction and rape; aggravated whoredom in the form
of public prostitution; of prostitution to an idol; of impurity in a
priest’s daughter; in a woman betrothed, etc., etc.――――The study of
these laws would impress pure-minded readers with a sense of the great
pains taken to lift up and regenerate a sadly low and debased condition
of social morals on these points; and also with a sense of special
difficulty arising from the fact that society was quite too low to
bear the introduction and enforcement of the Christian law of marriage
as against concubinage, polygamy, and the debasement inseparable
from even modified slavery. We shall rise from the careful study of
this department of the Hebrew code with gratitude for the wisdom and
goodness which attempted so much, yet with a deeper gratitude that a
purer and higher code came to mankind through the law of Christ and the
spirit of an enlightened Christian age.
V. _Statutes Protecting Rights of Property_;
(Expanding the Eighth Command).
In Ex. 22: 1–15, 25–28, and 23: 4, 5, we have the earliest instalment
of statutes on this point. The staple penalty for theft was restitution,
yet varying widely in amount to meet the peculiarities of the case. In
pastoral life cattle were specially exposed; therefore the law ordained
that if the thief had killed the animal or sold it, he must restore――of
oxen five for one; of sheep, four. But if the animal was found alive
in his hand, the restitution was only double――two for one. The law made
the charitable supposition that the thief might yet repent and bring
back the stolen property, and purposely favored this result. On the
other hand the selling or destruction of the animal would indicate a
fixed purpose to have the avails of it, and also to render detection
more difficult――both of which purposes the law punished sharply.――――It
may well be noted that restitution was a telling, stinging penalty,
touching the sensibilities of the thief in a very tender point. The
indolent or unprincipled man who thought to live upon his neighbor’s
toil, would find stealing very unprofitable. The law had the more grip
in those times because if a man tried to put his property out of his
hands to evade the demand for restitution, or were in fact too poor
to restore four or five fold, there was always the last resort――the
law could take him for a slave (“servant”) and make him _work it
out_.――――This was one of the incidental benefits of a hard system: it
could be applied so as to make the penalties for theft very effectually
stringent.
The law punished trespass upon another’s property and want of care for
its due protection――on which points, subsequent, statutes reaffirm and
expand what we first find in Ex. 22. (See Deut. 22: 1–4.)
* * * * *
While the law was vigorous, not to say severe, against criminal theft,
it was yet _exceedingly lenient towards the unfortunate and innocent
poor_, _e. g._,
(1.) It gave permission to eat another’s property for the supply of
present want. The specifications are――The grapes of thy neighbor’s
vineyard; and his standing corn. Thou mayest eat grapes, but not put
one in thy vessel; mayest pluck the heads of grain in thy hand, but
never move thy sickle against thy neighbor’s grain (Deut. 23: 24, 25).
(2.) It regulated thoughtfully and compassionately the whole subject
of _pledges_, _i. e._ securities for the payment of debt. As first
announced (Ex. 22: 26, 27), it provided that if the poor man’s garment
were taken in pledge, it must certainly be restored to him by sundown,
because it was his bed-covering for the night; and God would surely
hear the poor man’s cry if he were compelled to lay himself down to
sleep with no covering.――――As subsequently revised or enlarged (Deut.
24: 6, 10–13, 17), the statute peremptorily forbade taking the upper
or the nether millstone in pledge, because no oriental family could
subsist without these. It also forbade the creditor to go in to the
poor man’s house to get his pledge lest he fix his covetous eye on
something there, but required him to wait patiently outside for the
poor man to bring it out――a provision which manifests a specially
delicate regard for the feelings of the poor. He was not obliged to
expose his deep poverty, nor to disclose all he had to the greedy gaze
of his more wealthy neighbor.――――The law also forbade the taking of a
widow’s raiment in pledge.
(3.) The law was entirely explicit and positive in its prohibition of
_usury_. By “usury” the Hebrew meant, not merely excessive or illegal
interest, but _interest_ itself――_all_ interest――money paid for the use
of money, or any thing valuable paid for the use of any other property
borrowed.――――The first statute (Ex. 22: 25) was general, yet fully
covered the principle: “If thou lend money to any of my people that
is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt
thou lay upon him usury.” The law contemplated the poor only; for the
rich are presumed to be above the necessity of borrowing money. The
borrowing of money as capital to be used in trade, or in manufacture,
or in the purchase of land, had no place at all in the business economy
of Israel. The borrowing which the law contemplated was only that
of the poor man to meet his imperative necessities. A man who had no
accumulations to draw from for a sick day or a casualty, must borrow or
go hungry. God speaks of such poor as “my people,” and forbids taking
interest on what they must needs borrow.
In the later books (Lev. 25: 35–38 and Deut. 23: 19, 20) we have
perhaps a later and revised form of the statute. “If thy brother
be waxen poor, thou shalt relieve him. Take thou no usury of him or
increase; fear thy God, that thy neighbor may live with thee. Thou
shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals
for increase.” In Deut. (as above) the law discriminates between “thy
brother” and a stranger. “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother;
unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury.” The ground for this
discrimination against the stranger may be a purpose to discourage his
residence in the land; or it may be related to the general fact that
foreigners were the men of traffic. (The original words for Canaanite
and for merchant were the same.) Tradesmen, doing business on borrowed
capital, might afford to pay interest; and on every principle of right
and justice, ought to do so. But God did not encourage the Israelites
in traffic with other nations. It would have been quite too perilous to
their morals, and to their religion.
The reader will scarcely need the suggestion that the Hebrew law
against interest applies in our Christian age only to the case of
loans made to the poor to meet their necessities. The spirit of the
law unquestionably _does_ apply in such cases, and does _not_ apply to
any other.
(4.) _Many special statutes contemplated relief for the poor._――――The
corners and the gleanings of the harvest field; a forgotten sheaf; a
few clusters of grapes also and some olives on the olive tree, must
be left for the poor and the stranger (Lev. 19: 9, 10, and 23: 32, and
Deut. 24: 19–22)――each of these successive statutes adding somewhat
in detail to the preceding.――――The day wages of the poor laborer must
be promptly paid, even on the very same day (Lev. 19: 13 and Deut. 24:
14, 15). But especially the sabbatic year (each seventh) was designed
to be a special benefaction to the poor. This law (Deut. 15: 1–11)
uses chiefly the word “release” in regard to the debts of the poor.
Critics are sharply divided over the question whether this release was
an entire _remission of debts_, or only a _stay of collection_, putting
it over for this one year. In favor of the latter view, Michaelis
and others urge that the reason for stay of collection was that
no cultivation of land was permitted during this year, and hence
there were no crops of this sort, and therefore only diminished means
of paying debts. Also that the law might be so abused as mostly to
annihilate all rights of property, inasmuch as the statute (v. 9) would
virtually put the property of the more wealthy within the control of
the less wealthy. Thou shalt not withhold because the year of release
is at hand, etc.
On the other hand, the arguments for construing the law to mean an
actual release of debt in the case of “thy poor brother” or neighbor,
are strong, and in my view, conclusive; _e. g._
(a.) This is the legitimate meaning of the original word translated
“release.” There should never be any deviation from the legitimate
sense of the original staple word, without cogent reasons――a principle
which is doubly strong _in the words of a law_.
(b.) This construction is fully in harmony with the genius of the
entire code in all its statutes for the relief of the poor.
(c.) On this construction the limitations of the statute are precisely
in place; _e. g._――to the case of “thy poor brother.” “Thou shalt
release _save when there_ shall be no poor among you”: also――“If there
be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren, etc., thou shalt not
harden thy heart nor shut thy hand from thy poor brother, but shalt
open thy hand wide unto him, and shall surely lend unto him sufficient
for his need in that which he wanteth”――[not all your property: you are
not required to make over every thing you have]. “Beware that there be
not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying――The year of release is at
hand” [and I shall never get my money or my grain back again], “and he
cry unto the Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee.” This shaping
of the statute plainly contemplates a real remission of this sort of
debts on each seventh year.
(d.) To the same purport is this――that the law excepts debts against a
foreigner: “Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it.” Our translators have
taken the liberty to add the word “again,” but without the least
authority from the Hebrew. The word “again” seems to come from the
theory that this statute required a stay of collection for one year in
the case of the foreigner: but of this there is no proof in the law as
it came from the hand of Moses.――――In the time of Nehemiah (5: 1–12)
there was unquestionably an entire remission of debts to the poor, and
not the least hint that this was going beyond the Mosaic law. On the
contrary it is implied that “the fear of our God” (v. 9)――equivalent
to obedience――would require just this.
This seventh or sabbatic year had other special features besides
the remission of the poor man’s debts as in Deut. 15: 1–11. These
additional features appear in Lev. 25, which provides (vs. 2–7) that
this year shall be a Sabbath of rest to the soil――rest from its usual
cultivation.――――In this chapter we find also a kindred institution――the
Jubilee――each fiftieth year――next following each seventh Sabbatic
year. Inasmuch as this arrangement would bring two years of land-rest
together, the Lord gave a special promise that the fertility of the
year immediately preceding should suffice against the necessities of
these two years of rest――a fact which testifies that God ruled his
people Israel under a system of special providences. If Moses is to be
considered as even in a secondary sense the legislator of the people,
he must have had unbounded confidence in God’s special direction and
counsel in these statutes.
The law of the Jubilee gave personal liberty to all bondmen. Of this,
more must be said under “Hebrew servitude.” It also provided for the
return of all real estate――all the lands of Canaan――to their original
possessors. Lands could be alienated only till the jubilee. They were
sold, if at all, subject to this law. Consequently a sale of land was
only a lease for at longest forty-nine years――_i. e._ for the years
intervening till the next jubilee. They were subject to redemption at
any time――the price to be graduated by the years which the lease had
to run. Houses in walled cities were redeemable only within one year
from sale; but in unwalled cities, houses followed the law of land,
returning with the land to their original owner at the jubilee. The
houses of Levites were accounted as land.――――These statutes had a
twofold purpose; to afford relief to the poor; and to prevent the
entire alienation of the lands of Canaan from the tribes, families,
and individuals to whom they were originally given.――――The question,
how far these institutions――the Sabbatic year and the Jubilee――were
observed in the future history of Israel is foreign from our present
purpose.
VI. _Crimes against reputation_;
(the details of the ninth commandment).
Here are stringent statutes against _false accusation_ and
_false witness_. Under this general head fall two distinct
cases:――(a) Testimony given to favor the guilty (Ex. 23: 1, 3);――――and
(b) allegations designed to condemn the innocent (Deut. 19: 16–21).
(a.) The former class (as given Ex. 23: 1, 3) forbids not merely
originating (“raise”), but _taking up_ a false report and seconding
it by indorsement. It warns men not to be drawn in to help the wicked
in their malicious plots to screen each other, though they be many.
The cause of the poor man which you may not favor (v. 3) is certainly
supposed to be a bad one. Your sympathy for him as poor must not
override justice and truth.
(b.) False witness, purposed to condemn the innocent, is met by
the statute (Deut. 19: 16–21). The accuser and the accused are to be
brought face to face before the Lord and before the priests and the
judges who are to “make diligent inquisition,” obviously hearing both
parties, and if the accuser is proved to be a false witness, “Ye shall
do to him as he thought to do to his brother; thine eye shall not pity,
but life shall go for life; eye for eye,” etc.
Tale-bearing, _i. e._ tattling, retailing scandal maliciously or
for a past-time, needed the force of law to abate and suppress it
in those times as in most other ages. “Thou shalt not go up and down
as a tale-bearer among thy people, neither shalt thou stand against
the blood of thy neighbor. I am the Lord” (Lev. 19: 16–18)――“Standing
against the blood,” must mean――taking ground against the very life,
and must not be construed to forbid truthful testimony against the
real murderer. But the informer should constantly remember that his
neighbor’s interests and life are too precious to be lightly tampered
with. Thy neighbor may have said or done something wrong. Your duty
in the case is not to scatter broadcast all you know and more than
you know of his misdeeds; but first of all――“Thou shalt not hate thy
brother in thy heart,” but “love him as thyself” (v. 18); and next,
“Thou shalt in anywise [by all means] rebuke thy neighbor, and not
suffer sin upon him.”――――This last clause has been understood in two
ways:――(a) Thou shalt not suffer the sin to lie upon him with no effort
on thy part to bring him to repentance: or (b) Thou shalt not bear on
thine own conscience the sin of neglecting to admonish him; _i. e._
thou shalt not submit to bear this sin on his account――a sin which
comes of knowing his crime and of failing in your duty to save him
by means of judicious and fraternal rebuke. The latter construction
is best sustained by Hebrew usage of the words. See the same words,
Lev. 22: 9 and Num. 18: 32, and the preposition “_upon_ him,” in Ps.
69: 8――“_For thy sake_ have I borne,” etc. The verb in this clause
means rather to “_bear_” in your own person, than to “suffer” to exist
in another.――――The passage, so interpreted, assumes it to be your
solemn duty to labor to bring your neighbor to repentance if you are
cognizant of his wrong-doing, and implies that you must lie under a
load of sin if you fail to do so. But do it _in love_ (loving him even
as yourself) as well as in all fidelity to his soul, as also to your
own. Do this instead of going up and down to scatter this scandal among
those who will do nothing to save your erring neighbor, and nothing to
relieve your conscience of your responsibility in his behalf.
While this statute bears against giving information about misdeeds of
minor sort, there were two crimes of such magnitude that every man was
bound to testify in the proper form against them; viz. idolatry and
murder. See the case of idolatry in Deut. 13: 6–14: “Neither shalt
thou conceal him, but thou shalt surely kill him: thy hand shall be
first upon him to put him to death, and afterward, the hand of all the
people.” (Also v. 14)――――The expiation for murder by an unknown hand
included this most solemn protestation: “Our hands have not shed this
blood, neither have our eyes seen it.” Of course, whoever might have
seen was most sacredly bound to testify.
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE CIVIL INSTITUTES OF MOSES, CONTINUED.
VII. _Hebrew Servitude._
Servitude existed before Moses. It was no part of the mission of
the Hebrew code to _create_ it. Let it be forever admitted that the
laws given of God through Moses can not be held responsible for the
existence of slavery. They found it existing and proceeded therefore
to _modify it_; to soften its more rigid features; to extract its
carnivorous teeth; to ordain that the slave _had rights_ which the
master and the nation were bound to respect――in short, to tone down
the severities of the system from unendurable slavery to very tolerable
servitude.
* * * * *
_By what means was this change wrought?_ What new elements were
introduced to abate the severities of real slavery?
1. _Man-stealing was punished with death._ “He that stealeth a man and
selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to
death” (Ex. 21: 16). The law as recited in Deut. 21: 7 applies to a
man stealing one of his brethren of the children of Israel. As stated
in Ex. 21: 16 it is universal, with no limitation. Stealing a _man_ is
the crime. I see no reason to doubt that the law was intended to apply
to men of every nationality――to men as made in God’s image of whatever
nation.
This statute struck at the very root of real slavery. Both stealing
and selling contemplate property――assume the fact of a property value.
The spirit of the law is――Men shall never be degraded into merchandise.
Every body knows that all American slavery began with stealing men
from Africa and selling them. Servitude, involving a certain right to
service and property in service, there might be, despite of this Hebrew
law; but real slavery――property in man as distinct from property in his
services, there could not be under this law. Moreover, the severity of
this penalty must have thrown its shield of protection over the entire
system of servitude. It was a very palpable indication of God’s stern
displeasure against the whole system of chattelizing human beings.
2. The Hebrew law positively forbade the rendition of fugitives.
“Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant that has escaped
from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you in
that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh
him best; thou shalt not oppress him” (Deut. 23: 15, 16).――――Observe
it was not only impossible to have any law for the reclamation of
fugitives――_i. e._ to have “a fugitive slave law” of the recent
American pattern; but the law was put on the other side. It
declared――“Thou shalt _not_ deliver him up to his master”――shalt not
give his master information and help the arrest; but shalt let him
choose his abode by his own free and manly will. If his hardships are
such under his bondage that he prefers to take his risk of finding a
better living elsewhere, let him try it. Let no man stand in his way.
He would not leave his master if his personal rights and interests were
properly cared for. But if his master is too selfish, or too cruel, or
too exacting of labor, or too stingy of bread or clothing, who shall
judge but the servant himself? Therefore let the servant better his own
condition if he can, and let all selfish, savage-hearted masters take
warning!――――Such laws exorcise the real spirit of slavery with blessed
rapidity. It would require but few such ameliorating statutes to tone
it down from unendurable slavery to very tolerable servitude.
The spirit of this law is altogether the spirit of the Great Lawgiver
when he found the Hebrews sorely oppressed in Egypt; smote off their
chains; brought them forth from their house of bondage, and placed them
beyond all reclamation. What he required his people now to do in behalf
of any oppressed servant was only in spirit what he had done for them.
3. Severe personal injuries gave the slave his freedom. “If a man smite
the eye of his servant or the eye of his maid that it perish, he shall
let him go free for his eye’s sake.” So of the tooth (Ex. 21: 26, 27).
The eye and the tooth are but specimen illustrations of the principle.
A charge of shot in the leg could not be less under this law than
a passport to freedom.――――Moreover, the statutes very specifically
enjoined clemency and forbade rigor in the treatment of Hebrew servants
(Lev. 25: 39–43, 46).
4. Of wider sweep in its influence and of inexpressible value was
_the system of periodical emancipation_. The term of service for the
Hebrew-born was limited to six years. At the end of this term they went
out free. Servants of foreign birth (as we shall see) went out at the
Jubilee, each fiftieth year.――――The effect of this law was at once to
lift from the heart the terrible incubus of a life-long bondage――that
sense of a hopeless doom which knows no relief till death. Whatever the
amount of discomfort or suffering involved in servitude might have been,
the Hebrew servant had under this law the prospect of his freedom at no
distant day.――――Moreover the accompanying provisions of this law were
thoroughly humane. The servant who had sold himself through extreme
poverty (Lev. 25: 47–55) might be redeemed at any time by a friend,
or if he could command the means by extra labor or skill, he might
redeem himself.――――When his term expired, his master must not send him
away empty, but must furnish him liberally out of his flock and out
of his floor (grain), and even out of his _wine-press_――of any thing
and every thing wherewith the Lord had blessed the master, he was to
impart liberally to his manumitted servant (Deut. 15: 12–15). So the
servant would have a fair start in his new self-supporting life. It
was a fore-thoughtful provision, full of the milk of a more than human
kindness.
Apparently this periodic emancipation applied to every class of Hebrew
servants――to him who had sold himself because he had become too poor
to provide for his family; to him who had been taken and sold for debt;
and to him who had been sold into servitude for crime. This latter case,
however, is doubtful.
Noticeably, this law provides for the family rights of the servant. If
he had brought his wife with him into this state, he took her out with
himself, and of course his children also. If his master had given him a
wife, he retained her because of his property interest in her services,
and her children with her for humanity’s sake; for children under six
years of age need their mother’s care. Wives in that age of the world
were paid for.
Let it be noticed, the law assumes that possibly the servant may love
his wife and his children and even his _master_ so well that he chooses
not to leave them. Very well; if he will consent to come before the
judges and in a solemn judicial manner, testify to this love of his
heart, and moreover, will consent to endure the rather uncomfortable
operation of having his ear bored through with an awl, then he may
remain forever――_i. e._ during life. But the discomforts of this
operation were intended to bear somewhat against this unlimited
servitude. The law seemed to say to every servant――“It would probably
be better for you to be your own master and live in freedom, rather
than in even this very comfortable servitude.”――――Every provision
of this statute had a purpose. The servant must be brought before
the judges to express in this public manner his choice to remain in
servitude; for this method would make it impossible for the master to
misrepresent the will of his servant. Moreover, it seems probable that
boring the ear was no badge of honor but the opposite, and therefore
would bear against the man’s choice of perpetual servitude.
The law made special provision for the case of female servants. The
original statute (Ex. 21: 7–11) put her case on a different footing
from that of her brother. “She shall not go out as the men-servants do.”
The language――“If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant”――may
seem at first view to be a case of slave-sale, involving real property
in human flesh and bones. A closer examination will show that it
comes under the usage of _selling daughters to become wives_; for this
purchase “betrothed her to her master,” or to “his son,” and the law
made special provision for her rights as such; viz. that in case her
master is not pleased with her, he shall let her be redeemed, “and
shall have no power to sell her unto a strange nation.” If betrothed
to his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter; if the son take
another wife, he shall not abate from his duty as a husband toward her;
and if he refuse to do all the law demands, she is free――redeemed by
law, “without money.”――――These statutes of course shape themselves
to the existing usages in respect to polygamy, concubinage, and easy
divorce, sedulously protecting the rights of a female servant under
these most unfavorable usages.
It seems probable that these kind and considerate provisions failed
to protect her rights as fully as the spirit of the law intended, and
therefore a further modification appears at a later period; for Deut.
15: 17 declares that the six years’ emancipation law shall apply to her
also as truly as to her brother;――“and unto thy maid-servant thou shalt
do likewise.”
5. In view of the fact that what we may call “religious privileges”
included rest from labor and more or less of religious and social
festivity, the law was very specific in stipulating that the
man-servant and the maid-servant must share in all these equally with
the son and the daughter. We see this in the law of the Sabbath; in
the feast upon the second tithes (Deut. 12: 17, 18); and in two of the
great festivals, viz. the Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles (Deut.
16: 11, 14).――――Thus they were put religiously and socially upon the
same footing as children in the family. No ban of exclusion, no stigma
of caste, could attach to their condition so long as these statutes
were duly observed.
6. By usage and without the necessity of statute, Hebrew servants
held property. The old American doctrine――“The slave can own
nothing”――had no place in the system of Hebrew servitude. The proof
is twofold:――――(a) The statutes provided that “if able he might redeem
himself” (Lev. 25: 49). This permission would be only a taunting insult
if in fact no Hebrew servant could hold property.――――(b). The light
of history bears witness: Ziba was a servant of the house of Saul; but
he had servants under him――a round score; “fifteen sons and _twenty_
servants” (2 Sam. 9: 10 and 19: 17), and seems to have had charge of
cultivating Saul’s estates.
Thus manifold and effective were the humane provisions which softened
the severities of slavery, toning them down to a very tolerable system
of servitude.
_The Slavery that Existed before Moses._
We have spoken of Hebrew servitude as a _modified_ system――which
raises the question――“modified” _from what_? What was the pre-existing
system upon which these modifications were superinduced? A full answer
must include (a) The patriarchal system as it appears in the case of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: and (b) The system of Egypt and perhaps
other contemporary nations.
(a.) In the patriarchal system servitude could not possibly have been
compulsory. It must have been voluntary. Force, coercion, was utterly
out of the question. Abraham had neither army nor police to hold his
slaves in bondage. In fact they were his armed soldiers as against
freebooting incursions or any hostile assault whatever. Manifestly
they lived with him while they chose――no longer. Some of them rose to
bear important responsibilities, _e. g._ Eliezer (Gen. 24); his two
young men who went with him and Isaac to Moriah (Gen. 22).――――Isaac
“had great store of servant” (Gen. 26: 14), but there is not the
least intimation that they were entailed as part of his estate to
either Esau or Jacob; or that he received them by inheritance from
Abraham.――――Jacob had many servants (Gen. 30: 43), and in fact must
have had to help him in the care of his flocks and herds: but the
history shows that he did not take them with him into Egypt. Joseph’s
invitation left out the servants (Gen. 45: 10, 11.), and the record
specifies all the family except the servants and gives us the actual
enumeration――all servants omitted (Gen. 46: 5–26). Property in servants
in the American sense, there was none.
(b.) Of Egyptian slavery enough is known to show that they bought
slaves brought in from other nations, holding therefore a property
right in them, and that they constituted a menial class in society.
* * * * *
The condition of the Israelites under oppression there was peculiar.
Manifestly they were not held by individual Egyptians as their
personal property, but rather by the crown. The king of Egypt appears
as the great slave-holder of the Hebrew people, making levies upon
them for laborers at his pleasure, and exacting the severest tasks
with no limitations but his own will on the one hand and their possible
endurance on the other. The question of letting the people go was (at
least mainly) personal to himself and to his throne. His merciless
severity would naturally tend to make slavery in Egypt heartlessly
cruel. Laws to restrain masters from severity could not be thought
of under such kings. It is easy to see that when, at and after Sinai,
the Lord came to legislate for the Hebrew people, fresh from Egyptian
usages and laws, there was abundant occasion for statutes to modify
the severities of human bondage. With telling force the Lord could
say――Never oppress your servants; ye know how oppression feels!
_The Jubilee._――(Lev. 25).
In this chapter and here only we have an account of this peculiar
institution. The following points in it deserve special attention.
1. Its main scope and purpose were manifestly of the same sort with
those of the Sabbatic year――a year of rest from labor, of recuperation
for both the laborer and his lands, and of joy in the God of their
mercies. Particularly it made provision for restoring lands which had
been alienated by any means during the forty-nine intervening years. On
this eventful year all lands were to return to the original proprietor
and to his estate. The law provided that alienated lands might be
redeemed at any time for a price graduated by the years intervening
before the Jubilee. But if the poor man was unable to redeem his land
and had no relative or friend to redeem it for him before the Jubilee,
it then returned to him by the statute with no redemption price.
2. We must note its bearing upon Hebrew servants and its relation
to the seventh year emancipation law.――――It treats of two classes of
servants of Hebrew blood; those who had sold themselves, because of
their poverty, to a fellow Israelite; and those who for the same reason
had sold themselves to a wealthy foreigner residing in the land. As
to the former class, the law enjoins kind treatment; puts strongly
the distinction between the hired and the bond-servant――permitting
servants of Hebrew birth to be held in the former state but not in
the latter; and finally gave him and his children freedom at the
Jubilee.――――Inasmuch as the seventh year emancipation law applied to
this very class of servants, if it were enforced there could be no
Hebrew servants to go out at the Jubilee except those who had not yet
served six full years. This seems to be the bearing of the law of the
Jubilee upon Hebrew servants. We can not assume that it superseded the
seventh year law and took its place. The historic passage (Jer. 34:
8–17) would quite forbid such a construction.
As to the second class――those who had sold themselves to a
foreigner――the law gave the right of redemption to any of his friends
or to himself, and fixed the terms, providing for his freedom at the
Jubilee.
3. The most difficult point is, the bearing of the Jubilee, if any,
_upon servants of foreign birth_. Did it, or did it not, provide for
their emancipation?
The passage (Lev. 25: 9, 10) seems very strong in favor of _universal_
liberty, not omitting bond-servants of foreign birth. The words
are――“_Proclaim liberty through all the land unto all the inhabitants
thereof_.” This proclamation was made with sound of trumpet, ringing
out its shrill blast over all the land. Now let it be considered: If
foreigners were not included, and if the seventh year emancipation
law had been duly enforced, there could have been but a meager showing
of freedmen――only those few Hebrew servants who had not filled out
their six years of service. Is it credible that so much proclamation
and so much public display could have meant only the emancipation of
say one-tenth or one-twentieth of all the servants in the land?――――At
any point of their history the number of foreign servants ought
to have greatly exceeded the number of Hebrew birth――for two
reasons:――――(a.) The law encouraged the taking of foreigners into
this relation:――――and (b.) They continued in it at least till the
Jubilee――their maximum service being therefore forty-nine years,
awhile the maximum service of the Hebrew-born was only six. Therefore
I urge that a proclamation so high sounding and in terms so absolutely
universal can not have left out the great majority of bondmen in the
land.
The opponents of this view rely upon the words (v. 46)――“They shall be
your bondmen forever”――which they claim must mean _during life_.――――But
it may be replied――One human life is very much short of _forever_. Also,
if the statute had meant during life, why did it not say so?――――Again;
the order of the Hebrew words favors this construction: “Forever of
them shall ye take servants”――or somewhat more literally: Forever
among them shall ye serve yourselves, _i. e._ provide yourselves with
servants. And this construction harmonizes fully with the drift of the
context, the spirit of which is――Go to the heathen about you, or to
heathen families living among you for your supply of bond-servants.
Let this be the permanent arrangement.
The English phrase――“bond-servant” may perhaps give a stronger sense
than the Hebrew will warrant. The Hebrew suggests no sort of “bond”――no
obligation of law or justice. It expresses a certain degree of emphasis
by means of repeating the words for service and servant, in this way:
(v. 39), If thy brother with thee shall become weak “[broken down
financially], and shall sell himself to thee, thou shalt not exact
of him the service of a servant, [or serve thyself in him with the
service of a servant].” This is all that “bond-servant” can mean. It is
a somewhat intensified idea of service.――――Another prohibition in this
passage is sufficiently explicit: “Thou shalt not rule over him _with
rigor_” (vs. 43, 46), _i. e._ literally, with crushing; shalt not break
him down; or in the American slave-holder’s phrase “break him in.”
* * * * *
The case of _foreign servants_ demands yet a few more words of
explication. It can not be denied that the spirit of the Hebrew law
favored the choice of foreigners for servants, and the increase of
this class of population. This is plainly the doctrine of the passage
Lev. 25: 44–46.――――In connection with this we may profitably study
the law of the Passover in its relation to servants (Ex. 12: 43–49).
“There shall no stranger eat thereof, but every man’s servant that is
bought for money, _when thou hast circumcised him_, then shall he eat
thereof.”――――That this law contemplated Gentile servants is clear on
two grounds:――――(a.) Only such would need circumcision――all Hebrews
being circumcised when eight days old.――――(b.) The law (Lev. 25: 44)
required them to take their servants from the heathen, and authorized
them to “_buy_” such. The buying of a Hebrew servant was a very
different thing. The poor Hebrew _sold himself_――_i. e._ _his
services_, and took pay in advance of doing the work. Selling himself
is precisely the sense of the Hebrew in Lev. 25: 39, 47, though in
the former case (v. 39) our translators made it “be sold” and in the
latter “sell himself.” The Hebrew verb is equally reflexive in both
verses.――――Moreover, no man might steal a Hebrew and sell him on pain
of death. It does not appear that Hebrew fathers sold their sons. When
they took pay for a daughter, it came under the usage of paying for
wives. She was betrothed to her purchaser (Ex. 21: 7–11) and of course
had the rights of a wife. Hence this “buying a servant for money”
(Ex. 12: 44) contemplates a foreigner.――――The law proceeds to say――“A
foreigner (one not a servant) and a hired servant shall not eat
thereof.”――――Furthermore, circumcision was naturalization; it brought
the servant within the pale of the Hebrew community. For this law
of the Passover declares that “when a stranger sojourning with thee,
_i. e._ in thy land, desires to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all
his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; _and
he shall be as one that is born in the land_;” _i. e._ his circumcision
is equivalent in force to being born in the land; it secures his
naturalization. Hence the buying of foreign servants would be a
perpetual process of naturalizing them, and bringing them into the
Hebrew community. They came to the Passover and were entitled to all
the religious privileges of the children of Israel. Abraham himself
circumcised, not his sons alone, but “all that were born in his house
or bought with money of the stranger” (Gen. 17: 23, 27).――――Thus the
system reached forth its arms, gathered to its genial bosom and blest
with religious nurture thousands of alien birth, some of whom attained
renown among the servants of the God of Israel. We have the history of
Rahab and Ruth, and to name no more of “Uriah the Hittite,” and of
“Ittai the Gittite” [of Gath].
VIII. _Judicial Procedure._
Under this general head the following topics should receive attention.
1. _Judges._ The reorganization suggested by Jethro has been noticed,
and also its further modification to adjust it to the fixed residence
in Canaan.――――Between Joshua and Saul, there was an irregular series
of Supreme Judges, closing with Samuel of whose circuit court, taking
four cities in rotation, we have a notice in 1 Sam. 7: 15–17. The kings
manifestly held this function of Supreme Judge. In the absence of other
Judges, the High Priest seems to have served ex-officio. His powers,
under the “Judges” above referred to and the kings, are not sharply
defined; but probably religious and semi-religious questions came
before him and his associates. The Judges between Joshua and Samuel
were military men.――――A special reorganization of the judiciary under
Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 19: 5–11) will repay a careful reading. It
provides subordinate judges in all the fortified cities; solemnly
admonishes them to administer justice in the fear of God; establishes
a supreme court in Jerusalem, where “he set of the Levites, priests,
and chief of the fathers of Israel for the judgment of the Lord and
for controversies when they returned to Jerusalem”――the last clause
apparently referring to cases carried up for decision before this
supreme court.――――It should be noted that we read nothing of cases
taken up to a higher court by appeal of a dissatisfied party; but only
as carried up by the lower court itself when the case seemed too hard
or too high for its decision. This principle went into operation in the
reorganization by Moses (Ex. 18: 22, 26 and Deut. 1: 17)――“The cause
that is too hard for you, bring it to me and I will hear it.” It passed
into the general law as we may see (Deut. 17: 8–13) which provides for
a supreme court at the religious center, the judges being “the priests,
the Levites, and the judges that shall be in those days.”
The warnings against partiality and bribery were earnest and
solemn――the penalty for these offenses being left, it would seem,
to be visited upon the offender by the Almighty (Ex. 23: 6–8, and Lev.
19: 15, and Deut. 1: 17, and 16: 18–20). They were not even allowed to
favor the poor man in his cause _against justice_ (Ex. 23: 3 and Lev.
19: 15)――there being sometimes a temptation to do this out of sympathy
with his poverty and his necessities. But God put justice in law above
sympathy for even the necessitous poor.――――The public anathema fell on
him who took a bribe to slay the innocent (Deut. 27: 25).
2. The seat of justice――the place for holding court――was “in the gates
of the city.” Hence this being with all Orientals the place of public
resort, the courts were public――open to all.
3. The processes of prosecution are not specially described. In cases
of a personal, private character, the aggrieved party brought suit. In
cases of a public nature “the elders of the city” bore responsibilities,
as we see in the case of murder by an unknown hand. A remarkable case
of appeal to the sensibilities of the whole nation is given Judg.
19: 25–30, under which the people woke to a consciousness of horrible
wickedness in Israel, and their indignation became irrepressible; yet
they carefully sought counsel of the Lord in this terrible case.
4. _Advocates._ We find no notice of professional advocates. The
“lawyers” of New Testament history were men versed in the law and
were teachers of law, but not by any means the modern advocate. Every
man might be his own advocate, and even women were heard before no
less a king than Solomon himself (1 Kings 3: 16–18). Noble-hearted,
disinterested men seem in Oriental life to have undertaken this service
voluntarily for the poor and the fatherless, of which Job gives a
touching description (Job 29: 7–17). Isaiah exhorts to this duty:
“Plead for the widow” (1: 17). It was the noble doctrine of this
system――“Our law judges no man before it hears him and knows what he
doeth” (Jn. 7: 51). Moses puts it thus――“Ye shall hear the small as
well as the great” (Deut. 1: 17). “If there arise a matter in judgment
between blood and blood, _between plea and plea_,” etc. (Deut. 17: 8).
5. _Of Witnesses_――the points of chief importance are these:
(1.) They testified under oath――the manner of administration being this:
The witness listened to the rehearsal of the words, and gave his oral
assent, “Amen,” or, “As thou sayest.” The passage (Lev. 5: 1) describes
the case of one who sins in this way, hearing the voice――_i. e._ the
words of the sacred oath, adjuring him to testify whether he has seen
or known any thing in this case. Then if he will not make known, “he
shall bear his iniquity.”――――A special statute for the case of a wife
suspected of conjugal infidelity shows how she is to be put under this
solemn oath (Num. 5: 19–22). She listens to the words of the oath and
responds, “Amen, amen.” (See also Prov. 29: 24 and Mat. 26: 63).
(2.) That the witnesses were examined separately and in presence of
the accused appears probable from a comparison of Mat. 26: 61 with
Mk. 14: 55–59. Jesus was present (Mat. 26: 62).
(3) As to the requisite number of witnesses――a criminal case of capital
crime required two besides the accuser (Deut. 17: 6 and 19: 15). Hence
the phrase――“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word
be established” (Mat. 18: 16).――――A supposed case is stated (Ex. 22:
10, 11) in which the complainant and the accused are the only witnesses.
Both are put under oath; but the testimony of the accused under oath
seems to be accepted as his vindication.
(4.) By another peculiar provision of the Mosaic statutes, the
witnesses in certain cases must be first to execute the penalty (Deut.
17: 7, and 13: 9, and Acts 7: 58, and John 8: 7). This provision was
doubtless morally wholesome.
IX. _Punishments._
A few points not already brought to view deserve a brief notice.
1. _Fines._――Some were fixed by statute. The highest known to the law
(one hundred shekels of silver) was laid on the man who falsely accused
his wife of previous unchastity (Deut. 22: 19). Another case among
violations of the seventh commandment appears (Deut. 22: 28, 29).――――In
the case of an ox goring some one fatally, the penalty of death upon
his owner might be commuted to a fine at the discretion of the judges
(Ex. 21: 28–31)――a wise provision because the real culpability of his
owner must vary with circumstances. In another case (Ex. 21: 22), the
suffering party and the judge fixed the amount of the fine.
2. The sin and the trespass offerings sustained a slight relation
to fines, since the party bore the cost of the animal sacrificed――a
young bullock, a kid of goats, etc. These laws may be seen in Lev. 4
and 5 and in Num. 15: 27–29. They pertain to sins of ignorance and of
remissness; never to presumptuous sins. In addition to the cost of the
sacrifice the penalty included a public confession of the offense, and
was well adapted to make a good moral impression.
The special cases which come under this general head of sin and
trespass offerings were――――(1.) Unintentional transgressions of
the Levitical law.――――(2.) The rash oath, ill-considered and not
conscientiously kept (Lev. 5: 4).――――(3.) Perjury in a witness;――not
however the case of false swearing to condemn the innocent, which
was punished by retaliation; but the offense of _not_ testifying what
he knew when put under oath (Lev. 5: 1).――――(4.) Debts due to the
sanctuary――a failure to pay tithes; the penalty being, one-fifth
added to the original amount and all paid, coupled with the trespass
offering (Lev. 5: 14–16).――――(5.) Denying any thing given in trust,
or retaining another man’s lost property which he may have found,
and similar offenses, coupled with false swearing (Lev. 6: 1–7); the
penalty being, to restore with one-fifth added and to make his trespass
offering.――――(6.) Adultery with a slave. The penalty――a sin-offering
and the punishment of death commuted to stripes.
* * * * *
3. _Stripes_ were made the penalty of certain specified crimes (Lev.
19: 20 and Deut. 22: 18). The law was careful to limit the number of
stripes to forty, giving as the reason――“Lest if thou shouldest exceed”
[this number] “then thy brother should seem vile unto thee;” _i. e._
not merely lest the man might lose his self-respect, but lest he lose
the respect of the community, and be hopelessly degraded. In usage
the Hebrews limited the number to thirty-nine――said to have been
administered by thirteen strokes of a triple cord.
4. Of retaliation [“lex talionis”] notice has been taken already.
5. _Excommunication_; excision; being cut off from his people. When
executed by God himself, it meant destruction by some providential
agency. Compare 1 Kings 14: 10 with 15: 29 and 2 Kings 9: 8–10.――――When
executed by human agency, it was capital punishment, usually by stoning
(Ex. 31: 14, and Lev. 17: 4, and 20: 17, 18).
6. The customary modes of capital punishment were two: _stoning_ and
_the sword_. (Deut. 13: 9, 10, and 17: 5, and Josh. 7: 25.) The sword
appears in later ages.
7. _Disgrace after death_ in some cases heightened the penalty,
_e. g._ by burning the dead body (Gen. 38: 24, and Lev. 20: 14, and
21: 9). That in these cases the death was by stoning and the burning
was only that of the dead body, seems to be sufficiently proved from
Josh. 7: 15, 25. “All Israel stoned him” [Achan and his family] “with
stones and burned them with fire _after_ they had stoned them with
stones.” Their very bodies seem to have been thought of as polluted and
_polluting_.――――Another method of posthumous disgrace was by hanging on
a tree (Num. 25: 4, 5 and Deut. 21: 22, 23). The body must not remain
suspended over night “that thy land be not defiled; for he that is
hanged is accursed of God.” See cases of the execution of this law in
Josh. 8: 29 and 10: 26, 27.
Several forms of punishment were introduced from other nations in later
ages which we may omit as foreign from our subject.
In closing this topic let it be noted that judicial procedure and
punishment were summary――both the trial and the execution being carried
through with apparently no delay. Compared on these points with the
most highly civilized countries of our age, the Hebrews have greatly
the advantage, and the efficiency of their law must have been for this
very reason surpassingly great. Their methods afforded but the smallest
possible hope of escape. Punishment followed close on the heels of
detection, and usually, we must presume, of crime.――――Furthermore,
these punishments, compared with those of other nations in that age
were by no means severe. Indeed the modes of capital punishment which
come to view in the Scriptures as existing among other nations were
terribly barbarous compared with those of the Hebrew code; _e. g._
burning in a fiery furnace; being torn in pieces by lions; being sawn
asunder; crucifixion.
The design of punishment is put in the plainest terms. In its severer
forms it is not the discipline of the criminal but the good of the
public――to deter the evil-minded from crime and so to make society safe
from outrage. In the case of presumptuous sins we read――“That man shall
die, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel, and all the people
shall hear and fear and do no more presumptuously” (Deut. 17: 12, 13
and 19: 20).
It is worthy of special notice under this head that we find in this
code a considerable number of statutes _with no penalty attached_ which
human hands were to inflict. God reserved the infliction of the penalty
to himself. The fear of his displeasure, coupled with his promised
rewards for obedience were the only forces coercing obedience to these
statutes. They were left upon the conscience of the people, and upon
their fears and hopes under a system in which God’s hand in providence
was often made most palpable. For cases in point I may refer to the
laws against usury and requiring favors to be shown to the poor;――as
for example (Deut. 15: 9, 10): “Beware that there be not a thought in
thy wicked heart, saying――The seventh year, the year of release is at
hand, and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother and thou givest
him naught, and he cry unto the Lord against thee and it be sin upon
thee. Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved
when thou givest unto him; because that for this thing the Lord thy God
will bless thee in all thy works,” etc.
The moral power of this invisible force upon the heart and conscience
of the people we shall be able to appreciate more justly if we
carefully study the words which stand (Ex. 23: 20–25), _i. e._ at the
close of the first catalogue of the “statutes and judgments.” It seems
to come in here legitimately as a moral force to induce a conscientious
and careful obedience to these statutes. “Behold” (calling special
attention) “behold, I send an angel before thee to keep thee in the
way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of
him, and obey his voice; provoke him not, for he will not pardon your
transgressions, for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey
his voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to thine
enemies,” etc.――――This angel, bearing authority to pardon or not pardon
sins, and of whom the very God could say――“My name is in him” could
be no less than really divine. _Name_ in Hebrew usage as applied to
God involves and implies his real nature――his essential attributes.
Corresponding to this view of “the angel” in this passage is the
injunction to “beware of him and to obey his voice”; and also his power
to forgive sins――“for who can forgive sins but God only”? This passage
therefore affords decisive proof that the personage who manifested
himself to Israel in the pillar of cloud and of fire; whose presence
abode in their tabernacle; whose voice they heard in this holy law――was
truly divine, and yet was mysteriously distinct from the speaker――the
“I”――of this remarkable passage. Truly he was God, manifest――if
not precisely in human flesh――yet in palpable forms, in tangible
demonstrations, in voice of power and tongue of flame; in the luminous
pillar; in perpetual agencies of protection and of supply as to earthly
need; and, not least, as their Ruler and their Lord whose voice in
these statutes it behooved them to hear and obey as they would hope
to be blessed in their national life and in any desirable prosperity.
Hence it was both practicable and wise under this Hebrew system to
leave some statutes upon the naked conscience of the people with no
attempt to enforce obedience save the appeal to this invisible Presence.
These remarks will naturally suggest to the thoughtful mind a train
of inquiries of this sort:――――How can we account for it that the books
of Moses allude so very rarely to the future state of man’s being――to
heaven and to hell? Had even the best men of those times any definite
belief in the future life and in its retribution for deeds done in
this? How happens it that both the law and the rewards or penalties
of their civil code, and indeed of their religious code as well, make
so much account of present retribution and so little of the future?
These points will be treated more conveniently and in a more
satisfactory manner after the religious code shall have been
examined and after we have surveyed the history of Israel in the
wilderness――_i. e._ at the close of the present volume.
There are two historic questions pertaining to this civil code of
the Hebrews which have sufficient interest to justify a few moments’
attention; viz.
I. _How far was this system indebted to Egypt?_
II. _How far have the best civil codes of the most civilized nations of
all subsequent history been indebted to this Hebrew code?_
I. As to the possible relations of this Hebrew code to Egyptian
life and jurisprudence, perhaps the word “indebted” is too strong.
It is by no means intended to disparage the divine originality
of this law or of any and every feature of the system. I assume
two things:――――(1.) That Moses, “learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians,” may have had intimate personal acquaintance with very
many things in civil jurisprudence which the Lord taught him in and
through his Egyptian life rather than by immediate and independent
revelation:――――and (2.) That the people became familiar with some
valuable usages and customs connected with Egyptian law and Egyptian
life, and by this means were prepared to receive and adopt them under
this new code and in this new style of life in Canaan, when, without
this previous culture, these laws and usage could not have gone into
operation so readily if at all.
The Hebrew code and its system of jurisprudence――as also the entire
Hebrew national life――were benefited by the Egyptian in the following
points:
1. The example and silent influence of a full civil, written code
of law. That Egypt had such a code admits of no question. The Hebrew
patriarchs, prior to the sojourn in Egypt, had nothing of the sort.
Their life in Egypt therefore gave them their first lessons――their
first ideas, of a complete code of written law. We shall be in small
danger of over-estimating the value of these lessons and ideas in their
bearings upon a higher civilization.
2. Egypt gave to the Hebrew mind the example of a well digested system
of judicial procedure, established courts and forms of trial; laws put
in force by the aid of judges, witnesses, and the systematic execution
of penalties.――――Remarkably the last quarter of a century has brought
to light documentary evidence of a judicial trial in Egypt as far back
as the age of Moses, developing the most finished method; well digested
forms of procedure; a state trial, conducted with great dignity and
decorum; and the whole proceeding put on record so carefully that this
original document is before the world in perfect preservation at this
day.[42]
3. Egypt gave to the children of Israel the example of a national life
_based on agriculture_, as distinct from and indeed opposed to the
wandering, unsettled life of the shepherd. The nomadic mode of life,
perpetuated by necessity to this day in the deserts of Arabia, in which
individual right to the soil is unknown and no family has a fixed home,
each living for the time where its flocks may chance to find herbage
and water――this had been the style of the patriarchs before Jacob went
to Egypt. It was not the best for social and mental culture. God had a
better life for his people prospectively in Canaan, and their residence
in Egypt introduced them to it and gave them a preparation for it. It
made subsistence less precarious; blended the cultivation of the soil
with the care of flocks and herds; provided for a denser population;
greatly enhanced the opportunities for social culture and for such a
religious system as that of Israel. In a word it provided for a much
higher Christian civilization than could have been possible under the
strictly nomadic mode of life. To Egypt, the nation was indebted for
the example and for the training into this agricultural mode of life.
4. In another important respect, the example of the national life
of Egypt was a preordained training for their own national life in
Canaan:――it was that of a people providing for their own wants; living
within themselves; maintaining substantially non-intercourse with
other nations, and for the most part excluding foreign commerce. Such
was Egypt during the residence of Israel there, and such God wisely
designed Israel to be in her promised land of Canaan. As to Israel
in Canaan, the purposes of this policy are obvious――protection from
the contaminating influences of idolatry, not to say also from the
contaminations of luxury and wealth.
5. In Egypt, the priests were the learned class of the empire, and
held the highest responsibilities in the civil and judicial as well
as the religious life of the nation. A system essentially the same was
introduced into Israel, the priests and the Levites holding the same
place in the nation which they had seen held by the priests in Egypt.
6. It is a very noticeable fact in the history of the legal life in
Egypt, that though magic arts were in a sense tolerated and indeed
were resorted to by the king in his emergencies, yet their influence
in society proved to be so pernicious as to demand legal restraint.
We have the record of a man indicted “for many crimes and wickednesses
committed through his magic arts and writings, such as paralyzing limbs,
empowering a slave to do audacious things,” etc. The decision of the
court in his case reads――“For his various abominations, the greatest
in the world, he is condemned to death.”――――It will be remembered that
the Mosaic law held _all_ practice of magic arts to be a penal offense,
punishable with death (Ex. 22: 18 and Lev. 20: 27).
7. In some points the spirit of the Mosaic code was so greatly in
advance of the Egyptian as to stand related to it, not in the way
of imitation or even modification, but of direct opposition. It
held squarely the opposite doctrine and put forth statutes of an
opposite character. Thus, the Egyptian code legalized slavery, and
had its special law for the reclamation of fugitives. Among the
recent discoveries in Egyptian antiquities “A warrant for the arrest
of fugitive slaves” has been brought to light. From the tone of this
warrant and from other evidence, collateral, it is inferred that
slave-holders were obliged by law to register them in a list kept by
government and disputes with regard to ownership must be brought before
the judges. The rights of the master in his slave were not absolute.
It was not by virtue of orders direct from the owner that search was
instituted and arrest made, but by the authority of a high functionary
of government, to whom the case is reported and who issues his mandate.
Thus the government itself put forth its hand to recover a slave
who had escaped from any citizen.――――It was therefore specially
pertinent that the law of Jehovah to Israel should plant itself on
ground precisely the reverse of this:――_no reclamation of fugitives
whatsoever_. Thou shalt _not_ do what Egyptian slave-holders were
authorized by the highest authority of the kingdom to do――force back
the escaped fugitive to his unendurable bondage.
In the line of their religious institutions Israel stood related to
Egypt in numerous particulars, borrowing some things for the adornment
of its tabernacle from Egyptian art; and on the other hand, guarding
by stringent prohibitions against many Egyptian usages associated with
idolatry. These points will be in place after we have considered the
religious institutions of Moses.
II. The second proposed historic question, viz. How far have the best
civil codes of all history and how far has the world at large been
indebted to this Hebrew code?――opens a field of inquiry quite too wide
to be fully canvassed within our prescribed limits. A few hints may
be useful perhaps to guide the further inquiries of the reader. The
following points are put comprehensively and suggestively:
1. Moses sought to impress it upon his people that this system far
surpassed that of any other nation. “Behold, I have taught you statutes
and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me.... Keep, therefore,
and do them, for this is your wisdom and understanding in the sight
of all the nations who shall hear of all these statutes and shall say,
Surely this nation is a wise and understanding people, for what great
nation hath their God so nigh to them as the Lord our God is to us
in all that we call upon him for? And what great nation hath statutes
and judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this
day”? (Deut. 4: 5–8.)
2. The Hebrew system surpassed all others, especially in this――that
_it gave to human government and law the sanction of God’s authority_,
and enforced them upon the human heart and conscience by this most
impressive and benign of all influences.
3. Preparatory to this result it maintained against the whole Pagan
world the doctrine of _one God_――perfect in character, supreme in power,
righteous in all his administration of rewards and punishments. Only
so could it make the idea of God a really wholesome power and his
authority effective in sustaining civil government.
4. This divinely given code rested upon justice and equity, and
determined every thing by this standard. So doing, it ruled out at once
a multitude of interests and ends which human laws have often sought
to secure. Its example therefore, in so far at least, was simply and
supremely beneficent.
5. In yet further detail, it recognized the common and equal rights of
all men, irrespective of condition, rank, wealth――holding constantly
the doctrine, “_No respect of persons_.”
6. It appreciated at their just value the rights of the poor and of all
that large class who look only to God and to human law for protection.
We come now to the question of historic fact: _Did this Hebrew code
and government send forth its influence upon the nations of ancient
history?_ Did it in any perceptible degree leaven the best systems of
human law and jurisprudence.――――If the proof for the affirmative falls
short of positive certainty, what is its amount of probability?
Here we may fitly consider――
(a.) That God chose for Israel the land of Canaan, in the center of the
ancient world of mind; immediately between Egypt on the one hand and
Babylon, Assyria, Persia――all the great nations of Western Asia――on the
other; and closely contiguous to ancient Greece and Rome.
(b.) That David and Solomon became known to all the great powers of the
world of their time. Solomon’s renown turned largely on the fact that
his people were prosperous and happy, his government well ordered, and
his own wisdom in all affairs of state unsurpassed.――――It is simply
impossible that such examples should drop powerless upon the nations of
the earth.
(c.) That at a later period the personal history of Mordecai, of Esther,
and especially of Daniel in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar and of Cyrus
show that the Jews, their religion, their God, and their law, did
impress themselves upon the greatest centers of influence and power in
their time.
(d.) This dispersion of the Jews at and after their captivity planted
them in large numbers in the chief seats of human science and learning;
in Egypt on the South-West; in Babylon, Persia, and adjacent countries
of the East. It is historically certain that in the age of the
Ptolemies, a large body of learned Jews lived in Egypt; that the Old
Testament was translated into Greek by request of Ptolemy Philadelphus;
that the Egypt of that age was the school of wisdom and jurisprudence
for Ancient Greece and was herself the pupil of Moses.[43]――――That
the best Greek authors knew Moses is matter of history. Longinus
quotes from Moses (Gen. 1: 3) in his treatise on Sublimity; Strabo
makes honorable mention of him as a law-giver; and Diodorus Siculus
acknowledges him to be “the first of legislators from whom all laws
had their origin.” Numenius a Greek philosopher of the Pythagorean
school, speaking of Plato, exclaims――“What is Plato but Moses
Atticising”――_i. e._ teaching in Attic Greek? Origen believed that
Plato drew largely from Moses.――――The list of eminent Grecian authors
and savans who went personally to Egypt for wisdom and science is
long――such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, Plato,
Herodotus. There they came into contact with learned Jews and not
improbably with the writings of Moses.[44] Prof. Wines (p. 335) cites
the learned Grotius as saying――“The most ancient Attic laws, whence
in aftertimes the Roman were derived, owe their origin to Moses’ law.
That the Grecians, especially the Attics, took their laws from Moses
is credible. This is the reason why the Attic laws and the Roman
twelve Tables which sprang from them so much resemble the Hebrew
laws.”――――This similarity between the Attic laws and those of Moses has
been noticed by many other learned men, _e. g._ Josephus, Clement of
Alexandria, Augustine, Sir Matthew Hale, Archbishop Potter. The last
named in his “Grecian Antiquities” has adduced many points of Grecian
law which seem to have been taken from Moses――viz. the laws of divorce;
the purgation oath compared with “the oath of jealousy” among the
Hebrews; the harvest and vintage festival; the law of first-fruits; the
law requiring the best offerings for God; the portion for the priests;
protection to the man-slayer at their altars; requiring priests to be
unblemished; the agrarian law; laws regulating descent of property, and
prohibiting marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity.――――Plato
in his ideal “Republic” is thought to have drawn largely from
Moses.――――Clement of Alexandria accosts him (by Apostrophe)――“But as
for laws, whatever are true were conveyed to thee from the Hebrews.”
These historic facts seem to indicate the definite channel through
which the laws of Moses reached the Grecian mind in its earliest stages
of culture and thus wrought themselves into the great fountains of
Grecian and Roman civilization and jurisprudence.
(e.) There seem to be strong grounds for the general statement that
the greatest reformers of all known history have acted upon the ideas
of Moses, and have probably drawn their doctrines more or less directly
from that fountain. I will venture to place in this category Zoroaster,
Plato, Confucius, Buddha, and Mahomet. These men were in their time
reformers of society, of morals, and of jurisprudence. Their influence
led _toward_ if not fully _unto_ the doctrine of _one God_, and by
natural consequence to a purer morality and juster views of law and
equity; of love to one’s neighbor and purity of life.――――I regret that
my limits forbid any attempt to present the historic evidence which
might support more or less fully these broad, comprehensive statements.
The historic evidence that Zoroaster, Plato, and Mahomet drew from
Moses is very strong. Of the great Indian reformer and of the Chinese
comparatively little is known.
(f.) Of Roman law as finally embodied in the great code of Justinian,
it has been already suggested that its best things came from Moses and
the Septuagint through Greece and the Egypt of the Ptolemies.――――I add
two other remarks:――(a) That in the age of Justinian (first half of
the sixth Christian century) primitive Christianity had quite fully
leavened the public sentiment and thus the jurisprudence of the then
civilized world.――――(b.) That when Justinian created a commission
of learned jurists to “collect the scattered monuments of ancient
jurisprudence,” he recommended them in settling any point to regard
neither the number nor the reputation of the jurisconsults who had
given opinions on the subject, but to be guided solely by reason and
equity.[45]
(g.) Of Alfred the Great (reigned A. D. 871–901) the central testimony
of history is that he was severely _just_. Despite of surroundings
almost barbarous, he rose by dint of his irrepressible manliness to
become the greatest legislator and scholar of his age, and so was able
to lay the foundations for the best and truest glory of the English
name. The common law of England and of the English-speaking world
began its development under his hand. One fact is of itself a volume of
testimony to the spirit of this ancient law. When after a long struggle
Wilberforce brought the question before the English bench――Does English
law sanction human bondage? the world heard the answer――_Never_.
“Slaves can not breathe in England.” What moment they take in her pure
air, they are free! The spirit of her law from the days of Alfred was
justice and righteousness between a man and his neighbor. The laws
of Moses were in Alfred’s eye; the spirit of those laws filled and
fired his noble soul. It is currently said that the telling words
which describe the needy as “_God’s poor_” are original (for our mother
Saxon tongue) with him. Moses had reiterated the sentiment long ages
before.――――Sir Matthew Hale has traced the influence of the Bible
generally on the laws of England. Sismondi testifies that Alfred, in
causing a republication of the Saxon laws, inserted several statutes
taken from the code of Moses, to give new strength and cogency to the
principles of morality.
“Thus have the principles of the Mosaic code found their way to
a greater or less extent into the jurisprudence of all civilized
nations.” [Wines――p. 337.]
It falls within our plan to speak briefly of the civil code of Moses
_as a series of progressive revelations of God to man_.
I have spoken of the law of Sinai as a manifestation of God to man at
once sublime in its majesty and most benignly practical in its moral
bearings. The civil code――“the statutes and judgments”――carry out yet
more fully the practical unfoldings of God’s wisdom and of his sense
of justice and right as between man and man. It is not easy to select
the most striking cases to illustrate this point, for the whole code
is radiant with divine wisdom and aglow with testimonies of his love,
manifesting itself in wisest legislation for human welfare.――――Confining
our attention to the second table of the law of Sinai――man’s relation
to his fellow-man――we may consider how much there is here adapted to
conserve all the best elements of society――in securing the honor due
to parents and rulers; in guarding human life and providing the means
for its protection; in making the marriage covenant sacred; on the
one hand shielding the sexual relation of the race against abuses
most pernicious; and on the other, providing agencies which may enrich
man’s social life with priceless blessings. So also the statutes in
detail respecting rights of property and rights of reputation are
replete with fresh testimonies to the wisdom and the love of the Great
Father.――――Speaking frankly of the impressions made on my mind by this
study of the code of Moses, I must say that no part has seemed to me
more deeply imbued with the tenderness and pity of the Lord than the
provisions made for the poor, and the restrictions and limitations
upon personal servitude. In all his utterances on these points the Lord
assumes that no interests of man more need his protection than these,
and he comes promptly to the front to give it. He would have us know
that over these interests his watchful eye never sleeps; his quick ear
is never shut to any cry for help. The rich and the mighty may get on
without his special aid; the poor are his own wards and shall never
lack his sympathy nor his present hand. Human laws are in great part
worthless――at least they miss their most important function――unless
they make it their chief endeavor to protect the interests and rights
of those who, powerless in themselves, drop upon the strong arm of law
for their defence. Society and legislation might as well not be as to
forget that they exist as appointed of God mainly for the sake of the
poor and the otherwise unprotected and unbefriended. Such needy ones
every human society will have for the moral trial of those who control
society, and I may add, to draw out the sympathy of the Great Father.
These revelations of himself stand forth in sunlight throughout this
Mosaic code. They are a glorious advance upon all that the world had
seen before. The true mission of civil law is brought out here with
great fullness; for it seems to be every-where assumed that if laws
protect and befriend the poor, they protect and befriend _all_. If the
spirit of law faithfully guards their interests, it can not well fail
to guard all interests that need the guardianship of human legislation.
It is a priceless boon to the race to have these ideas so beautifully
set forth and so substantially embodied in a code of laws fresh from
the hand and from the heart of the Infinite Father.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM OF THE HEBREWS.
THIS system contemplates as its ultimate end the obedience, homage,
and worship due from men to God. As a prime means toward this end, it
prescribes modes and forms of worship. It proposes to bring God near
to men and men near to God; and for this purpose would cultivate in men
the spirit of penitence and of faith――impressing them with a sense of
their sins and suggesting to them how sin may be forgiven; and how, on
the basis of God’s own provision for pardon, he can accept the humble,
reverent worship of his people.――――These fundamental ideas respecting
the sinner’s acceptance with God, the system now before us sought
especially to develop by means of visible symbols――these symbols
constituting the very elaborate and minutely described _religious
system of the Hebrews_.――――This system, having long since “waxed old
and vanished away” is no longer in practice, and therefore can not be
useful as a rule of present duty, but is useful for the light it throws
on the great and fundamental questions――How shall man――a sinner――become
just before God? Is an atonement necessary? What are the fundamental
ideas of “atonement”? How were they developed in the Mosaic system, and
what light does this development bring to the atonement presented to
view in the New Testament?
With superlative wisdom God began to give lessons on this great
subject very early in the history of our race. It was wise to give
such lessons long and carefully before the Great Atoning Sacrifice
came in human flesh. It was also wise to give them largely by visible
illustrations――by the aid of a system having so much of the external
and the visible that minds not disciplined to abstract thought might
see the truth and feel its power by means of sensible manifestations.
The reader will now see readily the purpose of the ensuing examination
of this religious system. It is not for historic curiosity――in which
case we might select points amusing or strange or sensational; it is
not to guide the worshiper (as Moses sought to do) in the minutest
details of the system that he might make no mistake in obeying it:――but
it is to gather as best we may its designed moral impression, to study
its underlying assumptions, and evolve its true doctrine in regard
to the great question of the sinner’s acceptance before a holy and
righteous God.
* * * * *
Briefly and comprehensively we may classify the leading features of
this system viewed externally, on this wise:
I. _Its prescribed sacrifices and offerings._
II. _Its stated times and seasons of worship._
III. _Its sacred edifices and apparatus for worship._
IV. _The religious orders――classes designated for sacred service._
I. The sacrifices and offerings of this system may be classified
variously:――――_e. g._ (1.) Bloody, or not bloody:――terms which will be
readily understood. The former were slain animals, a portion of whose
blood was sprinkled. The latter included offerings of flour, oil, wine,
etc.――――Or (2.) Some were specially required: others were voluntary or
free-will offerings.――――(3.) They may be classified with reference to
the times and seasons when they were to be made; some being daily, as
the morning and evening sacrifice; others for the Sabbath; others for
the new moons; others on occasion of the three great yearly festivals;
and, among the most useful for its suggestive import, those of the
great day of atonement.――――(4.) Or we might classify them under
the somewhat distinctive names given them in the law, of which we
find a large number. We have (a.) The generic word sacrifice [Heb.
Zebah]――a word which implies slaying, taking life:――――(b.) Another
quite generic term, “offering,” which is used to translate several
Hebrew words, and of course with very considerable latitude of
meaning:――――(c.) “Burnt-offering”――[which is the quite constant
translation of the Heb. “Olah”] signifying what _goes up upon the
altar_ and is consumed there. The phrase “whole burnt-offering” gives
according to the Hebrew, the sense of _completeness_――the whole of
the animal being burned on the altar:――――(d.) “Sin-offering”――in
Hebrew, one of the most common words for _sin_――[hatta]. Paul’s
use of the corresponding Greek word (2 Cor. 5: 21) follows
this usage of the word for sin: “God hath made him to be sin”
[a sin-offering] “for us who knew no sin,” etc.:――――(e.) “Trespass
offering”;――which is another of the Hebrew words for sin, offense
[“asham”]:――――(f.) “Meat-offering”; some variety of food or drink
other than flesh:――――(g.) “Peace-offering”――which seems closely related
to the “thank-offering,” being an expression of gratitude to God; the
animal sacrificed being in large part eaten socially by the offerer and
his friends; also by the poor, the widow, servants, etc.:――――(h.) Wave
and heave offerings――terms which refer to ceremonies of elevating or
waving certain parts of the sacrifice.
(5.) A much more important distinction in the Mosaic sacrifices lies
between those which were _expiatory_ and those which were not specially
so, the former class being slain animals whose fat at least was burned
on the altar and whose blood was sprinkled in specified and various
ways; the latter class having somewhat various objects, but chiefly
that of expressing gratitude for blessings or joy in the God of their
salvation.
* * * * *
Two other points in respect to sacrifices are of importance, viz.――
(a.) _The choice of animals to be slain in sacrifice._
(b.) The killing itself, coupled with the use made of the blood, of the
fat, and in some cases of the flesh――with the attendant ceremonies.
(a.) It should be carefully noted that animals for sacrifice were not
taken up at random. It was not merely life and blood that were sought.
They were not the wild, but the tame, domesticated; not the savage,
flesh-eating animals, but the docile, grass-eating; not animals mostly
or altogether useless to man, but precisely those which were most
useful; not animals of the sort nobody loves or cares for, but those
most loved and cared for, between whom and the human family there
often arises a special intimacy and affection. In a word they were the
representatives of utility, docility, and innocence. The ox, patient
of toil, in his early years invaluable for food; the goat, useful
for flesh and milk; the lamb――the symbol of affection, attachment,
innocence:――these three classes of animals formed the staple material
for bloody sacrifice. [Of birds, the turtle-dove and young pigeon,
being less expensive, were permitted to the poor. As naturally
representing innocence and loveliness, they are quite of the same
class].――――It sometimes escapes notice that the Orientals brought these
animals much nearer to their hearts and homes than our Western notions
and habits know of. We forget that not infrequently to this day they
live under the same roof along with sons and daughters. The prophet
Nathan in that touching verse about the “one little ewe lamb” (2 Sam.
12: 3) drew not from his imagination but from Oriental life. “The
poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb which he had bought and
nourished up, and it grew up together with him and with his children:
it did eat of his own meat” [food] “and drank from his own cup and lay
in his bosom, and was to him as his daughter.”――――Moreover, the Hebrew
might not select for sacrifice the deformed, the torn, the lame, the
sickly; but evermore, the unblemished, the perfect――those specially
lovable and choice pets around which the hearts of the household, young
and old, were wont to cling: of these must the worshiper take for the
altar.
Let us think of the scene at that altar of sacrifice. The place is
in the front court of the tabernacle, whose inner sanctuary was made
glorious with the visible presence of Jehovah. The one all-engrossing
thought associated with this sacred spot, was――_God is here_. I go up
to meet God. Before his face I bring this prescribed offering. It is
one of my sweet lambs of the flock, or as the case may be, a young
bullock of one or two years old. I know that the animal must die there.
Either in my own person or through the priest, acting in my behalf,
I am to lay my hand on the head of the victim and thus confess my sin.
From that moment the innocent lamb takes my place and stands before
the executioner, as if guilty of capital crime. The sight and the smell
of blood; the struggle and the recoil; the outcry of horror――the only
awful, horrible sound uttered by these animals――go to make up a scene
which, once witnessed, can never be forgotten. We of this age might see
it in some of its aspects if we would; we rarely do. We should find it,
not in our worshiping sanctuaries but in the secluded slaughter-house
whither no one is ever attracted――whither none ever go save those who
must. Think of the blood, the death-groans, the struggle, the whole
dying scene. Is there any meaning in it? Is there any thing in it
appropriate to the sanctuary of God and to his solemn worship?
The transaction is by no means so mysterious as it might be. It would
be profoundly mysterious were it not that man is a sinner before the
holy law of God――a sinner under condemnation of death. It would be
utterly inexplicable if there were not in nature, in thought, in fact,
something which we may call substitution, to which we give the name
vicarious――something which involves, not indeed an entire exchange of
one personality for another, but something which approximates toward it.
One being suffers in the place and stead of another. An innocent being
steps into the place of a guilty one and takes upon himself the guilty
man’s doom. We need not pause here to hunt up analogies of this sort
in human life; suffice it that God signifies by these striking symbols
that he has found a place for this principle in his great scheme
for the pardon of sinners condemned to death by his holy law, and
that he saw fit to fill this Hebrew religious system absolutely full
of illustrative typical representations of this stupendous fact.
The elementary facts in this system of sacrifices, considered as
illustrating the scheme of pardon are few and simple; thus――
(a.) Man has sinned against God and stands condemned by his law to
eternal death.
(b.) God loves this sinning man and longs to save him――but must not
break down his law.――――So he finds a Lamb for a sacrifice whose death
for sinners will abundantly sustain the majesty of law, and proceeds
thereupon to “lay on him the iniquity of us all.” This done, it only
remains that the sinner repent of his sin, and humbly, thankfully
accept the death of this Lamb of sacrifice in place of his own eternal
death.――――These few and simple elements comprise substantially the
essence of this wonderful system.
This system seeks a symbolic representation in these bloody sacrifices.
The offerer brings forward his lamb of the flock; he lays his hand upon
that innocent head and confesses there his sin: he in a sort transfers
his own personality――or more precisely, his own sin and guilt, to
that animal victim; he stands by and witnesses the death-scene with
a deepened sense that he deserves a death far worse than that himself.
But when the fires from heaven descend and consume his offering, and
he finds himself not only spared but blessed of God and bidden to go in
peace, he gets a sense unknown before, of the peace and joy of pardoned
sin. The blood sprinkled upon and around the altar and toward the most
holy place and upon himself becomes a memorial of what his salvation
cost; the pardon himself receives testifies how much it is worth,
“speaking better things than the blood of Abel.”
If any special argument should seem called for to prove that this is
the true significance of these bloody sacrifices, we shall come to it
with better preparation after the main points of the system are more
fully before us.
As an illustrative system, there is yet one other point of great
significance, viz. that in many of these sacrifices _a portion of the
animal was eaten_ by the offerer and by his family and friends. This
great amount of animal flesh was not all consumed by the fires of the
altar. Yet we are not to suppose that public economy――the saving of
so much valuable human food――was the prime consideration. We must go
deeper than this. Nor was it that the Lord would cultivate the social
nature of his worshiping people, and therefore provided these materials
for agreeable social feasting. We must go very much deeper than even
this. This feasting upon the flesh of the slain animal is in germ what
the gospel gives us in full development, viz. that the same Lamb of
Calvary who “washed us from our sins in his own blood” “gave us his
flesh to eat” as “the bread of life.” The memorial supper carries in it
the same double symbol――_blood_ and _bread_――the blood looking toward
pardon; the bread toward sustenance for the spiritual life. So the
pious Israelite might on the one hand see the blood of his sacrifice
gurgling forth, caught, sprinkled toward the mercy-seat and upon his
own person; and on the other hand, might take of the flesh of his slain
lamb and sit down, not merely in peace but in joyful thanksgiving that
death brings life――that sacrificial blood brings after it the new life
of the redeemed, restored sinner, and sustenance therefor from the very
animal whose body and blood became symbols of his pardon.
* * * * *
Besides these sacrifices of a general character, the system provided
others of a special and personal character for individuals under
peculiar circumstances, _e. g._ for the case of vows; of purification
from ceremonial uncleanness; for the restored leper, etc. Of these
I need say only that they suggest the fitness of recognizing God’s
hand every-where, in all possible events and under all the various
dispensations of providence. These events are never barren of
significance. It behooves us to study their meaning and adjust
ourselves to God’s hand with resignation and with gratitude――with a
sense of our unworthiness and of God’s great mercy.――――The detailed
methods of that ancient system have at this day no vital interest.
Scarcely of the nature of sacrifice, yet intensifying the idea of
ceremonial uncleanness was the burning of the “red heifer”――the
gathering up of her ashes and the preparation from them of “the water
of separation”――a purification from sin in the ceremonial sense. Num.
19 gives the details, specifying the sorts of uncleanness which this
purifying water washed away. The writer to the Hebrews (9: 13, 14)
gave the great moral inference thus: “For if the blood of bulls and
of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth
to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ
who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unto God, purge your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God”?
II. STATED TIMES AND SEASONS OF WORSHIP.
1. _The Morning and Evening Sacrifice._
Two lambs of one year were offered every day; the one in the morning
and the other at evening [Heb. “between the evenings”]; burnt offerings,
consumed wholly upon the altar. They were accompanied with a small
portion of flour, oil, and wine. This was a perpetual ordinance,
never to be omitted. The original institution (Ex. 29: 38–46) is
accompanied with God’s very gracious promise to meet with his people
and dwell among them, sanctifying the place of this meeting by his
glory. Nothing could suggest more pertinently and tenderly that God
loves to see the face of his worshiping people and to meet them as each
day opens in the morning and as it closes with the setting sun. Let
this communion between God and his sons and daughters never be in any
wise interrupted.――――The usage seems to have led pious Jews in later
times to adopt these hours for their morning and evening prayer, as
we may see in the case of Daniel (9: 21), and in the New Testament
history.――――The ritual for these sacrifices is given in detail
(Num. 28: 3–8).
2. _The Sacrifices for the Sabbath._
Each Sabbath had an extra service in addition to the continual morning
and evening sacrifice――two lambs of the first year without spot; with
the attendant meat and drink-offerings (Num. 29: 9, 10).
* * * * *
3. _The sacrifices at each new moon_ were on a larger scale than
either of the preceding, viz. two young bullocks, one ram, and seven
lambs for the burnt-offering; one kid of goats for the sin-offering.
As the Hebrew months were lunar (not solar), these sacrifices upon
the appearance of the new moon inaugurated the successive months. It
was probably for this reason that they were announced with blowing
of trumpets (Num. 10: 10). The calendar was thus regulated――a matter
of special importance, since it fixed the time of their three great
religious festivals as also the great day of atonement.
4. _The Three Great Religious Festivals._
Of these the first in order (the Passover) has been considered already.
The next in order of time was the _Pentecost_――otherwise called “the
feast of weeks, of the first-fruits of wheat-harvest” (Ex. 34: 22);
“the feast of harvest, the first-fruits of thy labors which thou hast
sown in the field” (Ex. 23: 16); also “the day of first-fruits” (Num.
28: 26). The other passages which treat of it are Lev. 23: 15–21 and
Deut. 16: 9–12)――――The name _Pentecost_ is not from the Hebrew but from
the Greek, meaning the _fiftieth_ day, _i. e._ after the great Sabbath,
which fell during the Passover week (Lev. 23: 15, 16).――――On the first
day after that Sabbath, the first-fruits of their barley harvest were
brought before the Lord. From that point seven full weeks were numbered,
and on the fiftieth day the feast of Pentecost occurred.
This festival, unlike the other two in duration, was of one
day only――at least this is plainly assumed: “In _the day_ of the
first-fruits” (Num. 28: 26), also in Lev. 23: 21, only one day
is spoken of.――――It was specially a day of thanksgiving for the
first-fruits of the wheat harvest. Two loaves made of the new wheat
flour were waved before the Lord on this hallowed day.――――The reference
(in Deut. 16: 10–12) gives prominence to the social and joyful
character of the day. “Thou shalt keep the feast unto the Lord thy
God with a tribute of a free-will offering of thy hand which thou shalt
give according as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, and thou shalt
rejoice before the Lord thy God, thou and thy son and thy daughter,
and thy man-servant and thy maid-servant, and the Levite that is within
thy gates, and the stranger, the fatherless and the widow that are
among you.”
As a feast of joyful thanksgiving over the first-fruits of their
principal grain harvest, it was eminently the appropriate occasion for
the Pentecostal scene of the first great Christian ingathering. How
suggestive of the gratitude due to God for the shedding forth of the
Holy Ghost and the glorious fruitage from this gospel power!
Some have supposed (not without reason) that the Hebrew Pentecost
commemorated the completion of the giving of the laws by the hand of
Moses, which they suppose was brought within fifty days from the first
Passover. Of this however the books of Moses affirm nothing explicitly.
The third and last of the three great festivals was “the _Feast of
Tabernacles_,” otherwise called “the feast of ingathering at the end of
the year when thou hast gathered in thy labors out of the field” (Ex.
23: 16).――――The speciality of this feast was the dwelling in booths or
tabernacles, made of “boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees
and the boughs of thick trees and willows of the brook” (Lev. 23: 40).
This feast began on the fourteenth day of the seventh month and
continued during eight days, the first and the last being days of
special solemnity. It had a double purpose, viz. to commemorate the
forty years wandering of the fathers in the wilderness, dwelling in
tents; and to give thanks to God for the last harvests of the year――the
fruits of the olive and the grape――last in order――being now all
gathered in.
Thus none of these three great feasts omitted the element of
thanksgiving for the fruits of the season, the first barley sheaves
being brought with grateful thanks before the Lord during the Passover;
the first-fruits of the wheat harvest giving a special thanksgiving
character to the Feast of Pentecost; and the latest fruits, the olive
and the grape, reminding them of God’s crowning blessing upon the
labors of the year at the Feast of Tabernacles. What a beautiful
training into the service of thanksgiving for the fruits of the earth!
This last of the festivals was pre-eminently one of joyful festivity,
and of loud and high praises to the Lord, their Great Benefactor. The
Jews have a saying――that “whoever has not seen the rejoicing of the
last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles has never seen a day of joy
in his life.”
The principal passages of Moses that treat of it are Ex. 23: 16, and
34: 22, and Lev. 23: 34–43, and Num. 29: 12–40, and Deut. 16: 13–15.
The celebration of this feast in the age of Nehemiah (8: 14–18) the
reader should not fail to notice. At this time the law was read daily
in the hearing of the people. The law of Moses provided for this public
reading on each seventh, _i. e._ the Sabbatic year, during the Feast of
Tabernacles (Deut. 31: 10–13).
The striking allusion (Jn. 7: 37) to the scenes on the last great day
of the feast will be readily recalled. A custom unknown to the law of
Moses had then come into practice――that of going in vast procession to
the fountain of Siloam for water, and bearing it with joyful acclaim to
the temple to pour it out there before the Lord. While this procession
was passing, Jesus lifted up his voice and cried――“If any man thirst,
let him come unto me and drink.” May we suppose that possibly the words
of Isaiah were before him:――“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to
the waters”――to these waters of life which I give for the life of the
world!
Upon these three great festivals all the males of Israel were
required to appear before the Lord at the one place of his choice――the
tabernacle or the temple――ultimately in Jerusalem “whither the tribes
go up.” The women of Israel manifestly went when they chose and
could. According to Oriental usage they traveled in groups――little
caravans――several adjacent families, or as the case might be by
households, the patriarch with his children and children’s children
together, moving on with many a song of social cheer and grateful
praise till at length they lifted up their eyes to the hills of the
goodly city. The so-called “songs of degrees” (Ps. 120–134)――more
strictly songs of the stages or upgoings――are specimens of this free
and outflowing worship of the traveling companies, bound upward to
Jerusalem. The allusion in Luke 2: 41–45, is pleasant to think of.
We must not overlook the fact that the Lord relieved their minds of
all fear lest their defenseless homes might be assailed and robbed and
perhaps their wives and little ones murdered by foreign enemies while
all their able-bodied men were away from their homes in Jerusalem.
“Neither shall any man desire thy land when thou shalt go up to appear
before the Lord thy God thrice in the year” (Ex. 34: 24). None but a
God of universal providence and omnipotent resources could safely make
such a promise. In their own Jehovah they might safely trust.
* * * * *
Of sacred seasons, the most peculiar and striking yet remains to be
noticed, viz. _the great day of atonement_. This was one day only; was
not a feast day but a _fast_――a day “in which ye shall _afflict your
souls_,” _i. e._ subject yourselves to the discomforts and pains of
entire abstinence from food for the whole day, “from even to even.”
Whoever would not afflict his soul on this day must be “cut off from
his people.” All labor was forbidden under the same penalty. The
passages Lev. 23: 26–32 and Num. 29: 7–11 give these general features
of the institution. Only in Lev. 16 do we find a full description.
In this chapter it appears that the original appointment of this day
stands connected with the sad death of Nadab and Abihu, the two eldest
sons of Aaron for their rash unauthorized offering of strange fire
before the Lord (Lev. 10: 1–8). That awful scene of death suggested
the great necessity of ceremonial purity in the priesthood and of the
utmost care and self-control when they came before God. There would be
sins in the priesthood and sins among the people of which they might
not be aware: hence the propriety of one comprehensive, all-embracing
service for atonement.
The points to be specially noted in this service are――That the High
Priest washed himself clean; put on white linen garments, symbolic of
purity, and then made a special offering for his own sins and for the
sin of all the people. The latter had this striking peculiarity――that
two goats were taken for a sin-offering, upon whom lots were cast to
select one for the Lord and one for Azazel [Eng. “scape-goat”]. Another
still more important peculiarity was that on this day only (never on
any other) the High Priest went alone into the most holy place, bearing
both the blood of the sin-offering and incense. First he bore into the
most holy place the blood of a bullock as a sin-offering for himself,
and sprinkled it with his finger upon the mercy-seat and in front
of the mercy-seat seven times. He also bore a censer full of coals
from the great altar and upon it burned incense, the smoke of which
enshrouded the mercy-seat. Then the goat upon which the lot fell for
the Lord was slain, and the High Priest bore his blood also into the
most holy place and sprinkled it there to make atonement for the whole
people. No other man save the High Priest might go in at any time on
pain of death.
The other goat, called in our English version “the scape-goat” was then
disposed of thus: Aaron “laid both his hands upon the head of this goat
and confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel
and all their transgressions in all their sins, _putting them upon
the head of the goat_, and then sent him away by a fit man into the
wilderness――the goat bearing upon himself all their iniquities into a
land not inhabited.” He was then set at liberty in the wilderness (Lev.
16: 20–22).――――The precise meaning of the word Azazel [“scape-goat”]
and the reason for using this name have been much disputed. Our English
Bible fails to give a satisfactory translation of v. 8 where by a most
obvious antithesis the sacred lot selects one of the two goats for
Jehovah and the other for Azazel. Was it, as many suppose, for Satan,
conceived of as “walking through those dry and desolate places, seeking
rest but finding none”――to whom this goat, symbolically bearing the
sins of the whole people, is sent? If so, what is implied and signified
in this sending of the goat to him? I must say I am not wise on these
points. If any ideas were current in that age in respect to Satan
which might illustrate this transaction, they have not come down to
us. It must I think suffice for us to see in these two goats for a
sin-offering a sort of double figure to indicate the atonement――the
first one slain in the usual way and his blood sprinkled before the
mercy-seat――a solemn witness that without the shedding of blood there
can be no remission of sin: the other, supplementing the great idea of
atonement by a most vivid representation of _sins borne away_――forever
away, to be known and remembered no more. The sins of the whole people
were transferred to the head of this second goat; he takes them away
into the unknown desolate wilderness, never to return. Symbolically,
the sins are gone forever!――――The prophet Micah (7: 19) gives a turn
to the same thought only slightly different――“Thou wilt cast all their
sins into the depths of the sea.” Jeremiah also (31: 34)――“I will
remember their sins no more.” No symbol could give more precisely, more
unequivocally, more forcibly, the great idea of _taking away sins_.
You see them transferred to this second goat by means of hands imposed
and formal declaration, “_putting them_ [the sins] _upon the head
of the goat_”; and then he is driven away, bearing his burden into an
unknown, desolate land, never to be heard from again!――――The sacrifice
of the first goat for a sin-offering and the sprinkling of his blood
before the sacred Presence of Jehovah had the usual significance of
an innocent animal substituted for the guilty sinner――the former dying
that the latter might not die――thus showing _how_ God could safely
forgive sin. These two goats therefore represent respectively the
two great ideas which make up the atonement――the first signifying _by
what means_ God can testify duly against sin while yet he forgives the
sinner; and the second certifying that――the innocent victim having been
substituted for the sinner and slain in his stead――God does truly _take
sins forever away_. In briefest phrase these coupled ideas stand out
before us in the New Testament: “Behold the Lamb of God who _taketh
away_ the sin of the world” (John 1: 29).
III. _Sacred Edifices and Apparatus._
A system of worship which included altars and sacrifices, and much more,
one which had the ark of the covenant and the visible manifestation of
Jehovah’s presence, demanded an _edifice_ for its center and home. It
was essential to the proper reverence that this edifice should provide
a place of seclusion as well as of safe-keeping for its most sacred
things.――――Moreover, so long as the people were unsettled――subject
to removal any day――this structure must be movable, like the tents of
all nomadic people. Hence the first structure was the _Tabernacle_ or
_Sacred Tent_.――――A general idea of it may be presented to the reader
thus:――Conceive of an inclosed court, one hundred cubits long by fifty
wide [the cubit being eighteen inches]; this inclosure being made by
hanging curtains of linen five cubits high, suspended from horizontal
rods which were supported by posts. The entrance to this inclosure was
always at its eastern end, and the eastern section, forming the outer
or first court, was twenty cubits in depth, cut off from the rest of
the inclosed area by curtains.――――In the center of the rear portion
stood the sacred tent proper, thirty cubits in length from east to west,
and ten cubits in width. This also was in two principal apartments,
the eastern being twenty cubits by ten, known as “the holy place”;
the western, “the most holy place,” or the “Holy of holies,” being
ten cubits square. The perpendicular walls of this sacred tent were of
boards set on end, ten cubits high, so supported as to be readily set
up, taken down, and transported. The covering was four-fold, of cloth
and skins, and was manifestly arranged like the roof of a house, the
covering passing over a ridge-pole in the center. Such briefly was this
sacred structure.
Of its furniture, the important articles were as follows:
(a.) In the open court in front of the tabernacle proper, were the
great altar of burnt-offering and a laver――an immense reservoir or
tank for water. (b.) In the holy place――the first section of the sacred
tent――stood the altar of incense; the table of shew-bread; and the
golden candlestick.――――(c.) In the most holy place, enshrouded in the
thick darkness, stood the ark of the covenant, containing originally
the two tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written, the
pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded. Upon the lid of this ark,
known as “the mercy-seat,” there reposed the refulgence of the Divine
Presence――a visible brightness and glory, called by the later Jews “the
shechinah”――itself overshadowed by the wings of cherubic figures which
rested upon either end of the ark.
The whole structure might be readily taken down and transported from
place to place with all its furniture; parties being designated for
this service.
In Num. 10: 35, 36 we have the words customarily used by Moses as a
form of prayer, accompanying the order for striking and pitching tents:
“When the ark set forward Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let thine
enemies be scattered, and let those that hate thee flee before thee:
and when it rested he said, Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousands of
Israel.”
Of the temple built by Solomon I need not say more than this――that
its plan was essentially that of the tabernacle, differing in the
following points: Its dimensions were twice as great; and it was built
for a permanent, immovable edifice, of the most substantial and costly
materials.
IV. _The Sacred Orders._
The tribe of Levi was chosen and set apart for the services of worship
and of religious instruction. Out of this tribe the family of Aaron was
selected for the priesthood. The most sacred services devolved upon the
priests, the High Priest only being permitted to enter the most holy
place once a year, as we have seen. The Levites performed subordinate
services, supplying the requisite wood and water for so vast a system
of sacrifices and offerings, and serving also in the transportation
of the sacred tent and its furniture. At a later period the service
of song in the house of the Lord was in their hands.
The law provided a full ritual for the induction of the High Priest
into his office and for the consecration of all the priests to their
work. Their robes of office, their various dress on all occasions,
are detailed with great minuteness.――――The law also provided specially
for their subsistence. A portion of various sacrifices fell to them
as their perquisite. The great expense of the entire ritual service,
including the cost of the animals offered for the people at large; the
support of the priests, and to some extent of the Levites, was provided
for by law in the tithes; the poll-tax of a half-shekel from every man
of Israel; and from various other sources.
In the ultimate settlement in Canaan, forty-eight cities with their
suburbs were given to the Levites. They were thus distributed among
the entire population of Canaan both east and west of the Jordan,
and if true to their mission would fill a very important sphere in
both the civil and the religious life of the nation. Of their civil
and judicial duties I have spoken already. They were also teachers of
religion.――――Their suburban territory would afford them a small amount
of land for cultivation; but the divine plan was that they who served
at the altar should live from the altar. While religious services were
conscientiously performed and the religious spirit was in due strength,
both priests and Levites would be comfortably fed and clad. Idolatry
and religious declension would cut their supplies short.
The careful reader of those portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers
which give the plan of the tabernacle, the ritual of the priests and
Levites and the minute detail of numerous sacrifices and offerings and
purifications, will not need the suggestion that in many respects the
interest and the value of these details have mostly passed away. Of
prime importance in that age; vital to the proper construction of the
tabernacle; vital to the due consecration of priest and Levite and to
their instruction in duty; entirely essential to the ends of a ritual
system which was to be the religious law of a great people――they were
all in place then and were indispensable; but in most respects this
interest and value have long since ceased. Whereas in the time of Moses
not one word of this minute detail was superfluous, not one point could
be safely omitted; now, it may be passed over with only brief notice.
Few will care to read all its particulars.
Yet two points deserve remark:
1. That this very minuteness of detail is the strongest evidence of the
genuineness and antiquity of these books. They were certainly written
at the time of the events they record. They never could have been
gotten up in any age subsequent to the events. The specifications for
the tabernacle and for all its furniture had a purpose then; but could
have had no purpose to justify such minuteness after the construction
was finished. It would be the supremest folly to forge such documents
ages after the events had passed. No man in his senses ever attempts
such a forgery. Men never submit to such labor without an object;
and the case precludes the possibility of any object _after_ the tent
was built and after the ritual was fully understood and wrought into
established usage.
2. While these minute details neither require nor reward particular
investigation in our day, yet taken in whole _they are pregnant with
great moral lessons for all time_.
(1.) There was a perpetual inculcation of cleanliness, external purity;
and the most careful avoidance of whatever was defiling. The ceremonial
washings and cleansings, the removal from the camp, or as the case
may be, the seclusion from the court of the tabernacle for a term
of purification, occur frequently. By a natural law of mind, sin is
associated with uncleanness; crime is defiling. Hence, with almost
infinite pains the Lord was impressing upon his people the great idea
that their God who deigned to dwell among them “was of purer eyes than
to behold iniquity.” He could not abide with them save as they kept
themselves clean and pure.
(2.) On every hand we note the most solemn inculcation of care,
thoughtfulness, consideration, especially in their religious worship,
and the most impressive warnings against a rash and inconsiderate
spirit. Hence wine was forbidden to the priests when about to go to the
altar (Lev. 10: 8–11). It seemed that God could have no patience with
the thoughtless and irreverent. At whatever cost, the fear of the Lord
must be impressed upon the people――else all effort for their religious
culture would be vain.
(3.) Their great thanksgiving festivals; their numerous thank-offerings;
their vows; their required tithes――all concur in this one idea――the
recognition of God as the Giver of all blessings, their great personal
and national Benefactor. No pains was spared to impress and enforce
this great truth. The long course of God’s redeeming mercies toward
their nation; the rescue from Egyptian bondage; the miraculous supplies
of bread and water forty years in the desert; the gift of the goodly
land of Canaan;――these were the staple facts of their history which God
sought to engrave upon the national heart and to work into the living
thought of the thousands of Israel. By every hopeful appliance their
religious system was shaped to keep alive and intensify these feelings.
(4.) More important than all the rest were the great moral lessons
set forth _by the perpetual presence of atoning blood_. The Israelites
were never allowed to forget that they were sinners, and that their
approach to God must always be through the blood of atonement. No
day might begin, no day might close, without the shedding of animal
blood――the sacrifice of an innocent animal’s life. The great days
were great because of the multiplication of these sacrifices――evermore
distinguished and memorable for the rivers of blood that flowed; for
the struggles and throes of the dying; for the sprinkling of blood,
_blood_, BLOOD, all round about the hallowed altar, toward the unseen
Presence within the most holy place, and upon the assembled hosts of
Israel.――――It may cost us a few moments’ effort to reproduce those
scenes before our mind’s eye so as to take in their full significance;
but this effort to comprehend that ancient ritual would bring its
reward. What a demonstration it would be in proof that “without
the shedding of blood there is no remission”! that God never looks
propitiously on guilty sinners save through the bleeding sacrifice of
his crucified Son! As bearing upon the great questions――the _fact_ and
the _nature_ of the atonement――this bloody ritual has a most vital and
impressive significance. No questions of deeper and more vital import
can ever arise than such as these: Was the death of Christ expiatory?
Was his blood shed for the sins of men? Did he lay down his life,
an innocent victim, that the guilty sinners who place their hands
upon his sacred head and there confess their sins may live and never
die? In a word, was his death foreshadowed and its true significance
pre-intimated by the bloody offerings enjoined in this Hebrew system?
Argumentatively, it would seem that these great questions are decided
forever by the following considerations:
1. If the bloody sacrifices of this ancient system do not set forth the
atoning death of Christ, they mean nothing; this, or nothing at all.
2. The writer to the Hebrew Christians testifies that they mean this.
To give the proof of this statement in full would repeat entire the
seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters of this epistle. It would be
idle to say that this writer does not refer to the sacrificial system
of ancient Israel; equally idle to claim that he does not speak of the
bloody death of Christ; more than idle to deny that in his view that
old system sought to illustrate this new one――those bloody scenes were
foreshadowing pre-intimations of Christ’s death; that those priests
were precursors of this greater High Priest; that the blood which
Aaron bore once a year into the most holy place meant neither more nor
less than that Jesus was in his time to enter once for all into a yet
more holy place with his own blood and thus achieve for us eternal
redemption. Jesus “needed not daily as did those priests to offer
sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people’s; for this
he did once” [for all] “when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7: 27).
3. All the New Testament writers were Jews; men of Jewish education,
men of life-long training in religious ideas based on this Hebrew
sacrificial system. They never speak of the purpose or results of
Christ’s death save in terms and phrases taken from this system given
through Moses. Jesus never speaks of his own death save in these
same words and phrases. When he speaks of “giving his life a ransom
for many” (Mat. 20: 28); when he said, “This is my blood of the New
Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mat.
26: 28); when his great forerunner speaks of him as “the Lamb of God
who taketh away the sin of the world” (Jno. 1: 29);――or Peter (1 Eps.
2: 24) as “bearing our sins in his own body on the tree;” or Paul
(2 Cor. 5: 21) as being “made a sin-offering for us that we might
be made the righteousness of God in him,” it is simply impossible
to disprove the reference of these terms and phrases to the Mosaic
system――impossible to give them any other sense than that which
is illustrated in the bloody death of the sin-offerings and
burnt-offerings of that ancient law.
Thus with bands which no sophistry can sever, the Old Testament
and the New are bound together, and the atonement prefigured in the
former is embodied and made perfect in the latter. The almost ceaseless
blood-sheddings and blood-sprinklings of the former culminate in the
latter in the one great scene of death-agony and blood on Calvary.
The grand idea of expiatory suffering――of the vicarious death of the
innocent in place of the guilty, which ages of ceremonial sacrifice
had been setting forth and working into the minds of all reverent
worshipers, had prepared the way for Christ’s disciples to understand
the mystery of his bloody death and to teach the Christian world in
the writings of the New Testament _how_ the blood of Jesus “_takes away
sin_.”
* * * * *
In closing our notice of this religious system, let us revert for
a moment to the fact that all its important features were so many
important _steps of progress_ in the manifestation of God to man. These
were lessons in advance of all that had preceded on that greatest of
all questions――How shall man approach his Maker, and how shall he offer
acceptable worship?――――That God deigned to come down and dwell with
his obedient people is the precious truth which underlies all these
provisions for his worship. How shall man treat this Heavenly Guest;
how adjust himself to this pure and majestic Presence; with what
state of heart; with what purity and cleanliness of person; with
what offerings and sacrifices and of what significance?――――These are
the points embraced in these great lessons taught in this religious
system. The perpetual inculcation of cleanliness and of conscientious,
scrupulous care; the practice of perpetual thanksgiving; but above all,
the copious illustrations of the great idea of bloody sacrifice to take
away sin;――these have been already named as the salient features in
this system, and all (it will be noticed) are _points of progress_.
Bloody sacrifices and altars appear in the worship offered by Abraham,
Noah, and even Abel. But how much more fully is their true import
unfolded here? Here is confession of sin on the part of the worshiper;
here is the symbolic transfer of sins by imposition of hands upon
the head of the victim brought out to die: here is the sprinkling
of his blood all round about the altar; upon the very mercy-seat
and immediately in the presence of the Holy One who sat beneath the
cherubim; upon the worshipers also gathered round the bloody altar:
here are the special solemnities of the great day of atonement in
which the whole sacrificial system culminated――all combining their
significance to unfold the great idea of the vicarious sufferings of
an innocent victim in place of guilty men.
CHAPTER XX.
HISTORIC EVENTS OF HEBREW HISTORY FROM SINAI TO THE JORDAN.
_The Golden Calf._
WE dropped the thread of this history at Sinai to study with undivided
attention the civil code of Moses and also the religious system. We now
resume it.
Moses tarried on the Mount forty days to receive from the Lord the
civil statutes in detail and also all his instructions in respect to
the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the ritual. The time seemed long to
the restive people. They became utterly impatient; they lost faith in
God and in Moses; fell back upon their previous Egyptian notions; and
consequently applied to Aaron, saying: “Up, make us gods which shall
go before us; for as for this Moses――the man that brought us out of
the land of Egypt――we wot not what has become of him.” Aaron replied:
“Break off and bring to me your golden ear-rings.” Whether he hoped
they would withdraw their request when they saw how much it was to
cost them does not appear. But it does appear that their enthusiasm for
idol gods was equal to this sacrifice of their golden ornaments. They
brought them freely as Aaron had proposed, and he made of them a golden
calf. Strangely enough, the people greeted this senseless thing with
the shout: “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out
of the land of Egypt.” What could this mean? Did they really believe
that this calf was the power that brought those plagues on Pharaoh;
that rolled away the waters of the Red Sea; bore them safely over,
but hurled destruction on Pharaoh’s host? Did they see the Power that
wrought all these wonders in this powerless calf? Or did they assume
that the Invisible Power which achieved this work was well represented
by this golden image?――――The ineffable folly of idolatry according
to either notion staggers us; we know not what to make of it. If the
facts were not so patent the world over and through all the ages of the
race, it would be our first impulse to assume it all a fiction and to
say――Men never could be so supremely silly and foolish as to suppose
the Great God to be _like a calf_! or as to suppose that a calf,
whether of gold or of flesh and blood, could be a God!
We are tempted to digress, perhaps too much, into a discussion of
the _philosophy of idolatry_. On this point it must suffice to say
that no philosophy of such a fact can ever be satisfactory save one
that assumes and makes large account of human depravity――thus: Some
recognition of superhuman power is inevitable; it is in man’s deepest
convictions, and can not be got out. But men shrink from the near
presence of a pure, sin-hating God. Any thing else is more endurable.
Give us (they say) some God to worship who will not disturb our sinning,
or some way of worshiping the Supreme which will at least put that pure,
all-searching Eye farther off. And as to the reasonableness of such
notions of God, there is only this to be said: Sin makes men _think_
like fools; sin makes men _act_ like fools!――――This philosophy of
idolatry, and this only, touches bottom and must stand.――――In the case
before us, it is noticeable that the people were charmed with this
new worship, for they could sit down to eat and to drink _and rise up
to play_! A fine time they had of it. There was no troublesome sense
of a pure, sin-hating God there. The question how this calf could be
the same God who brought them out of Egypt was of the least possible
concern to them.
Aaron is swept along in the current of this mad infatuation. When
he saw this calf, he built an altar before it and made proclamation:
“To-morrow is a feast to the Lord.” Full of heart for such a service
“the people rose up early on the morrow and offered burnt-offerings and
brought peace-offerings; they sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up
to play.”
A view of this scene from another stand-point follows next in the
narrative. We are shown what transpired on the Mount where the Lord,
Moses, and his servant Joshua were still engaged together. The God
of Israel whose eyes are in every place, apprised Moses of what the
people were doing. In words adapted to make Moses feel his personal
responsibility, and perhaps to intimate that for himself he must disown
such a people, he said――“Go, get thee down, for _thy people_, whom
_thou broughtest_ out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves.”
They have made and are now worshiping a golden calf as the God that
brought them out of Egypt.――――The Lord closed with a proposal which
was in many points of view intensely trying to Moses; viz. that Moses
should suffer the Lord to consume this corrupt people. Then he would
make the posterity of Moses a great nation, in place of rejected
Israel.――――Did the Lord say this to prove Moses in the line of personal
pride? However this may have been, the result was morally sublime. The
temptation (if we may call it such) made no impression. Moses passes it
by as a thing not to be thought of. The Lord seemed to anticipate that
Moses would pray for the people, and therefore said――“Let me alone that
my wrath may wax hot against them and that I may consume them.”――――Not
deterred a moment by this, “Moses besought the Lord his God and said:
Why doth thy wrath wax hot against _thy_ people [not merely ‘_my_
people’] which Thou [not I] hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt
with great power and with a mighty hand”? He boldly argues the case:
Why, Lord, shouldest thou give occasion to the Egyptians to say that
thou broughtest forth this people only to slay them in the mountains
and consume them from the face of the earth? What will be said of thy
solemn oath to Abraham to multiply his seed as the stars and to give
them Canaan? How will these things bear upon thine own glory before
earth and heaven?
This is a most remarkable case of prayer. Was ever mortal more bold and
more persistent, despite of all the Lord had said which seemed to shut
the door and bar off all entreaty? Yet Moses prevailed, and it does not
appear that the Lord rebuked him for his persistence or for his
boldness. It is simply said――“The Lord repented of the evil which he
thought to do unto his people.”――――This point being so far gained,
Moses must go down to the people. With the two stone tablets of the
law in hand and Joshua by his side, he descends the mount. Joshua’s ear
first caught the sound from the camp. His military antecedents suggest
to him a a battle: “There is a noise of war in the camp.” With juster
discrimination Moses replies: “It is not the shout of victors; it is
not the outcry of the vanquished; but it is the voice of song that I
hear.” They come within sight――and true enough――there was the calf-god,
and the people were dancing and singing around it with wild, mad
enthusiasm. What a scene to Moses! How is his soul fired with holy
indignation! He casts to the earth the two tablets and breaks them
at the foot of the mount. Next, he demolishes the calf; grinds it
to powder; mixes it with water and compels the people to drink it. A
million of men are in dismay before him――all powerless to resist.――――He
turns to Aaron, his elder brother, to rebuke him. Aaron’s defense is
both tame and lame, as that of a man thoroughly ashamed of himself.
“Thou knowest the people, bent on mischief. They beset me to make them
a calf; I told them to bring forward their gold; they did so. I threw
it into the fire――and the calf made itself!”
The more vital movement followed. Moses took his stand in the gate of
the camp and cried aloud: “Who is on the Lord’s side? Let him come over
to me.” The sons of Levi, his tribal brethren, responded to the call
and came. He bade them take every man his sword and pass to and fro
through the camp, cutting down every man they met. There fell that day
three thousand. The sin called for some fearful visitation of God’s
displeasure――something that should impress the whole people with a
sense of God’s irrepressible indignation.
Thus closed this fearful day. After one night’s reflection, Moses
convenes the people, brings their great sin before them again, and
says――“I will go up before the Lord; perhaps I may make atonement for
your sin.” His prayer is on record――short, but full of meaning. “Oh,
this people have sinned a great sin and have made them gods of gold.
Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin:――and if not, blot me, I pray
thee out of thy book which thou hast written.”――――To which the Lord
answers: “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my
book.”
The prayer of Moses (v. 32) should be read with a strong emphasis on
the word “_if_,” making it equivalent to _O that_: IF thou wilt forgive
their sin, all will be well. O that thou wouldest! If not, life is
nothing to me; blot me out from the book of the living. Let me rather
die than live any longer.――――The primary meaning of this “book” of
life is a register of living men――with reference to the earthly life,
of this world only and not of the next. It is not to be taken here as
including the future life. The Lord’s final answer spares the national
life, but subjects the people yet to visitations of judgment for this
terrible sin.
Though the main point seemed to be gained――God could consent to spare
the nation――yet a qualifying condition troubled Moses exceedingly. The
Lord said――I will send an angel before thee to drive out the Canaanite;
but I will not go up in the midst of thee myself, for thou art a
stiff-necked people, lest I consume thee in the way. It can not be
safe for so wayward a people to have with them the personal presence
of a God so pure and so sin-hating.――――In the settlement of this grave
matter, Moses was permitted to come very near to the God of Israel, to
talk with him as a man talks with his friend. Moses said (in substance):
Thou hast made me responsible to lead this people onward to Canaan;
but thou hast not told me whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast
very kindly said, “I know thee by name, and thou hast found grace in
my sight.” If this be so, show me now thy way that I may know thee;
that I may find grace in thy sight; and do not call this people _mine_,
but consider them _thine_. Let me know what thy way of dealing with
me and with thy people is to be and what I may depend upon in this
thing.――――The Lord graciously answers:――“My presence shall go with
thee, and I will give thee rest:” this rest being probably the promised
rest of the nation in Canaan, and not merely rest in the sense of
a satisfied mind exempt from harassing vexations.――――Moses promptly
answers――“If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.”
If thou art not going with us, let Canaan be given up and this whole
enterprise be abandoned, for what can we do unless our own God be with
us? How have we ever been distinguished from other peoples on the face
of the earth, save in this――that our God, the great, the pure, and the
Holy One, has been personally present with us?――――The Lord graciously
yields this point also.
Moses has still one more request to make――the last and perhaps the
greatest: “I beseech thee, show me thy glory.” Moses had seen the
pillar of cloud and of fire; more than this, he had been on Mt. Sinai
where the August Presence was so grand and awful that he said――“I do
exceedingly fear and quake;” and just at this time we are told that
the cloudy pillar descended and stood at the very door of Moses’ tent,
and the Lord talked with Moses, speaking unto him face to face as a man
speaketh unto his friend (Ex. 33: 9, 11). But this last request asks
for something yet more deep and spiritual. These recent developments
have made on the mind of Moses a painful impression that after all
he does not yet know God fully――does not really understand him; and
therefore needs to know him more thoroughly. Where is the line between
his mercy and his wrath? How much can he bear in his covenant people,
and at what point will his mercy surely turn to consuming judgment?
When and on what grounds will he forgive his sinning people and blot
out their iniquities?――――These are the points in the character of God
which he feels that he must know, and which he expresses under the one
most comprehensive word――“thy glory.” They belong to the depths of the
divine nature.
This inquisitive spirit is prompted by one supreme desire in the heart
of Moses, viz. to do faithfully and well the work to which God has
called him, and to learn how to bear himself toward God under these
responsibilities. Therefore the Lord yields here also, the request
being not only reasonable but pleasing to him; for, does not the
Lord always delight to meet those who long to see more of his glory,
especially when the deepest aim and purpose of this longing culminate
in the passion to do the Lord’s work more perfectly?――――Noticeably,
the Lord’s answer chooses a new word. He does not say――Yes, my servant
Moses, I will show thee my “glory”; but this: “I will make _all my
goodness_ pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord
before thee.”――――This is not by any means an evasion of the main
question, for the Lord comes squarely up to the very point that labors
in the mind of his servant Moses――the mutual relations in the character
and ways of God between his mercies and his justice; his compassion
toward his children, and his fearful severity to the guilty whom
no mercy can hold to obedience; whom nothing can move but terrific
judgments.――――It can scarcely be necessary to explain the usage of
the word “_name_” as spoken of God: “I will proclaim the _name_ of the
Lord before thee.” We have become familiar with the fact that in the
Scriptures, the _name_ (usually) does more than merely distinguish one
individual from another (as in our common parlance), being significant
of nature, of character, of some predominant quality. It is not that
God may be called the Lord, the Lord God, but that he _is_ the Lord,
_i. e._ the real _Jehovah_――forever the same, and forever faithful
to his promises. To proclaim his _name_ therefore is to proclaim his
_nature_; to testify to his real character.
The manner and circumstances of this proclamation in the case before us
are altogether unique and striking. The ground idea is that, in human
relationships, we learn the character by _seeing_ the man. We depend on
the eye and the sense of sight above the testimony of any other sense,
and we expect to see the character _in the face_. To “see the face”
is, therefore, the most complete and satisfactory means of learning the
character――of knowing the man――that we can have under the limitations
of our present mortal state. The language and the whole transaction
before us rest on these simple facts of our present life.――――The Lord
said to Moses: “Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man
see me and live.” To see the very face of God would imply a more
full revelation of his ineffable glory than mortal man could bear. A
softened manifestation of those unutterable glories is all, therefore,
that can be granted even to the man of God, Moses; and this is
expressively put by saying: “Thou shalt see my _back parts_; my _face_
shall not be seen.” This was the Lord’s proposal: “Behold, there is
a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock; and it shall come to
pass while my glory passeth by that I will put thee in a cleft of the
rock, and I will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: then I will
take away my hand and thou shalt see my back parts, but my face shall
not be seen” (Ex. 33: 21–23).
It will be noted that in this narrative Moses makes no attempt to
describe the scenes of this visible manifestation, or the impressions
it made on his mind. Words are too weak for such a service. Those
glorious views of God which sight may give, and which we may assume
that Moses obtained in this proposed manifestation, each one must have
for himself alone and not for another. They will come to all the Lord’s
true children in the day when they shall see even as they are seen
and know as they are known.――――The matters which Moses does record at
this point are, that the Lord bade him prepare two other stone tablets
to replace the broken and to appear with them the next morning on the
top of the mount; that he must come alone and let no other man be seen
in all the mount, nor let any animal of the flock or herd feed before
the mount; that then the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with
him there, and _proclaimed the name of the Lord_. The words of this
proclamation are recorded:――“The Lord [the Jehovah], Jehovah God,
merciful and gracious; long-suffering and abundant in goodness and
truth; keeping mercy for thousands; forgiving iniquity, transgression
and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon children’s children
unto the third and to the fourth generation.”――――Profoundly awed by
these words and by this impressive manifestation; encouraged by the
prominence given in it to the ideas of mercy and loving-kindness,
Moses made haste, and bowed his head to the earth and worshiped, and
then lifted up his prayer――“If now I have found grace in thy sight,
O Lord, let my Lord, I pray thee, go among us (for it is a stiff-necked
people) and pardon our iniquity and our sin and take us for thine
inheritance.”――――The same points are prominent here as before (Ex. 32:
11–13)――that God would forgive the great sin of the people; that he
would go among them again, and dwell in the midst of them; and that he
would truly take and hold them as his own inheritance. Upon all these
points the heart of Moses is intently set, and he brings them before
God every time. The Lord responds――I renew my covenant; I shall go on
to work marvelously among this people. The revelations of my great name
before them and before all the world by means of them, are only begun.
I will go before this people to drive out the Canaanite; but this
one thing I must insist upon: My people must wash out every stain
of idol-worship; they must destroy all idol-altars, break down their
images, cut down their groves, have no associations with corrupt
idol-worshipers; worship no other than the one true and holy God, for
the Lord whose name is Jealous is a jealous God. Other requirements
follow as may be seen (Ex. 34); Moses fills out another forty days on
the mount; the law is again written on two tablets like the former;
Moses comes down with his face (unconsciously to himself) shining as if
the reflection of the more shining face of God still lingered upon it.
When Aaron and all Israel saw this, they feared to come near him. Moses
called to them (_i. e._ to come); Aaron and the rulers (not the people)
came and Moses talked with them. Afterward all the people drew near and
Moses rehearsed the recently revealed commandments of the Lord, putting
a vail on his face while speaking with the people. This glory on his
face was the sensible witness that he had been in very deed talking
with the all-glorious God, and that it behooved them to accept him as
God’s authorized messenger.
* * * * *
In tracing thus rapidly the general course of thought in these chapters
(Ex. 32–34), I have aimed to bring out the salient points and the
spirit of the transactions. Some things have been passed which it were
well to return and examine more fully.
This first great apostacy into idol-worship was doubtless born of their
Egyptian life. There they had seen the ox, the cow, and the calf made
objects of worship. It is supposable that the leaders in this movement
were of that “mixed multitude” who came out from Egypt with them (Ex.
12: 38), and who seem to have led off in the lusting and murmuring at
Taberah (Num. 11: 4). Neither of these facts――their having seen such
worship in Egypt, nor their being seduced by the Egyptians among
them――can at all excuse their sin. It admits of no excuse.――――Moses
recites the main points of this case again (Deut. 9: 8–21), omitting
the special manifestation of God’s name, but giving prominence to his
own anxiety, not to say agony, on their behalf lest the Lord should
indeed destroy them. “I fell down before the Lord as at the first forty
days and forty nights; I did neither eat bread nor drink water because
of all your sin which ye had sinned in doing wickedly in the sight of
the Lord to provoke him to anger (for I was afraid of the anger and hot
displeasure wherewith the Lord was wroth with you to destroy you)”. He
also speaks of his prayer for Aaron whose sin in this matter had been
great (v. 20).――――How much this great apostacy impressed itself upon
the nation’s history and affected good men in after ages, may be seen
in Ps. 106: 19–23, and Acts 7: 39–43, and 1 Cor. 10: 7.
The fact that Moses burnt and pulverized the golden calf so that he
might compel the people to drink it, shows him to have been profoundly
skilled in the science of metallurgy. He has not told us what solvent
he used, other than fire, for it was no part of his object to teach
this art or to exhibit his skill therein. Few men have ever lived in
any age who could have done it.
The _social and moral influence_ of this festival for idol-worship is
expressively put by Moses: “The people sat down to eat and to drink,
and rose up to play.” As the subsequent narrative shows, here was
revelry――dancing, shouting, and song. God was forgotten; all true sense
of his presence and indeed of his nature was ruled out by the very fact
that they had exalted a golden calf into his place. By a law of human
nature men become like the object they worship. Calf-worshipers go down
to the level of the calf they worship. Alas! would that they did not
sink far lower in passion and in crime!
In Ex. 32: 25 we read: “When Moses saw that the people were naked――(for
Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies), then
he took his stand in the gate of the camp and said, Who is on the
Lord’s side? let him come unto me.”――――Modern critics for the most
part give the Hebrew words the sense, not of being naked, but of being
cast loose, demoralized, put into the state of being lawless, _without
restraint_. The principal verb occurs rarely; it may of itself bear
either sense above indicated. The sense “naked” does not well suit the
context; for in what sense did Aaron make them naked? And how could
their nakedness be a reason why Moses should send armed men among
them to slay three thousand?――――The other sense, therefore, should be
preferred. Aaron had utterly demoralized them. They were powerless, and
only objects of scorn before their enemies. God had in wrath forsaken
them.
From Ex. 33: 4–6 it appears that the people were mourning over the
sad tidings that God refused to go with them to Canaan, and that they
indicated their grief in part by leaving off their usual ornaments, as
God had commanded them to do. In v. 6 our translation reads, “Israel
stripped themselves of their ornaments _by_ the Mount Horeb.” The
Hebrew favors the sense, “_from_ Mt. Horeb”――_i. e._ from that point
of their history and onward; signifying that they gave this permanent
indication of humility and shame for their great sin. Nothing could
be more appropriate, since those ornaments of gold were strongly
associated with their awful sin in the matter of the calf. It is
pleasant to see that they were so prompt to give this expression of
their sorrow and shame.
In that most emphatic announcement of the name of the Lord
(34: 6, 7), we must note the reiteration of the ideas of mercy, grace,
long-suffering, compassion, goodness, truth――as if the leading purpose
were to inspire hope and comfort in souls contrite and humble for sin.
Solemn and awful words were indeed spoken of “visiting men for their
iniquity;” and not the fathers only but the children also by the laws
of inevitable connection between parent and offspring. Nationally and
socially, the children in this nation must suffer for the sin of their
parents. The smiting dead of three thousand guilty fathers left many
thousand children orphans. If for the sins of the fathers God had
dropped the nation at Horeb, where would have been their promised
Canaan? What could have been the lot of coming generations of Israel
but disaster――privation of good; accumulation of evil? That God should
put so prominently in the fore-ground this feature in his threatened
retribution implies his hope that he might touch the heart of fathers
and mothers in this way when they were fearfully insensible to all
other considerations.――――As to the bearing of this announcement
of God’s names upon the then pending question――What may the nation
hope for from the God of their covenant? we must suppose that it
encouraged Moses greatly. He would say――Assuredly God would not put
his mercies forward so sweetly, so richly, so in the front of all his
manifestations, if he had not some blessed thoughts of mercy for us.
Let us trust his loving-kindness! While we will listen to his solemn
words of warning against sin, we will believe that it is his purpose
to forgive this great sin and to grant us still his gracious protecting
presence. So he presses his suit once more in prayer.
Among the greatest lessons of this history are those that relate to
_prayer_. The whole character of Moses as seen in this transaction
is wonderfully pure and true. How unselfishly he casts away, as not
to be thought of, the divine suggestion――“I will make of thee a great
nation”! With what solid grasp and singular tenacity did he hold fast
to the great ideas of God’s covenant with Abraham――to make this nation
his own peculiar people; to abide among them; to manifest himself
in works of power and grace, and get himself a great name in all the
earth! Shall God forget this covenant; abandon this people; drop them
midway from Egypt to Canaan, and leave all the nations to exult in
their ruin and to put it to the caprice or the impotence of Israel’s
God? Never.――――It is wonderful how Moses holds on upon these strong
points in his case and the case of Israel; how thoroughly he proves
himself to have been raised up of God for the great mission of Israel’s
Leader and Advocate with God. With what boldness does he debate
the case before the Lord and set forth his strong reasons――reasons,
not of selfish sort, not looking so much to the human side as to
the divine; reasons that entered deeply into the greatest of all
considerations――the honor of God before all the nations, and the
success of his plans in making Israel his chosen people. As we search
the annals of human history in vain to find a stronger case of power
with God in prayer, so we must look far to find a case more instructive
in regard to the proper attitude for praying souls before God, and the
proper arguments to use in prayer. Moses seemed not so much pleading
for himself or for his people, as _for God_. Therefore it was that his
pleas, based on the revealed counsels of the Almighty and fully in
sympathy with his designs and with his glory, took hold of the heart
of Jehovah and could not be denied.
_The scenes of murmuring and lust;
Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah._
These transactions, recorded Num. 11, seem to have occurred soon
after the people moved onward from Sinai. In the official record of
the halting stations on their march from Egypt to Canaan (Num. 33),
“Kibroth-hattaavah” is next after Sinai.――――The name Taberah does
not designate a station, but simply indicates the remote quarter of
the camp where the fire of the Lord broke forth upon the murmuring
people, till in answer to the prayer of Moses it was quenched.――――The
particular ground of this murmuring is not stated. Probably it was
the general hardships of their wilderness life; a shrinking from the
march into the depths of the desert, just then commenced.――――In close
connection follows an account of a more serious murmuring, begun by
the “mixed multitude” of Egyptian and miscellaneous followers of whom
we read Ex. 12: 38, but into which the men of Israel were drawn. The
ground of complaint was their food. They were tired of their manna and
longed for the vegetables and fish of Egypt.――――At this point, as if to
show how unreasonable their complaints were, Moses gives a full account
of the manna, its appearance, the way of preparing it for food, and of
its flavor. (See what is said on manna in Ex. 16.)――――Moses heard the
complaints of the people and was greatly displeased. Naturally he bore
the case to God in prayer, but in the spirit of one whose endurance
was overtaxed and whose nerves were but too sensitive to his burdens.
Noticeably the Lord does not rebuke him, but very kindly provides
relief by creating a council of seventy elders who shall help him
to bear his responsibilities for the people. They were to be endowed
with a measure of the same divine spirit which abode with him. Having
received this spirit it is said (v. 25) that they “prophesied,” _i. e._
exhorted, spake under the divine influence, but _added no more_. This
is obviously the sense of our Hebrew text; and not, as our English
version has given it――“prophesied and did not cease.” If they did not
cease, we might expect to hear more of what they said. But the word
used by Moses is decisive. They simply prophesied for once to indicate
the presence of the spirit with them, and added no more.――――As to the
complaining people, God answered their demands with such a supply of
flesh that the surfeit, by natural law or otherwise, brought upon the
people a fearful plague from which many perished. The vast graveyard
which received the dead gave name to this memorable station――_The
graves of lust, or the graves of the lustful ones_. The Lord had
brought up to them quails to cover the whole region about their camp
for a day’s journey (twenty miles) on every side to the depth of
two cubits (three feet).――――The moral of the case is well put by the
Psalmist: “He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their
soul” (106: 15); or as another has it: “He gave them their own desire.
They were not estranged from their lust, for while their meat was yet
in their mouth, the wrath of God came upon them and slew the fattest of
them and smote down the chosen men of Israel” (Ps. 78: 26–31).――There
is danger of being too demanding and persistent for the gratification
of any appetite or passion, lest the blessing we demand may prove a
curse. Let God’s wisdom and not our own impulses be our guide, and rule
our life.
_Miriam and Aaron jealous of the honor given to Moses._
In Num. 12, we are told that Miriam and Aaron speak disparagingly of
Moses because of his Ethiopian wife, jealous of the almost exclusive
honor shown him by the Lord. “Hath the Lord indeed spoken by Moses
only? Hath he not spoken by _us_ also?”――Miriam seems to have been
the moving spirit in this. She had no special love or even respect
for her sister-in-law; but had more than enough of self-conceit and
pride. Perhaps she thought of her prominence in the song on the hither
shore of the Red Sea (Ex. 15).――――Remarkably we find here this verse
interposed: (“Now the man Moses was very meek, above all men who were
upon the face of the earth.”)――――The manner in which this is introduced
favors the supposition that it came from some other and later hand,
like the account of Moses’ death (Deut. 34: 5–12). Yet it is impossible
either to prove or disprove this supposition.
It is plain that Moses made no reply to what Miriam said, but left the
whole matter with God. His work was not of his own choosing; his high
position came to him unsought. The event showed that it was perfectly
safe for him to leave his fair name and his high position with the Lord.
For the Lord soon interposed: “Moses is more than a prophet: to the
prophet I make myself known in visions or speak in dreams; but with
my servant Moses I speak mouth to mouth, and the very similitude of
the Lord shall he behold: Wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak
against my servant Moses”?――――All suddenly Miriam is leprous, white as
snow. The quick and trained eye of Aaron detects it, and he cries out
to Moses for pardon and help. Moses, always the man of prayer, calls
upon God in her behalf and is heard. After seven days’ exclusion from
the camp, she returns sound, and hopefully, a wiser and more humble
woman.
_Kadesh-barnea and the Unbelieving Spies._
In Num. 13 and 14 stands the record of a series of events of
exceedingly vital moment to the children of Israel.――――By a route
not definitely ascertainable at this distance of time, they had come
(eleven days’ journey Deut. 1: 2) from Sinai to Kadesh-barnea which
most critics concur in locating in the northern part of the wilderness
of Paran, near “the mountain of the Amorites,” and also near the
southern border of the land of Canaan. Leaving the wilderness of
Sinai (Num. 10: 12, 13) “on the twentieth day of the second month of
the second year” [from Egypt]; spending at least one month (Num. 11:
20, 21) at Kibroth-hattaavah, they were supposably about two years out
from Egypt when the question came up the second time whether the people
were prepared to march into the land of Canaan. On the former occasion,
as we have seen (Ex. 13: 17, 18) the Lord decided this question at once,
rejecting the short route to Canaan and heading their hosts through
the wilderness, because, being then just from bondage in Egypt, they
were in no condition, physically or morally, to enter Canaan.――――Now at
Kadesh the question comes up again. As the case is put by Moses (Deut.
1: 22) it would seem that the people suggested the mission of the spies:
“Ye came near unto me, every one of you, and said――We will send men
before us and they shall search us out the land and bring us word again
by what way we must go up and into what city we shall come. And the
saying pleased me well, and I took twelve men,” etc. But the more full
account in Num. 13 ascribes the movement to the Lord himself: “The
Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Send thou men that they may search the
land of Canaan” (vs. 1, 2). This is probably the more exact account.
The people however heartily concurred.――――Very wisely the explorers
designated were thoroughly representative men, “heads of the children
of Israel,” “every one a ruler among them.” Thus selected, they would
fairly represent the moral tone of the people on the great point of
faith or unbelief; and moreover were men reliable as judges of the
country and of the people of Canaan.――――The points which they were to
investigate and report were well defined: “To see the land, what it is;
whether good or bad; the people, whether strong or weak, few or many;
what cities they dwell in; whether in tents or strongholds; and whether
the land be fat or lean; and also” (a point of interest to men so long
on the desert) “whether there be wood therein or not.”――――In a tour of
forty days they traversed Canaan to the very northern border and seem
so far to have done their work well. It being the time of first ripe
grapes, they brought a magnificent specimen cluster from Eshcol, so
large as to be borne by two men.――――Their report made two strongly
marked points――that the land was truly “flowing with milk and
honey”――all in this respect that they could desire; but on the other
hand, ten of their number concurred in saying that the people were
strong; their cities walled and very great, and some of their warriors,
men of Anak, giants of stature, in whose sight they were only as
grasshoppers. Their conclusion was――“We be not able to go up against
that people, for they are stronger than we” (Num. 13: 31).――――Two of
the spies――Caleb representing Judah and Joshua of Ephraim――brought
in a minority report, differing totally in the one only vital point,
viz. whether Israel were able to drive out the Canaanites and take
possession of the land. Or, more fundamentally, they based their
conviction upon _their faith in God_; while the men of the majority
report seem to have made not the least account of God’s help in the
case. Caleb and Joshua said――“The land is exceedingly good; and if the
Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land and give it
to us; only rebel not ye against the Lord, neither fear ye the people
of the land, for they are bread for us; their defense is departed from
them, and the Lord is with us; fear them not.”――――Sad to say, these
considerations fell powerless upon the hearts of the ten unbelieving
spies, and also upon the mass of the people. “All the people murmured
against Moses and Aaron; the whole congregation said unto them: Would
God that we had died in the land of Egypt, or would God we had died in
this wilderness”!――――They even proposed to “make themselves a captain
and return into Egypt”!――――It was inevitable that the Lord should feel
himself dishonored and even insulted. “How long,” said he, “will this
people provoke me? How long will it be ere they believe me for all the
signs which I have showed among them”? And again referring to what was
most disheartening and cruel of all: “Those men who have seen my glory
and my miracles which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have
tempted me now these ten times, and have not obeyed my voice――they
shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers to give them.”
Ah, they had seen all the plagues on Egypt; they had seen Pharaoh’s
proud host buried in the Red Sea; they had seen Amalek smitten before
Israel while the hands of prayer were upstayed before the Lord――and
must all this go for nothing? God had promised to give them Canaan;
could they not trust him? They had bound themselves by most solemn
covenant to follow him as their king; and shall they go back upon this
great covenant; make another captain; and return to their old bondage
in Egypt? Alas, for such treachery! Alas, that they will not believe
in God; that they have no faith in his power to save; and apparently
no faith in his readiness to attempt it!
Here again (as after the sin with the golden calf) the Lord proposes to
Moses to smite this whole people with pestilence, and then make of his
posterity a nation greater and mightier than they (Num. 14: 12). But in
this case as in that, Moses listens not a moment to the proposal which
might seem flattering to his ambition if he had any; and turns his plea
wholly to the point of God’s glory before the nations:――What will they
say of him if he abandons this whole people as if in despair?――――It was
well understood that he had promised to bring them into Canaan; what
will they say if he fails to do it? How will it bear upon the name
and the fame of Almighty God if the nations are left to say――“Because
the Lord _was not able_ to bring this people into the land which he
sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.”――――To
this, Moses adds an appeal to that blessed _name_ which the Lord had
given him on the former occasion:――Let the power of my Lord be great
according as thou hast spoken, saying: “The Lord is long-suffering and
of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression. O pardon thou the
iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy and
as thou hast forgiven this people from Egypt until now.”――――To this
prayer the Lord promptly answers: “I have pardoned according to thy
word; but as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the
glory of the Lord”――(_i. e._ with the glory of his righteous justice);
for of all those men who have seen my glory and my miracles in Egypt
and in the wilderness, and yet have not believed in me at all, but
have utterly dishonored my name, not one shall enter into the land of
promise. March them back into this great and dreary wilderness; let
them wander there forty years――as many years as they have spent days
in searching out the land of Canaan. So let their judgment perpetually
remind them of their sin, till all that unbelieving generation, old
enough to bear moral responsibility for this unbelief, have fallen
in the wilderness.――――Then their children who, they said, would fall
before the sword of the Canaanites, shall go into the land, drive out
those men of Canaan, and possess the goodly land of promise.
The ten unbelieving spies perish at once by the plague before the wrath
of God. The people were sorely distressed by this decision. Some of
them rushed at once to the mad extreme of marching unbidden against the
Canaanites――only to be smitten before them.
Thus issued this sad case of strange, cruel unbelief. The conquest
of Canaan was postponed almost forty years; the generation of twenty
years and over when they came out from Egypt were doomed to fruitless
wandering and an early death in the wilderness; and that nation and the
world had one more lesson on the wisdom of believing God, and on the
infinite folly as well as guilt of refusing to believe and trust the
Lord.――――Moses (in Deut. 1: 19–46) gives a somewhat full recapitulation
of these scenes. In Ps. 90 he puts in the form of sacred song his
meditation and prayer on this sad yet most instructive event.
_The Rebellion of Korah and his Company._
During the period of thirty-seven years intervening between the
scenes at Kadesh last noted and the return to Kadesh in the last year
of the wandering, one event of most signal and solemn moment occurred,
viz. the rebellion of Korah and his company, recorded Num. 16, and
referred to Num. 26: 9–11. The leaders were Korah of the tribe of Levi,
a near relative of Moses, and Dathan, Abiram, and On, of the tribe of
Reuben;――the former ambitious of the distinction enjoyed by Moses and
Aaron, and doubtless believing himself at least equally capable and
worthy; the latter probably restive under the loss of that pre-eminence
which was normally conceded to the first-born. Associated with them
were two hundred and fifty leading men of the tribes, not otherwise
distinctly designated. The movement thus assumed formidable proportions
in the outset. They seem to have demanded that Moses and Aaron should
retire from office and give place to themselves; or at least that
they should resign and open the way for another election by the
people.――――Moses wisely referred this matter at once to the Lord.
Let him say who shall be the Leader of this people, and who shall
come near before him as High Priest. Take you, said he, every man his
censer and put fire therein, and come before the Lord. Let him pass
upon this great question.――――Expostulating with Korah, he said, Should
it not suffice you that God has given the whole tribe of Levi special
responsibilities and honors? Why should ye murmur against Aaron because
the Lord hath chosen him to lead in the most holy services?――――The
Reubenite faction, resisting the summons of Moses, stood off
obstinately. With falsehood and insult they arraign Moses upon two
grave charges: (a.) that he had brought them out of a land of plenty to
kill them in the wilderness; and (b.) had utterly failed to bring them
into a land of plenty as he had promised. And now, said they, “wilt
thou put out the eyes of these men”? Wilt thou dupe them and lead
them on blind-fold to their utter ruin?――――These were cutting charges.
Moses was indignant. Appealing to God he said, “Respect not thou their
offering. I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one
of them.”――――Again Moses refers the decision of the great question
to God. “The glory of the Lord appeared (we read) unto all the
congregation.” Inasmuch as the pillar of cloud and of fire was always
visible to the people, we must suppose that on this occasion these
words imply an unusual brilliancy――a blaze of glory.――――The first words
from the August Presence indicated the divine purpose: “Stand ye aloof
from those rebels; separate yourselves from that whole congregation
that I may consume them in a moment”! Suddenly Moses and Aaron are on
their faces in supplication that God would stay his hand; for they seem
to have feared a most sweeping judgment. “Shall one man sin” (said they)
“and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation”? Promptly the Lord
replied: Give orders to the people to withdraw from the tents of those
leading rebels as they would escape their doom. They did so, leaving
only the leaders and their households in their tents, awaiting the
result――with what feelings and anticipations we know not. Whether their
impudent hardihood failed them and terror seized upon them, or whether
they stood boldly or stupidly, awaiting the issue, nothing is said to
show.――――With words inspired of God, Moses put the great question of
God’s choice of Leader upon its decision: “If those men die only the
common death of mortals, the Lord hath not sent me; but if the Lord
create a new creation [Heb.], _i. e._ work a miracle; do something
outside the course of nature; if the earth open and swallow up those
men alive and all that appertain to them, then ye shall understand that
these men have provoked the Lord.”――――With not one moment’s delay, as
the last word fell from his lips, the earth opened her mouth beneath
their feet and they went down into that awful grave, and the earth
closed over them! They perished from among the congregation. Their
place was thenceforth vacant forever!――――Significantly it is added
“all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them”――those
shrieks of awful horror as they went down thrilled the whole people
with terror and they fled from the scene; for they said, “Lest the
earth swallow up _us_ also.”
It seems almost incredible that after such a scene of holy judgment on
guilty rebels and of such consternation upon the whole people, we read
that on the morrow all the congregation murmured against Moses and
Aaron, saying, “Ye have killed the people of the Lord.” This, although
their prayer had saved the masses of the people (v. 22); this, although
the hand of God only and of no mortal man had wrought their destruction;
this, although they had seen the whole transaction and fled in horror
lest God swallow them up also!――――It should not surprise us that the
wrath of the Lord broke forth against them and the plague began. Moses
cried to Aaron to take a censer with incense (the symbol of prayer)
and run in among the people, waving his censer between the living and
the dead. Only so was the plague stayed. Yet fourteen thousand seven
hundred fell in that fearful judgment.――――We are simply amazed at
the perverseness and folly of many of that Hebrew people. “How often”
and with what strange infatuation “did they provoke their God in the
wilderness and grieve him in the desert”! (Ps. 78: 40.)
The next chapter (Num. 17) records a special test to show which of
the twelve tribes the Lord had chosen for the priesthood. Each tribe
brought forward its several rod; Aaron’s among them for the tribe
of Levi. All were laid up before the Lord for one night only. In the
morning Aaron’s rod had blossomed and was bearing fruit; all the others
were still dry sticks! Aaron’s was thenceforth laid up in the most holy
place――a perpetual memorial of God’s choice of Aaron and his family for
the priesthood.
* * * * *
If it be asked _by what means_ were Korah and his company destroyed?
Were the common agencies of earthquake employed in this case? Or was
the effect produced by the divine fiat with no intervening force of
imprisoned steam or explosive gases? All I can reply is that the record
says nothing on this point whatever. The agencies common in earthquakes
have produced similar results often in the world’s history. If the Lord
saw fit he could have brought those agencies into action at precisely
that moment; or he might have produced the result miraculously with
no intervening physical agency. It would be the Lord’s hand in either
case. The question which method God employed in this case is of no
practical consequence whatever, and can never be decided save by a
special revelation from himself.
* * * * *
The events of history beginning with Num. 20 fall within the last of
the forty years of wandering. This date is obtained indirectly from
the death of Aaron which is recorded at the close of this chapter (vs.
22–29) and was connected with its events. It is definitely dated (Num.
33: 38) in the fortieth year from Egypt on the first day of the fifth
month.
Of the murmuring for water during this sojourn in Kadesh and the sad
rebuke of the Lord upon Moses, I have spoken in connection with the
scenes at Rephidim (Ex. 17: 1–7).
_The Fiery Serpents and the Brazen One._
On the journey from Mt. Hor, compassing the land of Edom, the people
became “much discouraged because of the way.” Travelers represent
this route as abounding unusually in the discomforts of the desert.
So Israel, weary, foot-sore, often suffering for water, not satisfied
with their manna――murmured both against Moses and against God. The Lord
sent fiery serpents among them: many were bitten and died. _Burning_
serpents, the original calls them, with reference to the virulent
poison of their bite and the fiery inflammation which ensued. When
Moses cried to the Lord for help, he was told to make a brazen serpent
and suspend it high upon a pole, with the promise that any man, bitten
of a serpent and looking up to this brazen one, should live. Thus
relief required as its condition this act of obedience and of faith
toward God.
The chief interest in this scene turns upon its acknowledged and
undeniable character as a type of Christ. The type (resemblance)
includes two distinct points: the _lifting up_; and the _looking_ with
its results of salvation. The evangelist John (3: 14, 15) has them
both: “As Moses _lifted up_ the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
the Son of man be _lifted up_; that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have eternal life.” In two several cases Jesus spake
of himself as being “_lifted up_,” with manifest reference to this
historic scene in the wilderness. “When ye have _lifted up_ the Son
of man, then shall ye know that I am he” (John 8: 28). “And I, if I be
_lifted up_ from the earth will draw all men unto me.” That his readers
might not miss his meaning, the Evangelist explains: “This he said,
signifying what death he should die” (Jn. 12: 32). Hence it is plain
that Christ recognized the brazen serpent as a special type of himself
to the point of the manner of his death.――――It is not less so in the
second point――_looking_, the condition of living. Nothing can better
represent the simple act of faith than looking. In looking, there is
a turning of the mind toward the object; and there is some degree of
expectation. There _may be_ inexpressible longings. We must assume such
longings in the case of the bitten, suffering, dying Israelite in the
desert.――――So let sinners, stung with a terrible consciousness of guilt,
borne down with a sense of want and woe and ruin, look with longing
heart to the uplifted Lamb of God; yea to Jesus considered as lifted up
in the agonies of a vicarious death――dying for us that we might live.
There is life in such looking!
_Balak and Balaam._
In Num. 22–24 stands a very unique history. The two prominent
characters are Balak, king of Moab, and Balaam, a renowned diviner,
magician from the East.――――Moab, descended genealogically from Lot,
was not among the doomed nations of Canaan, and had nothing to fear
from the Israelites, provided only that she neither blocked their march
nor seduced them into idol-worship. But Moab, both people and king,
were “sore afraid of Israel because they were many,” and because they
had smitten Sihon of the Amorites and Og of Bashan, and had taken
possession of their respective countries. The near proximity of such a
host, marching and encamping with military precision, fed as no other
people in that wilderness were ever fed; invincible in arms when their
God was with them, and bearing the prestige of victory over Pharaoh
and Amalek and the Amorites, was very naturally the occasion of no
small alarm. Balak had seen and heard enough to convince him that the
unseen power of some God was in these strange facts of their history.
Unfortunately he did not know enough of the true God――the real God
of Israel to see that he could be none other than the One Infinite
God, and therefore that resistance against him and his people was
necessarily and utterly vain. His theology was doubtless of the type
common among all the nations of antiquity, not blessed with the light
of revelation, viz. polytheism――gods in unknown numbers; each nation
having its own, one or many――so that the contest for mastery between
hostile nations was supposed to turn on the question which had the
mightiest gods for their help.――――With this theology, Balak’s policy
was soon determined upon, viz. to send for the most renowned diviner of
the ancient East, and match the prestige of his divination and of his
curse against the blessings which the God of Israel was conferring upon
his people. He understood well that the strength of Israel lay in the
strength of her God. There was miracle there――superhuman aid coming
in from a higher Power; and he had no idea of any thing which he could
bring into the field against this save the most potent divination and
magic. So he sent for Balaam to come and curse Israel.
Concerning Balaam; his residence, his previous and subsequent history,
and his personal character, we have (outside of Num. 22–24) three
references in the Old Testament and the same number in the New; viz.
Num. 31: 8, and Deut. 23: 4, and Josh. 13:22:――2 Pet. 2: 15, 16, and
Jude 11, and Rev. 2: 14. [The reference to both Balak and Balaam in
Micah 6: 5 adds nothing to their history.] These passages locate Balaam
among the Midianites (Num. 31: 8); in Pethor (Num. 22: 5); in Aram (Num.
23: 7); and in Mesopotamia (Deut. 23: 4). The Old Testament passages
describe him as a soothsayer, practicing divination for reward. The New
Testament writers go to the bottom of his character and represent him
as “loving the wages of unrighteousness; rebuked for his iniquity, the
dumb ass, speaking with man’s voice forbade the madness of the prophet”
(2 Pet. 2: 15, 16). They speak of “going after the error of Balaam
for reward” (Jude 11), and of him as one who “taught Balak to cast a
stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
to idols, and to commit fornication” (Rev. 2: 14).――――Further, we
are told (Num. 31: 8 and Josh. 13: 22) that he was found among the
Midianites――enemies of God’s people, and slain with the sword.
The narrative by Moses (Num. 22–24) informs us very minutely how Balak
sent and brought Balaam to curse Israel, but failed in every endeavor;
how he plied him with munificent rewards and royal honors, but God
would not let Balaam curse Israel, much as he might have wished to
do so; how Balak took his man to one mountain summit and another and
another to show him this strange people, superstitiously hoping to
break the spell of his purpose to bless; but all in vain.
The history taken in whole shows that Balaam was a godless man; that
he exceedingly desired to please Balak and get his money, but that God
would not let him. His is perhaps a solitary case to show that the Lord
can (when he pleases) give some really prophetic visions to an ungodly
man, and yet hold him so firmly under control that no harm can come of
a wicked prophet.
Some points in this case deserve special examination.――――In the
passage (Num. 22: 9–35) it appears that God positively forbade Balaam’s
going at all, yet that the second embassy, greater in number and of
nobler rank and offering richer pay (v. 15) touched Balaam in his most
sensitive point and made him long to go. So he told the men to tarry
and he would see if he could get permission. According to the record
(v. 20) the Lord said to him that night: “If the men come to call
thee, rise up and go with them”; yet the real meaning must be――If
you _will_ go, and if my prohibition avails nothing, go; but do when
there according to my word. Balaam was glad to go; but “God’s anger
was kindled because he went” (v. 22)――a fact which shows very clearly
what sort of permission God had given him. It can not well be doubted
that Balaam knew he was going, contrary to the real mind of the Lord;
for when did the Lord ever give a real permission, and then kindle into
anger because his permission was accepted? Or when did he ever leave an
honest inquirer after the way of duty to follow his supposed permission
and then take such offense as in this case at what was in its purpose
true obedience?――――Yet while God always deals honestly with the
honest inquirer after his will, he may sometimes, both in word and in
providence, let men who love their own will better than his take their
course and bear their own responsibilities. Such I take to have been
the Lord’s policy in this case.
The record sets forth that God used the ass on which Balaam rode to
“rebuke with man’s voice the madness of the prophet.” The ass saw what
Balaam’s dull eye saw not――the angel of the Lord with drawn sword,
heading him in his way――a fact strikingly suggestive of his dull vision
in regard to comprehending the spirit of that apparent permission which
the Lord gave him to go. Why did he not see that he was led on, not by
God’s will, but by his own cupidity, his own intense and over-mastering
covetousness? Alas for him; the eye of his ass could see what his
cultured intellect could not discern――that God was squarely against him.
It was moreover fully the Lord’s purpose, if Balaam _would_ go, to hold
him back from Balak’s influence and compel him to bless Israel. This
renewed, special charge on this point seems to have been one object in
this remarkable meeting of the angel, Balaam and his ass.
Does any one ask――_How_ could an ass speak with man’s voice? Were real
words uttered, words which any other ears within hearing could have
heard as well as Balaam’s? Or was it simply a miraculous sensation
upon his ear, having no cause whatever in the mouth of the ass?――――I
answer: It is of small avail to push such inquiries. We can say wisely
but two things:――(a.) That God could work a miracle as easily in one
of these ways as in the other:――and (b.) Therefore the method which the
description most naturally suggests is the most probable; viz. that the
ass spake audible words, and Balaam heard them as men are wont to hear
words audibly spoken.
* * * * *
The points of real prophecy in Balaam’s visions should be noticed.
Observe that in each case, before Balaam inquired of God he directed
Balak to prepare seven altars and to offer upon each one bullock and
one ram. The object in this seems to have been to propitiate the Lord
and secure his favorable consideration. It is remarkable that Balaam,
coming from the region of the Euphrates, should have these ideas as to
the sacrifice of clean animals. The fact seems to show that the idea of
animal sacrifices was revealed to the race in its infancy and that it
prevailed extensively over the Eastern world.
The offerings having been made, Balaam retired to “an high place”
(23: 3) as our version puts it, but really to a hill of bare, naked
summit to await the Lord’s presence and word there. [Such a summit
was chosen for its range of view]. The Lord came and gave him his word
for Balak, put thus: “Balak, the king of Moab, hath brought me from
Aram, out of the mountains of the East, saying: ‘Come, curse me, Jacob;
come, defy [in the sense only of curse, maledict] Israel.’ How shall
I curse whom God hath not cursed? Or how shall I defy whom God hath not
defied”? [How can I gainsay the Almighty; how put my word against his?
Balak asks this of me: I have no power to do it].――――“From the top of
the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo! the people
shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”――――From
his naked mountain top Balaam saw their encampment spread out before
him; there they were, a peculiar, secluded people, having neither
political, social, or religious connection with any other nation
under heaven. In this most salient feature of their case Balaam saw
a symbol of their whole future history――dwelling alone, a scattered
people, never reckoned as being of or like any other nation of the
earth.――――Their great numbers also were prophetic of their prosperous
future: “Who can count the dust of Jacob, and the number of the fourth
part of Israel”?――the reference to a “fourth part” coming of the fact
that their encampment was in four parts, three tribes to each.――――His
closing words are weighty: “Let me die the death of the righteous, and
let my last end be like his.”――――In interpreting these words I can by
no means assent to the view of many commentators (largely German) who
suppose Balaam had no ideas of a happy future life, it being as they
maintain far too early in the progress of religious thought for any
such ideas. They therefore restrict his meaning to a happy earthly life,
prosperous even to its natural end in death.――――I have no faith in such
interpretations. They do not come by any fair construction from the
text. What Balaam said was: “Let my soul die the death of the righteous,
and let my after destiny be like his.” After destiny――the afterpart of
my existence, is the legitimate sense of the word here used.――――Besides,
to pray that I may die of the same disease, at the same age, amid
the same surroundings, as the righteous, is very tame, is a very
insignificant blessing at best, and no sensible man could put his
soul very earnestly into such a prayer. I see no reason why we should
emasculate the prayer even of a Balaam in this style. Let us rather say
that he prayed like one “whose eyes were open; who had heard the words
of God and knew the knowledge of the most High and saw the vision of
the Almighty” (24: 15, 16) as he himself said.――――As to toning down the
sense of his words because their Christian construction would be so far
in advance of the age, I can not accept the assumed fact that they were
in advance of the age. I can not believe that Enoch, “walking with God”
and translated to heaven knew nothing of heaven until he found himself
there; or that Noah whose faith and whose preaching of righteousness
breasted the wickedness of that whole generation had no thoughts as to
the blessed world to come; nor that Abraham’s faith was limited to the
hills and to the corn and wine of Canaan and had never an outlook of
longing desire and assured hope of a “better country even an heavenly
one” (Heb. 11: 16); nor that Moses, “esteeming reproach for Christ
greater riches than the treasures of Egypt,” had _no “respect to_
the [future] recompense of reward.” The writer to the Hebrews reasons
far better than the Neological critics as to the faith and the hopes
of those glorious patriarchs. I find my sense of fitness and my
convictions of truth far better met in his reasoning than in their
speculations.
Let it be noted that Balaam spake as one versed in moral distinctions.
He understood that the blessed future life falls to the lot, not of
the wicked but of the righteous. When a man comes so near to God as he
seems to have done in these hours, this distinction must be seen and
felt.――――That this most appropriate prayer should have proved in his
case utterly unavailing is a sad and mournful fact to which we must
give some attention in its place.
Balak was by no means pleased with Balaam’s “parable.” Indeed he
retorts sharply: “What hast thou done to me? I sent for thee and
was to pay thee to curse that people, and now thou hast blessed them
altogether”――with blessings and nothing else.――――But Balak proposes
to try again. Perhaps if the great soothsayer shall see them from
the top of Pisgah, he may get a different view and may utter the much
desired imprecation upon them. The same process is gone through, of
burnt-offerings and of withdrawing for a private interview with God;
after which Balak eagerly inquires: “What has the Lord spoken” now?
Has he changed his mind? Has he given you leave to curse the Hebrew
people?――――The answer is pertinent and very decided, but not any more
to his mind than the former:――“God is not a man that he should lie, nor
the son of man that he should repent. Hath he said, and shall he not
do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Behold, I
have received commandment to bless; and he hath blessed, and I can
not reverse it. He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he
seen perverseness in Israel; the Lord his God _is_ with him, and the
shout of a king _is_ among them. God brought them out of Egypt; he has
as it were the strength of a unicorn. Surely _there_ is no enchantment
against Jacob, neither is _there_ any divination against Israel;
according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What
hath God wrought? Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion,
and lift up himself as a young lion; he shall not lie down until he eat
_of_ the prey, and drink the blood of the slain” (Num. 23: 19–24).
At this point of time Israel was on the threshold of Canaan. Sihon and
Og had fallen. The spirit of a pure and vigorous faith in God was never
more thoroughly national than in this generation. As between Moab and
Israel, the contrast was never greater. God’s people as seen by his
prophetic eye were on the eve of sublime victories. No enchantment or
divination could have force against them. That was the era in their
history when it might fitly become a standing exclamation:――“What hath
God wrought”?
Worse and worse for Balak. Curiously his next effort is to shut
Balaam’s mouth altogether. Since he can not get from him curses against
Israel, he begs him to hold still and not bless them. “Neither curse
them at all, nor bless them at all.”――――Balaam replied: “Did I not say
to thee, All that the Lord speaketh, that I must do”?――――But Balak has
not yet lost all hope. Perhaps it was of the Lord rather than of his
hope however that he is in for another trial――this time “on the top of
Peor that looketh toward Jeshimon.” Great faith he must have had in the
prestige of new points of vision――of other mountain tops.――――The altars
are set up; the bullocks and rams are offered as before. But in one
respect the course of events changes. “When Balaam saw that it pleased
the Lord to bless Israel, he went not as at other times to seek for
enchantments, but set his face toward the wilderness;”――which seems to
imply that on the two former occasions he had pursued his usual methods
of divination to obtain messages from the spirit-world, but now changed
his course, and simply turned his face toward the wilderness where the
camp of Israel lay in full view before him. Now we read, not that the
Lord “met him” and “put a word into his mouth” (Num. 23: 4, 5, 16), but
that “the Spirit of God came upon him,” giving him prophetic visions
in manner quite different from the preceding. His spiritual eye was now
opened; what his natural eye had just seen as he set his face toward
the wilderness (the camp of Israel), led his thought in these spiritual
visions of Israel’s glorious future, and his imagery naturally came
from the scenes still fresh in his mind. “How goodly are thy tents, O
Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel”! Exalted be thy kingdom; glorious
thy king! His own great God brought him up from Egypt; befriends him
still; will give him assured victory over all enemies in his own time!
Blessed be all who bless thee; cursed be all who curse thee!
Balak is terribly enraged and bids Balaam flee and begone. Balaam with
apparent mildness and undisturbed equanimity proposes to give Balak
some further prophetic views of what Israel should do to Moab in the
coming days. Again “he takes up his parable:” “I shall see him, but
not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a star out
of Jacob and a scepter shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the
corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth” (v. 17).
Who is “the star” and “the scepter” of this prophecy?――――The leading
thought of the passage (vs. 17–19) and indeed of the entire prophecy
to the end of verse 24 is _the supremacy of Israel_, and the fall of
all powers hostile to Israel and to Israel’s God. The key-note is in
the words: “_Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion_.”
The prophetic future (as usual) is built upon the visible present,
or perhaps more precisely, springs out of it――is suggested by it, and
takes its phraseology and costume from it. The Lord forces the truth
upon Balaam’s soul that this Israel whom he was called out from his
Eastern home to curse could not be cursed to any purpose by any earthly
divination or power because they were God’s own people, and it was
his fixed purpose to bless them. To impress this great truth the more
deeply, the Lord reveals to him in prophetic vision that this present
fact is not transient but destined to reach into the remote future;
that it is indeed only a _beginning_ of their supremacy――a pledge of a
far more sovereign ascendency, to be manifested in future ages.――――With
this view of the spirit of the prophecy, we must find here, not merely
David in whom as the first conqueror of Moab and of Edom (2 Sam. 8: 2,
12, 14) these words receive the first palpable installment of their
meaning; but yet more surely that greater Son of David whose scepter
is to rule the nations with a rod of iron.
That this broad construction is the true one will appear yet more fully
when we compare the use of the word “scepter” here with Jacob’s use of
it (Gen. 49: 10); the “star” here with the “star in the East” (Matt.
2: 1) seen by other wise men [magicians] from Balaam’s own country;
and not least, the fact that Edom and Seir became in the usage of later
prophets symbolic names for the declared and malign enemies of Christ’s
kingdom (See Isa. 34).――――“He shall smite the corners;” better the two
sides of Moab, _i. e._ Moab from side to side, through and through,
laying waste her whole country.――――The word “Sheth” (“all the children
of _Sheth_”) seems to be used as a common, not a proper noun, the
sense being――all the sons of tumult――all the men of war and strife.
Her war-power he shall utterly break down. Edom and Seir――two names for
one and the same kingdom, often affiliated with Moab, shall become the
possession of their enemies and Israel shall outmaster them through her
valor, and yet more through the might of her God――first fulfilled by
David (2 Sam. 8: 14).
Of Amalek he said: Amalek was first among the nations to assail Israel
(Ex. 17: 8–16); her end shall be utter annihilation. (See the notice of
Amalek on Ex. 17).
Verses 21, 22, spoken of the Kenites, of whom Jethro and Hobab
were the earliest representatives, are not without difficulties, yet
their history places them in marked contrast with Amalek――friends,
not enemies of Israel; and therefore suggests――not to say demands,
a contrasted prophetic destiny. Placing themselves on the side of
Israel, their dwelling-place was strong; their nest in the rocks. Keil
translates the passage――“Durable is thy dwelling-place, and thy nest
laid upon the rock; for should Kain [the Kenite] be destroyed until
Asshur shall carry thee captive”?――the question in his view having the
force of a negative: The Kenite _shall not_ be destroyed, etc. But it
is not quite clear that the original words will bear this construction.
It is however certain that the prophecy assures the Kenites, as friends
of Israel, of long-continued prosperity.
Again Balaam “takes up his parable,” forcibly impressed with the
fearful judgments God would send upon the enemies of Israel: “Who
shall endure the day of such judgments on the guilty foes of God? Great
powers from the West [ships of Chittim] shall sweep over the ancient
Eastern empires and level them with the dust; and God will stand before
the nations far down the ages as one mighty to protect his people and
to overwhelm their enemies.”
Balaam’s oracles are expressed in the purest style of Hebrew
poetry――such as few can read without a sense of its beauty and majesty.
If read with a present sense of the moral status of this prince of
diviners――of the conflict in his soul between the love of riches
and honor on the one hand and some regard to the high behests of the
Almighty on the other, we can not well suppress a feeling of sadness
that one so gifted by nature and so favored of God with prophetic
revelations, should, despite of all, have yet succumbed to the dominion
of the baser impulses of his soul. His final record is dark and
distressing. “He taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before Israel”
and drew them into idolatry and fornication (Rev. 2: 14 and Num. 25).
He cast in his lot with the Midianites, and (apparently) counseled
them into the same infernal policy. Hence when the Lord in self-defense
hurled down the sword of his people upon Midian and five of her kings
fell, Balaam the son of Beor also was slain (Num. 31: 1–8). Thus he
who so plaintively yet so pertinently prayed――“Let me die the death of
the righteous,” met the death of the wicked. He had seen reason enough
for the prayer: “Let my last end be like his”; and yet he “died as the
fool dieth”――in arms against Almighty God. While in imagination and
intellect he might have taken rank with the noblest of earth’s sons,
yet through the baseness of his impulses and the greed of a covetous
soul, he chose his rank among the meanest and utterly missed the
immortality which seemed at one moment so nearly in his grasp! For
awhile God held him to the utterance of lofty thought, and apparently
of pure and resolute purpose. But no sooner was the Lord’s restraining
hand lifted off than Balaam slumped into the mire of his selfish,
covetous nature and went fast “to his own place”!
The question has been raised (more curious than useful) how Moses
and the archives of Israel came into possession of these prophecies of
Balaam. In answer it has been suggested that, failing to get the pay
he expected from Balak, Balaam went to Moses and laid before him the
contents of these chapters (Num. 22–24) with the hope of ample reward
(which his covetous heart was loth to forego); but failing here also,
left in disgust; threw himself into the arms of Moab and Midian;
retaliated with selfish malignity upon Israel and Israel’s God, and of
course hurried himself swiftly to his final doom.――――Let his example
never cease to be a warning!
CHAPTER XXI.
THE LAST FOUR BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH:
THEIR METHOD OF ARRANGEMENT AND SUBJECT-MATTER.
THE manner in which the last four of the five books of Moses are made
up is peculiar and should have a moment’s special attention. Their
striking peculiarity is the blending of matters pertaining to the
religious system, to the civil code, and to the national history with
no well defined order or method――the historic facts taking their place
probably as they occurred and came before the writer, and the other
topics being arranged quite miscellaneously. This method obviously
indicates that the writer was not an author by profession――a mere
writer and nothing else; but one who was pressed with the cares and
burdens of public office; bearing the chief responsibilities for
the constitution of the religious system with its elaborate ritual
observances; for the civil code――its exact record and its judicial
administration; and for the general government of the people――quelling
disturbances; answering their complaints; supplying their wants;
guiding their desert march, and directing their wars in defense against
assailants. These books answer so perfectly to the circumstances
of Moses as to leave no rational doubt that he was their author.
Incidentally and most inadvertently they write out his daily history,
showing us how he was occupied during those years when the events he
narrates were transpiring. For the most part the record in these four
books pertains to the first two years after Moses entered upon his
great mission and the last two years before his death. There was a
long interval between these periods of which nothing special is said.
Passing the first twenty chapters of Exodus which are history and
follow the natural order of the events; and passing also the thrilling
and solemn scenes of Sinai――the great work of Moses was to receive and
record the statutes of the civil code, and the directions respecting
their religious system, including the construction of the tabernacle;
the services of the priests and Levites; the sacred festivals, and the
whole ritual of worship. We are told how the long sessions of Moses
with the Lord on the Mount were interrupted (Ex. 32–34) by the sin of
the people in the matter of the golden calf; after which the record of
the tabernacle――its construction, etc., is resumed and continued to the
close of Exodus.
* * * * *
_Leviticus_, takes its name from Levi whose tribe furnished the line
of priests and the servants for all the religious ritual. The first
nine chapters record ritual observances and sacrifices; then the death
of Nadab and Abihu, occurring, is recorded in its chronological place
(chap. 10); after which the author resumes his main subject――things
clean and unclean; purifications; the case of leprosy, etc. In
connection with the consecration of the High Priest and his duties, we
have (chap. 16) the very interesting description of the great day of
atonement. Statutes of a civil character are interspersed with those
which are religious (chap. 19, and 20, and 24); the great feasts are
described (chap. 23); the Sabbatic year and the Jubilee (chap. 25);
a chapter of moral warnings and admonitions (26); closing with one on
special vows and consecrations (27).
_The book of Numbers_ is named from the theme of its first two
chapters――the census of the tribes. Another census was made during the
last year of their wandering, viz. on the plains of Moab (chap. 26).
It has also an _itinerary_ of the journeyings of the people during
their entire wilderness life (33). Several chapters are devoted to the
religious ritual (none to the civil code); and several (more than in
Leviticus) to historic events; _e. g._ the murmuring and the consequent
plague at Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah (chap. 11); the envy and
sedition of Miriam (chap. 12); the case of the spies and the doom of
the unbelieving (13 and 14); Korah and his doom (16). Then passing over
to the last year of the wandering, we have the scenes at Kadesh――the
murmuring for water and the sin of Moses for which God forbade his
entering Canaan (20); a conflict of arms with Arad the Canaanite;
the fiery serpents; the overthrow of Sihon and Og (21); Balaam and
his prophecies (22–24); and other matters of miscellaneous character
(25–36).
* * * * *
_Deuteronomy_――the name meaning the second law, _i. e._ the law
repeated――takes this name from the fact that the book repeats portions
of the civil code and also of the religious system. It also gives a
resume (a brief summary) of the leading historical events of the Exodus,
of Sinai, of the golden calf, and of the murmurings of the fathers in
the early years of their wanderings. This book was manifestly written
within the last one or two years of Moses’ life, when the scenes of the
desert wandering were drawing to a close. Moses stood before the people,
almost the only old man of the nation at the age of one hundred and
twenty years, while all the rest (Caleb and Joshua excepted) were under
twenty when they came out of Egypt, and not exceeding sixty at the
writing of this book. “The fathers――where were they”! Fallen in death;
smitten with the swift judgments of the Almighty for their murmurings
or cut off in middle life during their wanderings, to which they were
doomed for their unbelief upon the report of the spies. The nation,
as they stood before Moses, were truly his children. How had he borne
them on his parental heart for forty years; given them line upon line
of statute and of ritual; shaping their civil life and their religious
life; watching with the interest of a patriarch every development of
their character; devoted with the deepest love of his heart to their
moral culture.――――Such was Moses and such were the people whom he
addressed on the plains of Moab, with the words of sublime moral power,
recorded in this book.
It is not my purpose to repeat the points of this history from Egypt
and Sinai onward to that hour, which form the staple of Deut. 1–11.
Let it suffice to say that Moses brings them forward here with more or
less expansion of the details for the sole purpose of _enforcing their
moral application_. He makes those historic facts the text for this
most impressive sermon――the basis of a series of exhortations to holy
living which well up from the depths of his parental, loving heart, and
testify how deeply he sympathized with God and with the true interests
of his covenant people. Most solemnly does he exhort them against
the great sin of their times――idolatry; and implore them to remember
the God of their fathers; the Giver of all their mercies; the God
of their national salvation. As a specimen of the historic sermon,
nothing can be more admirable, complete, and effective. Coming from
such a patriarch, from one who had done and suffered so much for his
countrymen; who had been admitted so freely into the deep counsels
and sympathies of Israel’s God; who had been honored of God not only
as the great law-giver, but also as the Savior and Deliverer of his
nation――these words ought to have been listened to with profoundest
attention. Let us hope they were truly wrought into the very souls of
this generation. No one can read them attentively at this day without
a quickened sense of the solemn relations which God establishes between
himself and his covenant people in every age of time.
* * * * *
Of the statutes, mostly civil, in small part religious, which chiefly
fill chap. 12–26, there is little occasion for special remark here.
They have chiefly come under consideration in my treatment of the civil
code of Israel. Some points are much more fully expanded here than in
the previous books, _e. g._ the year of release (chap. 15: 1–11), the
case of female captives (21: 10–14). There is some new matter; _e. g._
the war-law (20); the expiation for murder by unknown hands (21: 1–9);
the case of partiality toward sons (21: 15–17) and to mention no
more, the form of announcement and consecration with which the Hebrew
worshiper was to bring before the Lord the first-fruits of his land,
and also his tithes of the third year (chap. 26). These forms are
instructive as giving us a just idea of the solemnities of Hebrew
worship. Let us think of the Israelite coming up to Shiloh or to
Jerusalem, say from the mountains of Ephraim or the pasture lands of
Gilead, after the conquest and possession of Canaan, in obedience to
the law here recorded, thus:
“That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the
earth, which thou shalt bring of thy land that the LORD thy God
giveth thee, and shall put _it_ in a basket, and shall go unto
the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name
there. And thou shalt go unto the priest that shall be in those
days, and say unto him, I profess this day unto the LORD thy
God, that I am come unto the country which the LORD sware unto
our fathers for to give us. And the priest shall take the basket
out of thine hand, and set it down before the altar of the LORD
thy God. And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God,
A Syrian[46] ready to perish _was_ my father; and he went down
into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there
a nation, great, mighty, and populous: and the Egyptians
evil-entreated us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard
bondage: and when we cried unto the LORD God of our fathers,
the LORD heard our voice, and looked on our affliction, and our
labor, and our oppression: and the LORD brought us forth out
of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an out-stretched arm, and
with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders: and
he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land,
_even_ a land that floweth with milk and honey. And now, behold,
I have brought the first-fruits of the land, which thou, O LORD,
hast given me. And thou shalt set it before the LORD thy God,
and worship before the LORD thy God: and thou shalt rejoice in
every good _thing_ which the LORD thy God hath given unto thee,
and unto thine house, thou, and the Levite, and the stranger
that _is_ among you” (vs. 2–11).
This offering, put so impressively upon its great historic grounds――the
preservations and mercies with which God had crowned their nation
in fulfilling the promises made to the national fathers, became no
unmeaning service. All is instinct with life. Those children of the old
patriarchs reposing under their vine and fig-tree in the land flowing
with milk and honey had a wonderful history, and God meant to have
their ritual of worship link itself continually with that history and
take quickening impulses from those impressive associations.
Not less pertinent and impressive is the form of announcement and
protestation for the service of “tithing the tithes of their increase
the third year”――on this wise:
“When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine
increase the third year, which _is_ the year of tithing, and
hast given _it_ unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless,
and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;
then thou shalt say before the Lord thy God, I have brought away
the hallowed things out of _mine_ house, and also have given
them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless,
and to the widow, according to all thy commandments which thou
hast commanded me: I have not transgressed thy commandments,
neither have I forgotten _them_: I have not eaten thereof in my
mourning, neither have I taken away _aught_ thereof for _any_
unclean _use_, nor given _aught_ thereof for the dead: _but_ I
have hearkened to the voice of the Lord my God, and have done
according to all that thou hast commanded me.” (Deut. 26: 12–15).
――――We must note with pleasure the fraternal and liberal spirit
which this service cherished so effectively, remembering kindly the
Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow: the Levite as
the religious servant of the nation; the stranger as one but too often
neglected and forsaken according to the impulses of man’s selfish
nature, but one whom God remembered out of the depths of his fatherly
care for the neglected and forlorn; the fatherless and the widow as
those whose cup of affliction is sore and should commend them to every
humane sympathy of the heart. Such treatment of the stranger would
naturally bring most of them into the Hebrew communion as proselytes.
Where else in all the earth could they expect such kindness and such
inducements to build their family home?――――This inside view of the
institutions and usages of Hebrew thanksgiving worship remind us that
God’s religion has a social side; forgets not man’s social nature, but
provides for fraternal sympathy and for the ministrations of kindness
and relief to all the children of want and sorrow.
This chapter (26) closes appropriately with the mutual relations
between God and his people――they having solemnly declared [“avouched”]
the Lord to be their God, and he on his part having in like manner
declared them to be his people.
“_The Prophet like unto Moses._”
From this point we turn back to consider a special prophecy (Deut.
18: 15–22), passed without notice in the rapid and general view taken
of those chapters.
Moses is contemplating the state of the people located in Canaan;
frequently brought into contact there with diviners, soothsayers, and
magicians. The devoted nations of Canaan, he tells them, were rotten
with those abominations; and for these sins the Lord drove them out
before Israel. Addressing the Israelites, he tells them they shall
not have the least occasion to resort to magic arts for superhuman
knowledge or help.
“The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the
midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall
hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy
God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not
hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see
this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto
me, They have well _spoken that_ which they have spoken. I will
raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto
thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak
unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to
pass, _that_ whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he
shall speak in my name, I will require _it_ of him. But the
prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I
have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name
of other gods, even that prophet shall die” (Deut. 18: 15–20).
Here the great question will be――_Is Jesus the Messiah predicted here?_
The supposable theories are three:
1. That the passage treats of the Hebrew prophets only, and not of the
Messiah;
2. Of the Messiah only, and not of the Hebrew prophets;
3. Of the Messiah primarily, yet not excluding the Hebrew prophets.
The reasons for including the Hebrew prophets lie in the connection
of thought in which the passage stands; its relation to the magicians
of Canaan, and to false prophets. The Lord says to the people through
Moses: I do not leave you dependent on magicians; I give you prophets
as I have given you Moses; they shall teach you my words from time
to time as ye may need words from your God. Moreover, there will be
counterfeit prophets coming up; but I will give you tests of their
character, take heed to prove and reject them.――――This close connection
of thought demands some reference to the succession of Hebrew prophets.
On the other hand, the reasons for including the Messiah, and in
fact for assuming a primary reference to him, lie in the use of the
singular――“a prophet; one great Prophet;” and in his being compared
to Moses――“like unto me.” Moses stood in many respects quite above
the grade of the future Hebrew prophets, having none like him in the
obvious sense of this comparison except Jesus.――――This construction is
greatly strengthened by the authority of the New Testament writers and
of Jesus himself, who manifestly found here the real Messiah. See his
words (Jn. 5: 46). “He [Moses] wrote of me.” (Compare Luke 24: 44.)
Christ’s allusion to his words as having authority (Jn. 12: 48, 49)
seem to refer to this passage (vs. 18, 19). “He that receiveth not my
words hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same
shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself, but
the Father who hath sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should
say,” etc.――――The Lord said unto Moses――“I will put my words into his
mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him, and
whosoever shall not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my
name, I will require it of him.”――――The current opinion of the men
taught by Christ finds in these words a prophecy of him. Philip (Jn. 1:
45) said: “We have found him of whom Moses in the law did write――Jesus
of Nazareth.” Peter (Acts 3: 22, 23) cites this very passage as having
been spoken truly by Moses and as being fulfilled in Christ. So also
does Stephen (Acts 7: 37). The Samaritans also (as appears from Jn.
4: 25) found the Messiah here, since they received of the Old Testament
scriptures the Pentateuch only. The circumstance that the Christ whom
they expected would “_teach them all things_” points certainly to
this prophecy rather than to prophecies from Genesis (_e. g._ 3: 15
or 49: 10).――――Finally, the voice from the cloud at Christ’s
transfiguration――“Hear ye him” (Mat. 17: 5) corresponds to the
prominent point of this prophecy――“Unto him shall ye hearken” (v. 15).
Moses (present at the transfiguration) must have recognized this
identity.――――These considerations compel us to find here a primary
reference to the Messiah.
The full answer to the question: How can these words cover both the
one great Prophet――the Messiah; and also the succession of Hebrew
prophets?――will be found in these facts: That the spirit of Jesus
was in all the old prophets; that they were his servants, bearing
his messages; that he and they were parts of the same great system of
divine revelation to men; and that Christ’s mission was at once the
guaranty and pledge of theirs――their work being linked in with his as
the natural consequent and adjunct. Comprehensively spoken of, the one
great prophet included all the lesser prophets; the promise of the one
embracing and implying the promise of all.
* * * * *
Chapter 27 provides for a special service to be performed after they
are located in Canaan. The record of its fulfillment appears in Josh.
8: 30–35. The service was two-fold: first the writing of the law
on large plastered stones: second, the proclamation of a series of
blessings and also of curses in the presence of the whole people.
As to the first, it does not appear definitely how much was to
be written upon these stones. Somewhat more probably than the ten
commandments as written originally on two stone tablets; yet probably
not all the statutes and judgments which appear in the last four
books of Moses. Perhaps the writing included the curses and blessings
proclaimed from Mounts Ebal and Gerizim.――――The stones were great; the
number is not given. The writing was done while the plaster was yet
fresh and soft. When hardened it would stand for a considerable time.
The purpose was rather present effect than permanent record――a solemn
testimony that the people who had now taken possession of Canaan were
in covenant with their God to obey this law.
Moses records in full the manner of the rehearsal of blessings and
of curses: the blessings from Mt. Gerizim; the curses from Mt. Ebal:
six tribes standing on the former and six on the latter: the Levites
solemnly and in concert pronouncing the words, and the people in
concert responding, Amen. Here may be seen the words of these blessings
and curses (Deut. 27: 14–26, and 28: 1–6). The “curses” specify
the sins, but the announcement of blessings, assuming in general
obedience to God, simply enumerates the various good which the Lord
will bestow.――――The curses do not enumerate _all_ the sins which
might be committed nor all upon which curses would fall, but only
some heinous crimes as specimens.――――This service, performed with
due solemnity, must have been impressive. The gathered thousands
of Israel overspreading the contiguous mountains; the priests and
Levites rehearsing with loud voice these fearful curses, and the
people responding to each curse their expressive Amen:――how must every
thoughtful heart have been thrilled, and every sensitive conscience
recoiled from the sins thus terribly denounced!
Moses proceeds to expatiate through chapter 28 upon the blessings which
should reward obedience, but especially upon the curses that must come
upon disobedience. It would seem that this catalogue of curses has
well-nigh exhausted the possibilities of calamity――personal, social,
national――that can befall the children of men. Alas! this catalogue
was fearfully prophetic of that avalanche of woes which came upon this
same people in the destruction of their city and country, first by the
Chaldeans; last and most fearfully, by the Romans. How were the vials
of wrath through those agencies of God poured out upon the guilty
people for their great iniquities!
In the two next chapters (29 and 30) Moses seems to gather up all the
moral forces of the nation’s history into one fervent appeal to induce
obedience and to press the people to most earnest consecration to the
Lord their God. The great mercies of God upon them and their fathers
on the one hand coupled with largest promises of good hereafter; on the
other hand, the fearful curses impending over disobedience, are spread
out to their view: life on the one hand, death on the other, awaiting
their choice, pending upon their decision, sure to come according to
their free election of the one course or the other:――How are these
moral forces made to culminate and press upon the conscience of the
whole people!
* * * * *
It is a solemn act for even one so holy as Moses to gather a nation
of children about him to say to them his last words and prepare to die
(chapter 31). There are some last words to be said; some last things
to be done. Fully conscious that his days are numbered and that his
end is near he must make the public transfer of his responsibilities
to Joshua. The written law upon which he has spent so much thought
and labor must be properly committed to the priests the sons of
Levi (31: 9–13), and provision made not only for its preservation,
but for its public rehearsal in each Sabbatic year at the feast of
tabernacles.――――Not the least important of these last things was the
putting of farewell thoughts into the form of _song_ which might be
committed to memory, impressed with all the power of music (perhaps),
and embalmed in the hearts of the people with the fragrance and
impressiveness of its poetic power. There are properly two songs, one
of a general character (chapter 32); the other specific, in the form
of blessing or benediction upon the several tribes (chapter 33). The
latter follows the patriarchal usage which we have seen in the case of
Jacob (Gen. 49).――――As to the first which is distinctively styled “this
song,” Moses received from the Lord special directions to write it
out and “teach it to the children of Israel” (31: 19); to “put it in
their mouths that it might be a witness for God against the children of
Israel,” and “not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed” (v. 21).
In this chapter (31: 16–30) the Lord not only directed Moses to write
out this song but gave him its subject-matter almost entire――the whole
current of its thought――the facts in the future history of the people
upon which it is built:――in substance, thus:
The Lord said to Moses――Thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; other
generations of this people will arise who will depart from me in
grievous apostasy――going after the strange gods of the nations; they
will break my covenant with them. My anger will kindle against them
in that day; I will forsake them and hide my face from them and bring
upon them sore judgments――until they say: “Are not these evils upon us
because our God is not among us”?――――Yet more definitely the Lord gave
Moses some of the inducing causes of this apostasy; viz. fullness of
bread; the absence of want and trial; coming into a land flowing with
milk and honey. Filling themselves and waxing fat, they will become
sensual, pleasure-loving, and lost to the fear of God. So they will
turn to other gods (v. 20). Hence the occasion for this witnessing song,
of solemn forewarning, pregnant with moral forces against apostasy and
rich in suggestions of untold value for those apostate generations to
whom it would specially apply.
I place this song before the reader with explanations of its dark
points and some suggestions as to its line of thought and its moral
application.
1. Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth,
the words of my mouth.
2. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil
as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the
showers upon the grass:
3. Because I will publish the name of the Lord; ascribe ye
greatness unto our God.
4. _He is_ the Rock, his work _is_ perfect: for all his ways
_are_ judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and
right _is_ he.
This call upon the heavens and the earth to hear the words of this song
must be construed not as a call upon the intelligent beings of heaven
to listen to it; much less, upon the material sun, moon, and stars,
and this globe of ours; but rather as poetic usage, due to the lofty
inspiration of the poet’s soul who feels that the message which burns
in his heart is so momentous to his people that all nature――above
and beneath――may fitly be summoned to hear. It is his strongest way
of saying――Let all people of this and future generations give ear
and heart to these messages from the God of heaven and earth.――――The
poet-prophets of Israel in later days adopt the same form of address
(Isa. 1: 2, and Jer. 2: 12, and 6: 19).――――“My doctrine”――the truths
I teach――“shall drop as the rain”; good for the soul as rain for
the grass; refreshing, fraught with real life and the beauty of
holiness:――the reason of its great value being, “Because I am to
proclaim the _name_ of the Lord”――_i. e._ his name as significant of
his nature.――――Appreciating this sacred name, ye will testify to his
greatness; your heart will be impressed with a sense of his excellent
glory.
“Their _Rock_ is he”――the writer placing this forcible word first in
order. The great elements of his character are stable, solid, enduring,
changeless: every thing in his nature and work is perfect; all his
ways are righteous; a God of truth is he, whose words of promise or
of threatening can never fail. “Without iniquity” moreover; there is
nothing in him morally tortuous; all is on the right line of equity and
justice. Such is the Great God of our fathers――the God of our national
covenant. It was pertinent to place these views of God at the head of
this song because they set the guilt of forsaking God in its true light,
and would also vindicate his justice in sending even great calamities
upon his apostate people.――――In later ages David uses this figure――(the
“Rock”)――of God with exquisite beauty and force (Ps. 18: 2, and 28: 1,
and 42: 9).
5. They have corrupted themselves, their spot _is_ not _the
spot_ of his children; _they are_ a perverse and crooked
generation.
The poet turns suddenly to the great fact of the future apostasy of
God’s people.――“Their spot”――moral defilement――the dark pollution of
their souls. That does not indicate my children. My dutiful sons and
daughters never carry such stains; never give their hearts to other
gods; never turn their backs upon their loving and glorious Father!
6. Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise?
_is_ not he thy Father _that_ has bought thee? hath he not made
thee and established thee?
7. Remember the days of old, consider the years of many
generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders,
and they will tell thee.
Is it possible that ye can thus requite your own Jehovah? Is this
fair treatment of such a Father? Is not the God whom ye have forsaken
the very same who hath bought thee from bondage; redeemed thee for
himself; made thee a prosperous and happy nation, and established thee
in permanent strength? Go back over the grand ages of your national
history; ask the fathers for their testimony to the great works of your
God in your behalf.
8. When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the
people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9. For the Lord’s portion _is_ his people; Jacob _is_ the lot of
his inheritance.
In the original planting of the nations the Lord reserved
Canaan――best and fairest of all lands――for his people. This refers
to those providential agencies by which God assigned to the nations
descended from Noah’s sons their geographical localities and national
home. In this arrangement he reserved sufficient territory for
Israel――“according to their numbers”; and in the best locality for
their residence. The Lord accounted them his own people and gave them
his own reserved “lot.”
10. He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling
wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as
the apple of his eye.
11. As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young,
spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her
wings:
12. _So_ the LORD alone did lead him, and _there was_ no strange
god with him.
“He found him in a desert land.” With poetic license the writer
touches Hebrew history where he will――in this case at Sinai where God
met Israel visibly, and called them into special covenant with himself.
All through that wilderness he led Israel about by his guiding pillar
of cloud and of fire; instructed him by precepts and statutes; kept
him from danger even as a man guards the apple of his eye (which the
more poetic Hebrew called the _little man_ of the eye――that diminutive
picture of yourself).――――The next figure――at once exquisite in beauty
and forcible for illustration――comes from the eagle training his young
to fly. When he sees that the time has come for this training, he
stirs up his nestlings――waking them as the father does his sons at
the morning hour; flutters over them as if to show them the exercise;
spreads abroad his wings; takes them up aloft, casts them off upon
their flying power――coming swift to the rescue if their strength
should fail;――all to train them into courage, and strength of wing, and
steadiness of stroke. So the Lord alone――he and none other――did lead
Israel. There was no strange god there. In all his wilderness training
of forty most eventful years――that tender youth-time of Israel, there
was not the least help from Baal or Ashtoreth. But the hand of his own
God was every-where; in his daily bread; in his rock-gushing waters;
in his pillar of cloud and of fire; in his victories over Amalek, Arad,
and Midian. This high hand and uplifted arm, strong as the eagle’s
pinions, bore the younglings taken from his nest over and through the
roughnesses of that waste howling wilderness, until at length he set
them down in the promised Canaan.
13. He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he
might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck
honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
14. Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and
rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys
of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.
The fatness of this fertile land calls out the richest poetic
imagery.――――“He made him ride on the high places of the earth”――letting
him down just a little yet but a little from the symbol of the eagle’s
lofty flight. “Riding on the high places of the land”――as if his were a
railway path, stretched from summit to summit, resting only on mountain
peaks, commanding every magnificent prospect; or with an eye to his
conquest of Canaan, the poet sees him sweeping through with the tread
of a conquerer, for the phrase seems to conceive of the hill-tops as
the strategic points in war, commanding the whole country. As we might
expect, Isaiah admired and adopted this gem of poetry (Isa. 58: 14).
The richest luxuries of oriental climes lie at the nation’s feet;
honey and oil; butter and milk; rams and goats; “with the fat of the
kidneys of wheat” which curiously draws its terms for the best of
wheat from the favorite qualities of animal food.――――In v. 14 the
Heb. word for “pure” [“_pure_ blood of the grape”], means by its
etymology――effervescing, bubbling up, in the process of fermentation.
Our translators probably supposed it to have worked itself “pure”
by this process. The word seems to describe the process――not the
subsequent state.
15. But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou
art grown thick, thou art covered _with fatness_; then he
forsook God _which_ made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of
his salvation.
16. They provoked him to jealousy with strange _gods_, with
abominations provoked they him to anger.
17. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they
knew not, to new _gods that_ came newly up, whom your fathers
feared not.
18. Of the Rock _that_ begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast
forgotten God that formed thee.
Here is the sad moral result of being over-fed,
over-tempted.――――“Jeshurun,” the upright one; he who had bound himself
by covenant to walk uprightly with God.――――The Hebrews constantly
associate fatness with moral obtuseness, insensibility, and consequent
obliquity. The ceremonial distinctions of things clean and unclean
assumed this――swine being utterly unclean, and the fatty portions of
sacrificed animals being accounted good only for burning on the altar.
Hence the figure――Jeshurun, too fat for self-control and self-denial;
too fat for the worship of the pure and holy One; and consequently
he forsook the God who made and blessed him.――――The verb for “lightly
esteemed” means to regard as dried up; withered; of faded beauty.
So Israel thought of their God though he had been to them the Rock
of their salvation. The sad fact of their fall into idol-worship
is reiterated and made impressively emphatic. They provoked God to
jealousy; for how could he be otherwise than jealous when they cast
him off and gave their hearts’ homage to devils; to new gods, unknown
to their fathers; gods that were no gods at all!――――The Hebrew word
here for “devils” means primarily _lords_――mighty ones. The Septuagint
and Vulgate give it _demons_――true to the ultimate idea, for all
idol-worship is equivalent to the worship of the devil, being real
obedience to his will.――――The blackness of this guilt lies in its
forgetting, disowning God, our Great Benefactor; our only real Friend.
19. And when the LORD saw _it_, he abhorred _them_, because of
the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.
20. And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what
their end _shall be_: for they _are_ a very froward generation,
children in whom _is_ no faith.
21. They have moved me to jealousy with _that which is_ not God;
they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will
move them to jealousy with _those which are_ not a people; I
will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
The most cruel point as to God was that this insult came from
his own “_sons and daughters_.” From them he might expect better
treatment.――――What shall he do? What can he do, less than to hide his
face from them and to leave them to try the friendship of the new gods
they had so madly chosen? “I will see what their end shall be.” They
will see in due time!――――In v. 21 there is a play upon the words――the
same verbs, “move to jealousy” and “provoke,” being used first of their
ways toward God; next, of God’s ways in retribution toward them. Paul
(Rom. 10: 14) assumes that this passage at least applies well if indeed
it does not refer primarily to God’s judgments on Israel by casting her
off, and taking into her place of privilege the Gentiles whom Israel
had been wont to regard as nobody.
22. For a fire is kindled in my anger, and shall burn unto the
lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and
set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
23. I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows
upon them.
24. _They shall be_ burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning
heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of
beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.
25. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the
young man and the virgin, the suckling _also_ with the man of
gray hairs.
These are the vials of retributive judgment poured out on Israel,
first for her persistent idolatries; last for her murder of her King
Messiah. The fire is thought of as burning _deep_; not merely skimming
the surface but penetrating to the deep foundations of her mountains.
“Hell” here is not to be taken in its modern usage――the place of
future punishment――but in the early Hebrew sense as lying below the
earth’s surface――the “pit” into which Korah and his company went
down.――――“Burnt with hunger” (v. 24) is more literally exhausted, their
vitality sucked out of them by famine――a fearful doom!――――The sword
abroad and terror at home (literally, “in the chambers”), shall bereave
[Heb.] both the young man and the virgin――a calamity well compared to
bereavement of most loved offspring.
26. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the
remembrance of them to cease from among men:
27. Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their
adversaries should behave themselves strangely, _and_ lest they
should say, Our hand _is_ high, and the LORD hath not done all
this.
28. For they _are_ a nation void of counsel, neither _is there
any_ understanding in them.
The thought is that for these great sins the Lord would have utterly
annihilated Israel were it not for the honor of his name before the
nations as their recognized God.――――The word for “scatter into corners”
means rather, _to blow away_ as with his powerful breath.――――It is
not precisely the “_wrath_” of the enemy, but rather the _reproaches_,
or the underlying spirit which would manifest itself in insult and
haughty exultation. The context shows the true idea. Lest they
should say “Israel is down because _our_ hand is high and _our_ power
resistless. _We_ have done it. _Their God_ is far enough from being
Almighty.”――――“Behave themselves strangely” should rather be――should
_reason_ strangely; should make this strange inference, that the
fall of Israel was due to their own great power, rather than to God’s
forsaking them for their great sin.
29. O that they were wise, _that_ they understood this, _that_
they would consider their latter end!
30. How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to
flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut
them up?
31. For their rock _is_ not as our Rock, even our enemies
themselves _being_ judges.
How does the tenderness of a loving Father’s heart pour itself out
in these matchless words! O if my people were only wise; wise to
know and appreciate their Great Benefactor! Wise to render him the
homage, the trust, and the love of their heart! How would one of
them chase a thousand of their foes if only their God were on their
side; if he who is their Rock and Strength had not sold and disowned
them!――――Expressively Moses adds――For as they very well know――we have
it on their own admission――their Rock is not as our Rock; their gods
were never like our God. Moses did not say this without authority. He
remembered how the Egyptian hosts in the Red Sea cried out, “Let us
flee from the face of Israel, for the Lord fighteth for them against
the Egyptians” (Ex. 14: 25). The testimony of Balaam was still fresh:
“God hath blessed; I can not reverse it. The Lord his God is with him,
and the shout of a king is among them. God brought them out of Egypt;
he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn. Surely there is no
enchantment against Jacob, nor any divination against Israel. Behold,
the people shall rise up as a great lion,” etc. (Num. 23: 20–24). The
fame of God’s wonders for Israel was already abroad among all the
adjacent nations, as may be seen in the words of Rahab (Josh. 2: 9–11).
32. For their vine _is_ of the vine of Sodom, and the fields of
Gomorrah: their grapes _are_ grapes of gall, their clusters
_are_ bitter:
33. Their wine _is_ the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom
of asps.
34. _Is_ not this laid up in store with me, _and_ sealed up
among my treasures?
35. To me _belongeth_ vengeance, and recompense; their foot
shall slide in _due_ time: for the day of their calamity _is_
at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.
By a somewhat sudden transition of thought, “for” [first word of v. 32]
answers the implied question――Why then, if Israel’s Rock is so mighty,
does not Israel live and triumph in perpetual victory and prosperity?
Do ye ask, _Why not?_ Because they are corrupt like Sodom; their “vine”
being put poetically for themselves morally considered. Their heart and
life are altogether rotten.――――In v. 34 I take the sense to be――Do I
not remember all their sin? Is it not laid up before me, awaiting its
time for a fearful retribution, sealed up as securely as one keeps his
choice treasures? “Vengeance belongeth to me”――is my sole prerogative,
and can not fail of its due execution.
36. For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself
for his servants, when he seeth that _their_ power is gone, and
_there is_ none shut up, or left.
37. And he shall say, Where _are_ their gods, _their_ rock in
whom they trusted,
38. Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, _and_ drank the
wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you,
_and_ be your protection.
God will arise for judgment and retribution. Calamities must scourge
the guilty; mercy will spare the innocent and ultimately save his
Zion. In the latter portion of this song (vs. 36–42), the divine agency
seems to be of a twofold character; exterminating the hopelessly guilty,
but sparing and restoring the penitent, and ultimately retrieving
the fortunes of his kingdom.――――When God seeth that his people are
powerless and none remain, either bond or free, shut up or let go [the
sense of the Heb. words translated “shut up or left”], he will ask,
What has become of the gods to whom my people have apostatized, with
whom they ate their sacrifices in common? Since those gods have utterly
failed them, let me call their attention to myself. Perhaps now it will
not be in vain.
39. See now that I, _even_ I, _am_ he, and _there is_ no god
with me: I kill, and I make alive. I wound, and I heal: neither
_is there any_ that can deliver out of my hand.
40. For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live forever.
41. If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on
judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will
reward them that hate me.
42. I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall
devour flesh; _and that_ with the blood of the slain and of the
captives from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.
They shall know the power of their God. When I lift up my awful hand to
bring down retribution on the guilty apostates among my people, shall
not my arrows be drunk with blood and my sword devour flesh? The guilty
must fall; yet through the fires of these sore judgments Zion shall
be purified and so redeemed.――――The last clause of v. 42 were better
read――“From the head of the princes of the enemy.”
43. Rejoice, O ye nations, _with_ his people: for he will avenge
the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his
adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, _and_ to his
people.
This closing strain brings out in unmistakable terms the idea which
seems to have been implied since v. 36, viz. that these great judgments
on Israel will not ultimately break down God’s cause and kingdom, but
will only cut off the hopelessly reprobate and really bring deliverance,
purity, salvation to Zion. Therefore let all the nations rejoice with
his people. They have a deeper interest than they are yet aware of
in this purifying process for the ultimate redemption of Zion. The
prophetic eye of Moses sees through to the glorious ingathering of
the Gentiles to Christ, and seems to trace the connection of this
ingathering with the judgments sent on apostate Israel in the first
Christian age.――――The outcome of this song is therefore ultimately
hopeful to the real Zion. It gives a fearfully dark view of the guilty
apostasies of Israel――those which culminated first in the captivity
to Babylon; last in the fall of their city before the Romans. In the
result God vindicates his great name; purifies his people, and spreads
the glory of his name far abroad among the nations.
DEUT. 33.
_The blessing of Moses upon the tribes shortly before his death._
This blessing of Moses follows in general the usage of patriarchal
times, as seen in Noah, but especially in Jacob, the great tribe-father
(Gen. 49). It also follows the impulses of the great heart of Moses,
now a patriarch of one hundred and twenty years, who had long outlived
the associates of his earlier days; who had suffered and borne every
thing for his people and had labored for them more than a father for
his sons and daughters. In this parting hour he has some last blessings
to bequeathe before his eyes shall close in death. Let us listen to his
dying benedictions.
The first five verses apply generally to all the tribes. The last four
also are general rather than special; while the intervening portion
of the chapter (vs. 6–25) is made up of special benedictions upon
the several tribes.――――Note also that while the “Song” [chap. 32] is
largely in the minor strain――a sad prophetic vision of the nation’s
future apostasies and consequent calamities, this chapter is _pure
benediction_――the outpouring of hopeful prayers and heartfelt good
wishes, with no shade of anticipated disaster, no foreseen calamities.
1. And this _is_ the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God
blessed the children of Israel before his death.
2. And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir
unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came with
ten thousands of saints: from his right hand _went_ a fiery law
for them.
3. Yea, he loved the people; and all his saints _are_ in thy
hand: and they sat down at thy feet; _every one_ shall receive
of thy words.
4. Moses commanded us a law, _even_ the inheritance of the
congregation of Jacob.
5. And he was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people
_and_ the tribes of Israel were gathered together.
The first thing to be noticed was that greatest fact, equally of the
life of Moses and of the life of all Israel, viz. the coming forth of
the glorious God in majesty so sublime from the mountains of Sinai.
How did the blaze of his glory illumine her towering summits and flash
forth from all her hill-tops! Such a coming――when had the world ever
seen before?――――“Rose up from Seir” would suggest to a Hebrew the
rising of the sun in his glory.――――“He came _with_ ten thousands of
saints,” says our English version; but the Hebrew has it _from_――the
same preposition which is used before Sinai, Seir, and Paran――certainly
implying therefore that God came forth _from_ the midst of those ten
thousand holy ones in a sense analogous to that in which he shone forth
from Sinai, Seir, and Paran. He must refer to holy angels to whom in
great numbers Jacob was introduced at Bethel and Mahanaim. But whether
the Lord came forth _from_ them, leaving them in heaven, or shone
forth _from among_ them, attending him on Sinai, can not be certainly
determined from the words used here. Other scriptures however speak
of the law as given by the ministration of angels, and therefore fully
imply their presence on Sinai at the giving of the law. See Ps. 68: 17,
and Acts 7: 53, and Gal. 3: 19, and Heb. 2: 2.――――The last clause of
v. 1――“from his right hand went forth a fiery law for them”――involves
grave difficulties of a sort which can not well be put before the
English reader. The word translated “law” is unknown to the ancient
Hebrew――is not the word used for law in v. 4 and in the Pentateuch
generally. The best critical authorities would unite these two words
which our translators supposed to mean “fire” and “law,” into one word
of quite different signification, referring perhaps to the pillar of
fire [Gesenius]; or to some geographical point [Fuerst]; or to flashes
of lightning [Keil].――――V. 3 is singularly abrupt, and consequently
the course of thought is obscure. God was loving the people [continuous
action]――_i. e._ all the nations and not the Hebrews only――showing that
God shone forth from Sinai _in love to the race_. All his holy ones are
his wards, upheld by his arm. They lie humbly at his feet; in filial
loving obedience they receive his words――indicating most beautifully
the spirit with which all true souls welcome God’s uttered words as to
moral duty. It is perhaps possible that [as Keil suggests] the “holy
ones” here are holy angels; yet I incline to apply the phrase without
restriction to all holy beings, man certainly not excluded.――――Moses
gave us a law, as a legacy, inheritance, for the whole congregation of
Jacob. He [God] was King in Jeshurun [over the _upright people_], even
over all that great nation with its congregated tribes and their tribal
leaders.
6. Let Reuben live, and not die; and let _not_ his men be few.
As to Reuben, let his tribe be perpetuated and not become extinct; for
some fear on this point might have sprung from the scenes of Num. 16;
the fearful death of Dathan, Abiram, and On, all sons of Reuben (Num.
16: 1, 27).
7. And this _is the blessing_ of Judah: and he said, Hear, Lord,
the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people: let his hands
be sufficient for him; and be thou a help _to him_ from his
enemies.
Judah is thought of as leading the tribes in battle, going forth in
advance of all others to war. Hence the prayer――Bring him back safely
to his people from the scenes of battle. Let his hand [military power]
be equal to any emergency.
8. And of Levi he said, _Let_ thy Thummim and thy Urim _be_ with
thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, _and with_ whom
thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
9. Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen
him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own
children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.
10. They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law;
they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice
upon thine altar.
11. Bless, Lord, his substance, and accept the work of his hands:
smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of
them that hate him, that they rise not again.
The blessing on Levi suggested the insignia on Aaron’s breast-plate,
known as the “_Urim and Thummim_” [described somewhat in Ex. 28:
29, 30]――the words signifying _Light and Right_. These breast-plate
insignia were used in some way, not altogether clear at this day, in
obtaining special directions from the Lord.――――The tribe of Levi as
a whole became in a sense God’s “Holy One,” bearing in the person of
Aaron these insignia. God had proved them at Massah and Meribah where
the people murmured against Moses and Aaron. It was especially in the
scenes of the calf-worship (Ex. 32) and of the Midianites (Num. 25)
that the tribe of Levi, and particularly Phineas, proved themselves
true to God, with higher regard for him and his honor than for father,
mother, brethren, or children; for they remembered and honored God’s
word and covenant. Let them therefore have the functions of the
priesthood, to teach Jacob thy law and to minister at the national
altar.
12. _And_ of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the Lord shall
dwell in safety by him; _and the_ Lord shall cover him all the
day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders.
Let Benjamin, the beloved of the Lord, dwell safely by the side of the
Lord, his protector, abiding between his shoulders――_i. e._ upon his
back where fathers are wont to place their children to bear them long
distances. This tribe is thought of as God’s child, to be borne upon
his shoulder.
13. And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the Lord _be_ his land,
for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep
that croucheth beneath,
14. And for the precious fruits _brought forth_ by the sun, and
for the precious things put forth by the moon,
15. And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for
the precious things of the lasting hills,
16. And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof,
and _for_ the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let _the
blessing_ come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the
head of him that was separated from his brethren.
17. His glory _is like_ the firstling of his bullock, and his
horns _are like_ the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push
the people together to the ends of the earth: and they _are_
the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they _are_ the thousands of
Manasseh.
The blessings on Joseph comprise all good upon his land; the dew and
the shower, the sunshine and the moonbeams; all the products of the
mountains and of the deep;――let all come upon the head of him who was
_prince_ among his brethren [in Egypt]――this being the sense, rather
than “separated” from his brethren.
18. And of Zebulun he said, Rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out;
and, Issachar, in thy tents.
19. They shall call the people unto the mountain; there they
shall offer sacrifices of righteousness: for they shall suck
_of_ the abundance of the seas, and _of_ treasures hid in the
sand.
Let Zebulun and Issachar rejoice both in their going forth and in their
tents; equally in their labor and in their repose. Living on the shore
of the great sea, let their influence go forth upon and beyond the
great waters, calling the nations to the mountain of the Lord’s house
for worship with sacrifices of righteousness to the God of the whole
earth; and let Zion under their hand become enriched with the abundance
of the seas――of all countries beyond the seas――bringing their gold and
their treasures to the God of Israel. Isaiah has the same thought often;
_e. g._ chapters 49, 60, and 66.
20. And of Gad he said, Blessed _be_ he that enlargeth Gad: he
dwelleth as a lion, and teareth the arm with the crown of the
head.
21. And he provided the first part for himself, because there,
_in_ a portion of the lawgiver, _was he_ seated; and he came
with the heads of the people, he executed the justice of the
Lord, and his judgments with Israel.
The allusion to Gad seems to be built upon his then recent
history――leading the movement for locating the two and a half tribes
on the East of Jordan and foremost in battle and in victory over
the national enemy; prompt also to go over Jordan to execute God’s
righteous judgments on the devoted nations of Canaan.
22. And of Dan he said, Dan _is_ a lion’s whelp: he shall leap
from Bashan.
Dan is fierce and formidable in war, to which his border locality on
the extreme North may have conduced. Jacob touches the same tribal
characteristic (Gen. 49: 16, 17).
23. And of Naphtali he said, O Naphtali, satisfied with favor,
and full with the blessing of the Lord, possess thou the west
and the south.
24. And of Asher he said, _Let_ Asher _be_ blessed with children;
let him be acceptable to his brethren, and let him dip his foot
in oil.
25. Thy shoes _shall be_ iron and brass; and as thy days, _so
shall_ thy strength _be_.
Let Asher be blessed _above_ the sons――may be the sense――the favored
one among his brethren. May thy castle-bars [not “shoes”] be of iron
and brass. But the best authorities on the word “strength” prefer
_rest_ [Gesenius], or affluence [Fuerst]. The prayer is that this rest
or affluence may be life-long.
26. _There is_ none like unto the God of Jeshurun, _who_ rideth
upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.
27. The eternal God _is thy_ refuge, and underneath _are_ the
everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before
thee and shall say, Destroy _them_.
28. Israel then shall dwell in safety alone; the fountain of
Jacob _shall be_ upon a land of corn and wine; also his heavens
shall drop down dew.
29. Happy _art_ thou, O Israel: who _is_ like unto thee, O
people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who _is_
the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found
liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places.
These words of unsurpassed sublimity and most exquisite poetry set
forth the glories of the God of Israel and the blessedness of the
people who enjoy such a Father and live under such a Protector. Perhaps
we can not give them higher praise than to say they are worthy of the
pen of Moses――worthy even to be his last words――he noblest utterances
of one who above any other mere man had communed with God face to face
as man does with his dearest friend.――――The English translation is
almost faultless, constituting one of the grandest passages to be found
in English literature. In the last clause of v. 27, I prefer to follow
the Hebrew more closely and say simply _Destroy!_ The high behest of
Jehovah, hurling the enemy forth from the land of his people is best
expressed in the emphatic word, _Destroy!_――――In the last verse, the
clause, “Thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee,” means that they
shall cringe, fawn, and flatter with false and lying pretenses to gain
if but a little favor from a people so terrible in arms as Israel with
God on her side. The case of the Gibeonites is mostly in point.
It was due to the stand-point of Moses, looking forth across the
Jordan upon the earthly Canaan, beholding the earthly Israel just then
entering there; Jehovah the shield of their help, the sword of their
excellency, the scourge of their foes――this mighty God riding sublimely
upon the heavens for their help, his everlasting arms underneath
them forevermore――that this view should be primarily of scenes in the
present life and not in the future; of earthly and material relations
rather than of spiritual. Yet let us not forget that the manifestations
of God in blessings of earthly sort foreshadow like manifestations
in the spiritual life. The God who saves his people here in things of
earth, in ways so grand, with power so transcendant, in a spirit so
parental and so tender, may surely be trusted to save and shield and
bless with his own Godlike wisdom and power against spiritual foes and
for the other world no less than for this. Surely there is none like
the God of Jeshurun who comes in the tenderness of infinite pity to
wipe away the penitent tear; to bind up hearts broken for sin; to
place underneath all feeble souls his own everlasting arms; to bid
away every spiritual foe with the mandate _Destroy_; and to gather
home his redeemed in his own best time to his Canaan above, of which
that ancient land of promise gives us only some poetic images and
some illustrations of God’s faithfulness and love. It is quite well,
therefore, to exchange the earthly sense of this sublime passage for
its spiritual significance and transfer its imagery to that world whose
glories are worthy of sublimer strains than even these.
_The death and character of Moses._
These benedictions having been uttered, it remained for Moses to see
the goodly land with his eyes and then close them in death. The record
is that his vision from the top of Pisgah swept the whole country
of Palestine even to the Mediterranean――a statement which implies
miraculous power. We must either tone down the statement in extent,
or admit a superhuman extension of sight――the latter being by far most
probable.
The record assumes that at his death Moses had no attendant save the
Lord himself――a circumstance which throws a shade of doubt over the
ultimate disposition of his body. According to the narrative the Lord
buried him in a valley in the land of Moab; yet the place of his burial
remained unknown to mortals. Was the fact of his being buried at all
revealed to some Hebrew prophet by special inspiration; or was it
merely assumed as the common course of events; or was his body really
translated, as in the case of Enoch and Elijah? In favor of the latter
supposition are two circumstances; viz. the allusion by Jude (v. 9) to
a dispute over his body between Michael the archangel and the devil;
and his appearance together with Elijah at the transfiguration of Jesus
(Mat. 17: 3). These hints comprise all that is known on the point or
can be known at present; or as we may say, all that the Lord thought it
important to let us know.
Altogether in keeping with the masterly vigor of mind manifested in the
last exhortation of Moses (chap. 27–31); in the “Song” (chap. 32), and
in the tribal blessings (chap. 33)――is the statement that although at
the age of one hundred and twenty, “his eye was not dim nor his natural
force abated.” The Hebrew word suggests, instead of natural force,
the idea of freshness, youthful vigor. How wonderfully were his powers
of both mind and body preserved till his great work was done!――――The
historian who wrote this last chapter says: “There arose not a prophet
since in Israel like unto Moses”――which raises the question, How long a
period of time is embraced in this comparison? Was this remark made in
the time of Samuel, or in the time of Ezra, or at some point between?
Or was it based upon the belief or the special revelation that the
divine policy included but one Moses――all later prophets down to the
coming of the Great Anointed being of a subordinate grade? I do not
see that the choice between these several alternatives can be made with
absolute certainty, and it is not specially important that we attempt
to balance nicely the mere probabilities.
We think of Moses (as of Paul, Isaiah, Daniel) as a sublime
illustration of God’s marvelous resources for raising up great men
for great occasions. Where shall we set the limit to these resources?
True, these great men die (unless they may be translated), but their
names die not; their work does not die; their influence travels onward
down the ages, and will, long as men live on the earth. They are the
world’s really _great men_, belonging to a totally different order
from the Cæsars, the Alexanders, and the Napoleons, or the Platos and
the Aristotles of the race. It may not be unprofitable to note that
all these were _modest men_; meek above most other men; of unaspiring
spirit; true to their divine mission, and little caring to give their
thought to any thing else. The fact in the recorded history of Moses
which seems to me the very gem of his life was that God’s proposal,
twice made to him, to cut off all Israel and make of him a great nation
(Ex. 32: 10 and Num. 14: 12) did not get from him a moment’s attention.
He never even alluded to it. But as the Lord seemed to overlook the
glory of his own name before the nations, Moses took the responsibility
(boldly, shall we say?) of reminding him as to this point. Apparently
his soul was so much absorbed in this line of considerations――the glory
of God as before the nations of the earth――that he could not let it
drop from his range of view. Hence Moses was mighty (almost omnipotent
we may say) in prayer. It would seem to have been the Lord’s special
purpose to bring out this prime quality of his religious character and
set it in sunlight before all future ages――an illustration of the fact
that _the great men of all time are mighty with God in prayer_. They
know the secret of communion with God. They have easy, unrestricted
access to his throne.――――One blemish――nay rather, one sin, stands on
the record of his life in his own hand-writing; one sad, humiliating
fact mars his history――viz. that at Kadesh his sensibilities to himself
were too keen; that for the moment, self threw even his God into the
shade, and he cried out: “Ye rebels; must _we_ fetch you water from
this rock”? True, the complaints of Israel were severely cruel as
against Moses; but how much more so against God! And if Moses had
thought and felt much less as to himself and much more of God, he
had passed through this stern ordeal unhurt. From that point onward
this sin could not pass altogether out of his mind. It had been the
aspiration of his life to see the goodly land of Canaan and to plant
his children――the great Hebrew nation――there with his own hand and see
them with his own eyes in their glorious home! We sympathize in his
disappointment and trial in that he must die short of Canaan. But this
is not quite a sinless world. The painful experiences of imperfection
force themselves into the best Christian lives. There is a better life
beyond!
_The Mosaic system and the future life._
The question often comes up in even the most candid and honest minds:
Why is the Pentateuch silent, or at least, _so nearly_ silent as to
the rewards and punishments of the future life?――――Moreover, there is
a class of critics who are fain to decry the Hebrew people as almost
contemptibly low in point of knowledge, culture, and civilization, and
who are wont to deny that the Mosaic system, civil or religious, has
any allusion to the future life or even assumes its existence.――――From
this supposed fact, they infer that the Hebrew people and even Moses
himself _had no knowledge of the future life_.
In briefly discussing this subject, I propose,
1. To qualify somewhat the absolute statement――_No allusion to the
future life or assumption of its existence_.
2. To give some reasons for placing the Theocracy mainly on the basis
of temporal rewards and punishments.
3. To maintain that Moses and the patriarchs knew and believed in the
future life as one of rewards and punishments.
1. I propose to qualify somewhat the absolute statement――“No allusion
to the future life and no assumption of its existence.”
Here I call attention to the remarkable fact that there are several
statutes _without penalties_――left simply upon the consciences of men
and upon their sense of the fear of God.――――As to those who violate the
third of the ten commandments, it is simply said, “The Lord will not
hold him guiltless”; but it is not intimated that any due punishment
should befall him in the present life. The statutes touching this
sin stand also without penalties. Correspondingly the statutes forbid
perjury; but they seem to leave the sanctity of the solemn oath upon
the conscience and upon men’s fear of God. So of the precept, “Thou
shalt not revile the judges, nor curse the rulers of thy people” (Ex.
22: 28).
Now it scarcely need be suggested that human laws without penalties
are mere puerilities――virtually no laws at all. Suppose under any human
government, sundry statutes were left without penalties, the law saying
only, “he shall bear his iniquity”; “his sin shall be upon him”: Would
not the whole body of lawless, law-breaking men say in their heart,
What of that? What then? Every violator of human law knows well enough
that there is nothing to fear _from it_ beyond the grave. If human law
will only let them have their way in this world, they would scoff at
the thought of _its penalties_ in the next.――――Now my point is that
the Hebrew statutes did not leave the law-breaker’s conscience in this
attitude. The man who scorned those statutes because they stood without
penalties in this world _had something to think of for the world to
come_. Those statutes, left without penalties for this life were not by
any means for that reason powerless. So far from being powerless, they
were in many minds more terrible than any other statutes. Was it of no
account to them that God had said――“His sin shall be _upon him_” and
“he shall bear his iniquity”? Did they not know that “it is a fearful
thing to fall into the hands of the living God”――fearful, moreover,
not because he might bring trouble on them in time, but because there
is an after-life and the same dreadful God is there――terrible to those
who have defied his authority and scorned his law?――――Therefore the
statement that this Hebrew code did in no manner assume the existence
of an after-life and of a God terrible to the sinner there, must be
somewhat modified.
2. _I am to assign some reasons for putting this Theocracy mainly on
the basis of temporal rewards and punishments._
(1.) It was to be administered chiefly by human agents. Human
judges sat upon offenses against it, and human hands executed their
decisions.――――I qualify these statements with the words “mainly,”
“chiefly,” stating this as being the case _for the most part_.――――The
fact as to human agents being admitted, there is no need of further
reasons for placing the administration of this government mainly on the
basis of earthly rewards and punishments――penalties in this world, not
in the next. How could human judges award judgments for the world to
come, and human hands execute them there?
(2.) God governed Israel _as a nation, not as an individual man_. Now
since nations as such exist in this life only, it follows of necessity
that all retribution that is truly _national_ must be in time, not in
eternity. The nation as such is not known in the eternal world. The
individuals that compose the nation have their own personal account
to settle with God in the world to come; but this has no bearing upon
the government of God over the nation. This national government must
be complete in time, else it remains incomplete forever. It may run
on through many human generations; national life may outlast scores
of individual human lives; but God’s retribution as to nations must
be administered in this world, no part lying over to the next. Hence
when God made himself king in Jeshurun over the Hebrew nation, he of
necessity established a government to be administered mainly in time,
not in eternity; by the rewards and penalties of this world――not of the
next.――――This again would be in itself a sufficient reason for the fact
we are accounting for, even if there were no other.
(3.) This national system of government was intended to be a moral
lesson for all other nations of all time. Hence the government must
be put on the same basis as that of all other nations _in the point
of providential retribution_. As God holds every nation on earth
to a positive retribution in time, giving them prosperity for their
righteousness, and adversity for their violation of the common laws
of humanity; and as he would fain make his administration over Israel
a cogent moral lesson to every other nation on this great point, he
must needs govern Israel in this respect _as_ he governs them――_i. e._
administering his retributions _in time_.
(4.) Yet one reason more. Distinguishing carefully between God’s
providential government and his moral――the former being of time only;
the latter of both time and eternity; the former being (for our present
purpose) over nations as such; the latter over individuals only and
not over nations――it remains to say that God manifestly designed his
providential government over Israel to be suggestive, perhaps we might
say typical――certainly illustrative of his moral government over all
men which is not of time only, but which reaches into the eternal world.
In the early ages of the world men needed some proof that God would
punish sin in the world to come. They needed some illustrations of
God’s character as a righteous, moral governor. Therefore the Lord
planned to put himself at the head of the Hebrew nation, and then in
that position, to give to mankind some illustrations in this world of
what all sinners are to believe and expect for themselves, not in this
world only or chiefly, but in the world to come. He would make this
limited government illustrate that universal one. He would show in the
case of the Hebrew people under his law what all men have to expect
from their righteous God when his moral government shall have had full
scope and shall have administered its perfect retribution in the world
to come. This divine policy is well set forth by Peter (2 Pet. 2: 4–9);
“For if God spared not the angels that sinned but cast them down to
hell”; and “spared not the old world, but saved Noah”; if he “turned
Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, but delivered just Lot”;――then (we may
infer), “the _Lord knoweth how_ to deliver the godly out of temptation,
and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.” Yes,
the Lord _knoweth how_ to do this, and he means to let all living men
see that he knoweth how; and see also that being a holy moral Governor,
he can not fail to do it. He will give them occasion to see in his
ruling over nations in time that his ruling over individual sinners can
not be less righteous――can not be less retributive according to deeds
done; and since equal and perfect justice calls for more time than
one human life on earth, there must be an after part to it, to come
in when death has located men in the eternal world.――――This designed
use of a theocratic government over Israel to illustrate God’s moral
relations to every individual man, required an administration mainly
in this world, in time, before human eyes; and is therefore another
reason for working this theocracy mainly with temporal rewards and
punishments.――――I do not see that further reasons can be rationally
called for.
* * * * *
3. I am to rebut the inference made from the fact of a theocracy
administered mostly in time, viz. _that Moses and the patriarchs did
not believe in or even know of a future life_.
(1.) The inference is utterly illogical. The rewards and penalties of
the Hebrew system were of time and not of eternity, _for other good and
sufficient reasons_, and not necessarily for the reason that the Hebrew
law-giver and his people knew of no future life. To be of any force
the argument must assume that if Moses had known of a future life he
would have built this system upon it. But what is the proof of that?
By what right is that assumed?――――On the contrary there are reasons in
abundance, not to say in excess――far more than would be sufficient――why
the theocracy should be temporal in its penalties, whether Moses knew
or did not know of a future life.
(2.) That Moses and the patriarchs assumed and believed in a future
life is apparent from _their words_.
Moses wrote of Enoch (Gen. 5: 24); “And Enoch walked with God; and he
was not, for God _took_ him.” “Took him” _where_? Did not Moses know
where? “_Took_ him”――in what sense? Is it even supposable that Moses
thought this was annihilation――taking a godly man out of existence?
Extinguishing his being because he walked with God! Is this a credible
construction? Shall it be assumed that Moses was so ignorant, or so
misinformed, or so little versed in logic, as this?――――If the Lord had
made this problem a special study――how best to teach and impress the
doctrine of a future blessed life for the righteous who walk with God
on earth, we can not see how he could have improved upon the method
he actually adopted, viz. to take the godly Enoch from earth to heaven
without dying.
Again, Moses constantly spoke of the death of the godly patriarchs
as a being “gathered to their people.” He said this of Abraham (Gen.
25: 8); of Ishmael (25: 17); of Isaac (35: 29); of Jacob (49: 33).
And he records these as Jacob’s words when he supposed Joseph to have
died: “I will go down into Sheol _to my son_ mourning” (37: 35).――――In
the face of these facts can it be said that Moses knew nothing of the
future life? Did he think the fathers――the righteous people――had passed
by death into non-existence――into what was _not life_ in any sense
whatever?――――Again, when at the bush the Lord said to Moses so solemnly:
“I am the God of thy fathers; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob” (Ex. 3: 6), is it credible that Moses was so obtuse
as not to see that this implied that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were
yet living, since the Lord could not be the God of dead things, but
only of living souls?――――A sensible view of the case may be obtained
thus: Suppose that Moses had replied――“Lord, I see not how that can be,
for Abraham has been dead and out of existence more than two hundred
years”! If really Moses had no knowledge of a future life, he ought
frankly to have made substantially this reply at the bush.
(3.) In proof of their faith in the future life, is another argument,
of greater force if possible than their words; viz. their _lives_.
For men sometimes say more than they mean, or perhaps something other
than what they think; but their lives testify truthfully to their real
beliefs.――――Here we might expand the argument already suggested by the
writer to the Hebrews (11: 8–16), calling up to review the actual lives
of the patriarchs; how Abraham tore himself away from home and kindred,
and went, obeying a call believed to be from God, to a land before
unknown; how he and his family sojourned as strangers there, dwelling
only in tents but “looking for a city on beyond which hath foundations
whose builder and maker is God”; how they lived in the faith of
promises to be fulfilled far in the future ages of time; and how by
such a life they “declared plainly that they were seeking another
and better country, even an heavenly” one.――――But waiving this, the
argument will be more directly in point if made on the case of the man
Moses himself.――――Born a slave, it was little of earth that he had at
his birth save the faith and consequent heroism of a godly mother. In
the providence of God it fell to him to be taken――a beautiful babe of
three months――into the family of the reigning Pharaoh. There he lived,
trained in all the wisdom of Egypt, till he was full forty years old.
Of prepossessing person and splendid talents; of capacities equal to
any responsibility, the honors of all Egypt lay before him――we might
probably say――were pressing upon his acceptance. What did he do?――――The
writer to the Hebrews answers our question on this wise: “When he was
come to years, he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter,
choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to
enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season: esteeming reproach for Christ
greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.”――――Was not this choice and
all this course of conduct unaccountably strange? Did any man in his
senses, _knowing nothing of the future life_, ever make such a choice
before or since? What! choose affliction before pleasure; reproach
before the highest of earthly honors? What could be in the man to make
such a choice and even carry it out in his actual life?
The writer of this Epistle has an explanation to suggest. He says
in the outset that Moses _had faith_――a sort of faith described by
himself as “the evidence of things not seen.” Quite unlike the doctrine
of the critics above referred to――nay squarely in the face of their
assumptions, he holds up this Moses as a special and illustrious
example of real faith in the future life. “_By faith_ Moses refused
to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter”; “_by faith_ he esteemed
reproach for Christ greater riches than Egypt’s treasures――for he had
respect to the recompense of the reward.” Aye, he had his eye onward
upon that glorious recompense of reward which God gives his people when
the joys that are transient have all faded out――when the life that is
immortal dawns on the human soul. In his view the pleasures of Egypt
were only _for a season_――too short to be matched against the joys
before him――fully believed in――that endure forever.
Of this explanation, say what else men may of it, they must admit
that it answers the purpose. It accounts for the choice Moses made
of affliction before pleasure; of shame before the highest of Egypt’s
honors. This explanation represents Moses to be a man of sense, and
not a fool. Neological criticism holds him up to the world as void of
all sense――as playing the part of supreme folly. Paul said――“If in this
life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable”
(1 Cor. 15: 19). He would have said of Moses, If his hope and belief
as to God were of this life only――if he had no belief in the future
life and no knowledge of it, then he was of all men most foolish――most
void of that judgment and good sense which are common to sensible
men.――――Therefore I claim that the _life of Moses_――the whole choice
and purpose and labor of a life of one hundred and twenty years,
witness to his full and glorious faith in the future life. The men
who deny to him this faith stultify not Moses, but themselves.
(4.) It can scarcely be necessary to suggest that over and above the
logical merits of the facts themselves, we have the current traditions
of Jewish history and the authority of the inspired New Testament
writers. He who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews――a man of sense as his
writings show and of surpassing eloquence and power――must have spoken
the current voice of Hebrew tradition――to say nothing (in an argument
with Neologist critics) of his unquestionable inspiration from God.
(5.) Still further, we have collateral proofs that the future life was
known in the age of Moses.――――Job gave a grand declaration of his faith
that after the perishing of his body he should see God (Job 19: 25–27).
Balaam, representing the thought of the ancient East, saw and believed
in the blessedness of the righteous dead.――――And to mention no
more――the wise men of Egypt, even before the age of Moses, believed in
the future life of man. With scarcely a doubt they built their pyramids
in the faith of man’s immortality. Sepulchers with them had a special
and grander significance because they thought of man, not as dropping
at death into annihilation, but as having even then a future nobler
life before him. It is more than supposable that the art and practice
of embalming the body――thus providing for it a sort of immortality――was
really an outgrowth of their belief in the immortality of the soul
and of its returning again to its former bodily home.――――That the
Egyptians held the doctrine of a future life and of future rewards
and punishments according to the deeds of this earthly life, is not
questioned at all by those who are familiar with her ancient mythology.
Symbolic representations are found which are affirmed to be nothing
else but the personification of the grand principle of the immortality
of the soul and the necessity of leading a virtuous life.[47] Also
a picture “representing the trial and judgment which the Egyptians
supposed the soul of a man to undergo before he was allowed to enter
the regions of rest and happiness.”[48]――――R. S. Poole (in Smith’s
Bible Dictionary on “Egypt,” p. 675) says: “The great doctrines of
the immortality of the soul, man’s responsibility, and future rewards
and punishments were taught” [in Egypt]. “The Egyptian religion in
its reference to man was a system of responsibility, mainly depending
on future rewards and punishments.” “Every Israelite who came out of
Egypt must have been fully acquainted with the universally recognized
doctrines of the immortality of the soul, man’s responsibility,
and future rewards and punishments.”――――Dr. J. P. Thompson, in
supplementing this article on “Egypt,” refers to Dr. Lepsius as having
given the earliest known text of the [Egyptian] “Book of the Dead”
“which contains the important doctrines of the immortality of the soul,
the rehabilitation of the body, the judgment of both good and bad, the
punishment of the wicked, the justification of the righteous and their
admission to the blessed state of the gods” (p. 688). See also Bib.
Sacra, Oct. 1867, p. 775, and Jany. 1869, p. 190.
Hence we must conclude that even if it were possible that the Hebrews
had no knowledge of the future life before they went to Egypt, they
must have learned it there. Really however, the fact that this doctrine
appears in the oldest records of Egyptian antiquity proves that it
came down from Noah――not to say from Adam. It was not indigenous
and original with Egypt. It was there because Egypt had retained the
primitive beliefs of the race.
In concluding this argument, I refer to the allusions which appear
in the Psalms to the future life (_e. g._ Ps. 17, and 37, and 49, and
73),――which speak of it not as being then a new revelation, just sprung
upon the universal darkness of all foregoing ages, but distinctly as
an old doctrine, to be learned by “going into the sanctuary of God”
and there hearing the old Hebrew scriptures publicly read; and also to
be seen as illustrated and assumed in the records of God’s judgments
in time on such sinners as those of the old world, and of Sodom,
and as Egypt’s hardened king. Let it suffice here to specify Ps. 73,
whose author says of himself: “I was envious at the foolish when I
saw the prosperity of the wicked. It was too painful for me until I
went into the ♦sanctuary of God; then I understood _their end_. Surely
thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into
destruction.”――“But [all unlike _their_ doom] thou wilt guide me with
thy counsel and afterward receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven
but thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee. My
flesh and my heart faileth; but thou art the strength of my heart and
my portion forever.”――――The good men who wrote thus, and the worshiping
congregations who sung these rapturous strains in their temple worship
were not in utter darkness as to the final doom of the wicked, or as to
the glorious future life of the righteous.
* * * * *
In closing this volume it only remains to refer in a word to the
progressive developments of God’s truth as manifest in these closing
portions of the Pentateuch. Of previous points and periods in this
history as developing progress I have spoken when the scenes were
fresh in our reading and thought;――particularly of the age before
the flood; of the scenes in the life of Jacob and Joseph; of the
scenes of the Exodus and at Sinai; of the civil code and also of
the religious Institutes.――――The few incidents of history during the
forty years of wilderness life bring us new lessons, some exceedingly
instructive in regard to the intercessory prayers of Moses; many sadly
painful, touching the unbelief, the murmuring, the sensuality, and the
idolatrous tendencies of Israel. If it were not that apostasies from
God occur in our own age, not at all less guilty considering the light
sinned against, though less revolting perhaps to the current religious
sentiments of the age, we might perhaps afford to pass these historic
developments with little notice. Alas, that they should reveal sins
of the human heart which it so much behooves us to study for our own
admonition!
The book of Deuteronomy is an acquisition to the moral forces of the
Pentateuch. Speaking now specially of its first eleven chapters and of
its last nine; _i. e._ of the review which Moses gives of the scenes
of Sinai and of his accumulation of predicted woes and of appeals
at once tender and terrible in the last chapters, it is not easy to
over-estimate their moral power. Let us hope that they thrilled the
very heart of that generation and toned up their religious life with
impulses not only deep and strong but abiding. That generation, then
about to enter Canaan under Joshua, was unquestionably the best,
morally, which appears throughout the entire history of Israel. For
proof of this estimate of them it must suffice to refer to the spirit
manifested in Josh. 1: 16–18 and in the entire scenes of Josh. 22, and
indeed in the history throughout this book of Joshua.――――Leaving Egypt
while yet young or wilderness born; mostly uncontaminated with her
idolatries and pollutions of moral life, looking upon the scenes of
the Exodus and of Sinai with young eyes and susceptible souls; trained
under Moses forty years; taking the ritual of religious worship in
its freshness, with hearts, let us hope in a good measure tender to
its first strong impressions――they give us certainly the best fruits
of this wonderful moral and religious training. So many fearers of
God――so large a host imbued with the spirit of obedience to God’s
authority――the world had never seen before. They were prepared of
God for the conquest of Canaan. They are living witnesses that the
discipline of those desert wanderings was not in vain――witnesses also
to the moral and spiritual forces of the new revelations which God made
of himself during those forty years from Egypt to Canaan.
Advertisements.
COWLES’S NOTES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT
=I. THE MINOR PROPHETS.=
1 vol., 12mo. $2.00.
=II. EZEKIEL AND DANIEL.=
1 vol., 12mo. $2.25.
=III. ISAIAH.=
1 vol., 12mo. $2.25.
=IV. PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, AND THE SONG OF SOLOMON.=
1 vol., 12mo. $2.00.
=V. NOTES ON JEREMIAH.=
1 vol., 12mo. $2.25.
=By Rev. HENRY COWLES, D. D.=
* * * * *
_From The Christian Intelligencer, N. Y._
“These works are designed for both pastor and people. They embody the
results of much research, and elucidate the text of sacred Scripture
with admirable force and simplicity. The learned professor, having
devoted many years to the close and devout study of the Bible, seems to
have become thoroughly furnished with all needful materials to produce
a useful and trustworthy commentary.”
_From Dr. Leonard Bacon, of Yale College._
“There is, within my knowledge, no other work on the same portions of
the Bible, combining so much of the results of accurate scholarship
with so much common-sense and so much of a practical and devotional
spirit.”
_From Rev. Dr. S. Wolcott, of Cleveland, Ohio._
“The author, who ranks as a scholar with the most eminent graduates of
Yale College, has devoted years to the study of the Sacred Scriptures
in the original tongues, and the fruits of careful and independent
research appear in this work. With sound scholarship the writer
combines the unction of deep religious experience, an earnest love of
the truth, with a remarkable freedom from all fanciful speculation, a
candid judgment, and the faculty of expressing his thoughts clearly and
forcibly.”
_From President E. B. Fairfield, of Hillsdale College._
“I am very much pleased with your Commentary. It meets a want which has
long been felt. For various reasons, the writings of the prophets have
constituted a sealed book to a large part of the ministry as well as
most of the common people. They are not sufficiently understood to make
them appreciated. Your brief notes relieve them of all their want of
interest to common readers. I think you have said just enough.”
_D. Appleton & Company’s Publications._
18 CHRISTIAN CENTURIES.
BY
THE REV. JAMES WHITE,
AUTHOR OF A HISTORY OF FRANCE.
1 Vol. 12mo. Cloth. 538 pages $1.75.
=CONTENTS.=
I. Cent.――The Bad Emperors.――II. The Good Emperors.――III. Anarchy
and Confusion.――Growth of the Christian Church.――IV. The Removal
to Constantinople.――Establishment of Christianity.――Apostasy
of Julian.――Settlement of the Goths.――V. End of the Roman
Empire.――Formation of Modern States.――Growth of Ecclesiastical
Authority.――VI. Belisarius and Narses in Italy――Settlement of the
Lombards.――Laws of Justinian.――Birth of Mohammed.――VII. Power of Rome
supported by the Monks.――Conquests of the Mohammedans.――VIII. Temporal
Power of the Popes.――The Empire of Charlemagne.――IX. Dismemberment
of Charlemagne’s Empire.――Danish Invasion of England.――Weakness
of France.――Reign of Alfred.――X. Darkness and Despair.――XI. The
Commencement of Improvement.――Gregory the Seventh.――First
Crusade.――XII. Elevation of Learning.――Power of the Church.――Thomas à
Becket.――XIII. First Crusade against Heretics.――The Albigenses.――Magna
Charta.――Edward I.――XIV. Abolition of the Order of Templars.――Rise
of Modern Literature.――Schism of the Church.――XV. Decline of
Feudalism.――Agincourt.――Joan of Arc.――The Printing Press.――Discovery
of America.――XVI. The Reformation.――The Jesuits.――Policy of
Elizabeth.――XVII. English Rebellion and Revolution.――Despotism of Louis
the Fourteenth.――XVIII. India.――America.――France.――Index.
=OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.=
Mr. White possesses in a high degree the power of epitomizing――that
faculty which enables him to distil the essence from a mass of facts,
and to condense it in description; a battle, siege, or other remarkable
event, which, without his skill, might occupy a chapter, is compressed
within the compass of a page or two, and this without the sacrifice of
any feature essential or significant.――CENTURY.
Mr. White has been very happy in touching upon the salient points in
the history of each century in the Christian era, and yet has avoided
making his work a mere bald analysis or chronological table.――PROV.
JOURNAL.
In no single volume of English literature can so satisfying and clear
an idea of the historical character of these eighteen centuries be
obtained.――HOME JOURNAL.
In this volume we have THE BEST EPITOME OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY EXTANT.
This is high praise but at the same time JUST. The author’s peculiar
success is in making the great points and facts of history stand out in
sharp relief. His style may be said to be STEREOSCOPIC, and the effect
is exceedingly impressive.――PROVIDENCE PRESS.
=A Complete Biblical Library.=
THE
TREASURY OF BIBLE KNOWLEDGE:
BEING
=A DICTIONARY=
OF
The Books, Persons, Places, Events, and other matters, of which
mention is made in Holy Scripture. Intended to establish its
authority and illustrate its contents.
By REV. JOHN AYRE, M. A.,
OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
_Illustrated with many hundred woodcuts and fifteen full-page
steel plates, drawn by Justyne, from original photographs by
Graham, and five colored maps. 1 thick volume, 12mo, 944 pages.
Price, Cloth, $4.00; Half Calf, $5._
_Sent free by mail on receipt of the price._
“The general object of this work is to promote the intelligent use
of the Sacred Volume by furnishing a mass of information respecting
Palestine, and the manners, customs, religion, literature, arts, and
attainments of the inhabitants; an account of the countries and races
with which the Hebrews had relations, together with some notice of
all the persons and places mentioned in the Bible and Apocrypha. The
history and authority of the books themselves are discussed conjointly
and severally. I have been anxious to study the best authorities for
what is asserted, and to bring up the information to the most modern
standard. I have not written hastily, therefore, but have spent some
years in the compilation of this volume.”――_Extract from the Preface._
“Among the books which should find a place in the collection of every
Christian man, who seeks to have in his possession any thing beyond a
Bible and hymn-book, we know of none more valuable than ‘The Treasury
of Bible Knowledge.’ It is in all respects the best, as it is the
most convenient manual for the Biblical student yet published. We hope
to see this work in the hands of every Sunday-school and Bible-class
teacher.”――_American Baptist._
“* * * One of the most valuable publications ever issued by that
house.”――_New Yorker._
=D. APPLETON & COMPANY,=
Publishers and Booksellers,
_549 & 551 Broadway, New York_.
_D. APPLETON & CO.’S PUBLICATIONS._
BIBLE TEACHINGS IN NATURE.
By the Rev. HUGH MacMILLAN
1 Vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
_From the N. Y. Observer._
“These are truly original and delightful discourses, in which
investigations of natural science are skilfully and often eloquently
employed to establish divine revelation, and to illustrate its truths.”
_From the Hartford Morning Post._
“This is a work of rare merit in its way, and may be read with great
profit and interest by lovers of Nature――by those who have the gift of
_insight_, and who can look up ‘through Nature to Nature’s God’ and see
the ‘invisible power and Godhead in the things which He has made.’”
_From the Eastern Argus._
“The healthy mind delights in the beauties and mysteries of Nature, and
this volume will be found both instructive and interesting.”
_From the Daily Enquirer._
“This is a beautifully written work, intended to make the studies of
the Bible and of Nature doubly attractive, by pointing out the harmony
which exists between them as revealed to the earnest students of both.”
_From the Norfolk County Journal._
“The author sees God everywhere revealed in the development of
Nature,――finds Him in the works of pure and unobtrusive beauty; in the
grand and impressive in scenery, and in the wonderful manifestations
with which the world abounds.”
Musings over the “Christian Year”
AND
“Lyra Innocentium.”
By CHARLOTTE MARY YONGE.
Together with a Few Gleanings of Recollections of the
Rev. John Keble, gathered by Several Friends.
_One small thick 12mo. · Printed on tinted paper.
Price, $2.00._
“The ‘Christian Year,’ by Rev. John Keble, has found a place in the
hearts of pious Churchmen, second only to that of the ‘Pilgrim’s
Progress’ among Christians generally. It consists of poems on all the
church-days of the year, in which the deepest thoughts of a saint, a
poet, a scholar, and a pastor, when stirred with the strongest feelings
both of Christian and of man, find expression; and these ‘Musings’ of
Miss Yonge will interest every admirer of that famous work. In a series
of annotations on these poems, Miss Yonge has sought to seize and
express the subtle meaning of the poet, and explain a few difficulties
in their arrangement and allusions. Nearly one-third of the book is
occupied with recollections of Rev. John Keble, in which is presented
with singular distinctness the life of one of the saintliest men of
modern times. The style of Miss Yonge is one of charming purity and
simplicity, and the entire volume as a book of devotion will be read
with profit by all Christians.”――_Church Journal._
“All the principal religious festivals of the year are appropriately
alluded to in this volume, with suitable reflections thereon. The book
partakes more of a series of sermons than any thing else, although
prayers are occasionally introduced. All whose religious views
coincide with those expressed in the work will find it interesting and
instructive.”――_Rochester Democrat._
D. APPLETON & CO.,
549 & 551 BROADWAY, NEW YORK.
The Recovery of Jerusalem.
BY
Capt. WILSON, R. E., and Capt. WARREN, R. E., ETC., ETC.
_1 vol., 8vo. · Cloth. · With Maps and Illustrations._
Price, $3.50.
“This is a narrative of exploration and discovery in the City of
Jerusalem and the Holy Land. It is a volume of unusual interest
to the student of antiquities, and throws much light upon what was
already partially known about the Holy City, and opens up many curious
speculations and suggestions about things that were entirely unknown
until the excavations and explorations commenced which the book
faithfully records. The maps and illustrations much enhance the
interest, and aid in a thorough understanding of the things described.
It is a volume of over 400 pages, 8vo., bound in cloth, and altogether
beautifully presented.”――_Springfield Republican._
Christ in Modern Life.
_SERMONS PREACHED AT ST. JAMES’S CHAPEL._
By Rev. STOPFORD A. BROOKE.
1 vol., 12mo, Cloth · Price, $2.00.
The main thought which underlies this volume is, that the ideas which
Christ made manifest on earth are capable of endless expansion, to
suit the wants of men in every age; and that they do expand, developing
into new forms of larger import and wider application, in a direct
proportion to that progress of mankind, of which they are both root
and sap. If we look long and earnestly enough, we shall find in them
the explanation and solution not only of our religious, but even of our
political and social problems. All that is herein said is rested upon
the truth that in Christ was Life, and that this Life, in the thoughts
and acts which flowed from it, was, and is, and always will be, the
light of the race of man.
D. APPLETON & CO., Publishers, New York.
LECTURE-ROOM NOTES.
VAN DOREN’S SUGGESTIVE COMMENTARY.
D. APPLETON & CO., Broadway, New York; R. DICKINSON,
73 Farringdon St., London.
_The following Scholars are interested in the Series_:
=GENESIS.=――Professor BEECHER, Auburn Theological Seminary.
=PSALMS.=――Professor I. MURPHY, D.D., Belfast Theological Seminary.
=ECCLESIASTES AND PROVERBS.=――L. YOUNG, D.D., Virginia.
=ISAIAH.=――Professor SMYTHE, D.D., Londonderry Theological Seminary.
=MATTHEW.=――Professor J. VERNAHAN, Ph.D., London.
=LUKE.=――W. H. VAN DOREN, D.D., Chicago. 2 vols. (_Now ready._)
=JOHN.=――W. H. VAN DOREN, D.D., Chicago. 2 vols. (_Now ready._)
=ACTS.=――W. R. GORDON, D. D., New Jersey.
=ROMANS.=――THOMAS ROBINSON, D. D., Morpeth, England. 2 vols.
(_Now ready._)
=GALATIANS.=――Professor T. CROSKEY, Londonderry.
=PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS.=――PETER DOAG, D.D., Edinburgh.
=HEBREWS.=――Rev. THOMAS DOGGETT, Niagara.
=CATHOLIC EPISTLES.=――J. DEMAREST, D.D., New Jersey.
=Rev. Dr. FAUSSET=, _York, England, the Commentator_.
“I know no exposition of Scripture so terse, so suggestive, and yet so
full and so clear.”
=DEAN ALFORD=, _the Commentator_.
After a long, friendly letter, he apologizes thus: “I have had time
only to read sixty pages. It will be a most useful work.”
=Rev. CHAS. LEE=, _Havestock Hill_.
“The work of Dr. Van Doren contains the maximum of thought in the
minimum of space.”
=THE HOMILIST=, _London_.
“The idea of this series is an unusually happy one. It is preëminently
suggestive.”
=THE FREEMAN=, _London_.
“This work is much after our own heart. These volumes are among our
best helps.”
=THE CHURCHMAN=, _London_.
“This work contains under each sentence a few brief, well-chosen notes,
which will be found of great value.”
=SWORD AND TROWEL=, _Spurgeon, Editor_.
“This commentary is novel in its arrangement, and well sustains its
title of suggestive.”
=CHRISTIAN WORLD=, _London_.
“Dr. Van Doren’s work is more condensed than Lange’s, containing the
pith and marrow of criticism. It will be prized by all who love the
doctrines of the Reformation.”
=MORNING STAR=, _London_.
“In this work are condensed the thought and criticism of many volumes.
We shall hail with delight a complete work on this admirable plan.”
=J. C. RYLE, D.D.=, _Commentator_.
“A curious and original work. It succeeds in supplying an astonishing
amount of thought and criticism in very few lines.”
=Rev. JAMES HAMILTON, D.D.=
“I am sure Dr. Van Doren will have the gratitude of all whose books are
few and whose time is precious.”
=Rev. J. JONES=, _of Belfast_.
“To ministers and school-teachers I would say, that they will here find
an amount of knowledge, in my judgment, not to be found in the same
space anywhere else.”
=W. L. ALEXANDER, D.D.=, _Edinburgh_.
“I am much pleased with the plan, and with the success with which it
has been carried out.”
=THE FORWARD=, _London_.
“This work is cheap, compact, and suited to this hard-working age. The
plan is new and useful.”
=BAPTIST MESSENGER=, _London_.
“In ordinary cases we do not consult commentators in two cases out of
ten with real advantage. But in the ‘Suggestive Commentary’ we have not
in a single instance been disappointed.”
=BRITISH QUARTERLY=, _London_.
“Dr. Van Doren, in the form of short sentences, brings together the
gist of all previous commentators, and supplies abundance of hints to
those who have but little leisure.”
=ENGLISH PRESBYTERIAN=, _London_.
“To clergymen and students this work is invaluable. We have brought the
work under the special notice of our friends in private.”
=WESLEYAN TIMES=, _London_.
“An excellent idea, admirably worked out. We have tested the work on
the Lord’s Prayer, and we cordially commend it.”
=WESLEYAN METHODIST TIMES.=
“It is a work to make men think, and not save them from thinking.
These volumes will be welcome to many a student of the Scriptures.
Hard-worked ministers and Bible-class teachers will be well repaid
by studying them.”
=THE INDEPENDENT=, _London_.
“This is a remarkable work, and valuable as well. If there ever was
_multum in parvo_, it is here found. The labor in preparing it must
have been immense. The work is eminently suggestive, and will save an
enormous amount of time.”
=L. HALSEY, D.D.=, _Professor Theological Seminary, Chicago_.
“Every page bears marks of thorough and accurate scholarship, and of
patient, careful study. It is the most _readable_ commentary we have
ever met. It is impossible to say things in quicker time or narrower
space than he has said them.”
=Rev. Prof. SWING=, _late of Miami University_.
“In my pulpit preparations, I prefer the ‘Suggestive Commentary’ to
Lange.”
=PRINCETON REVIEW.=
“This work has been highly recommended by the journals of Great Britain.
It certainly evinces thought, labor, and learning.”
Footnotes.
1 – הוֹלדות
2 – Lay sermons on spontaneous generation; pp. 364–366.
3 – Dr. A. M’Caul in “Aids to Faith,” page 241 renders
it――“And evening happened and morning happened――one day.”
Precisely this is the sense of the Septuagint and of
the Syriac. See also Tayler Lewis in Lange’s Genesis,
pp. 132, 133.
4 – See the usage in David (Ps. 55: 17), “Evening and morning
and at noon will I pray.”
5 – כרא
6 – The following synoptical view of the passages in which כרא
or בכרא occurs is given in the Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct. 1856,
pp. 763, 764) by Prof. E. P. Barrows.――“It is used,
I. _Of the original creation_: 1. Of the world generally,
or parts of it: Gen. 1: 1 and 1: 21 and 2: 3, 4 and Ps.
89: 12 and 148: 5 and Isa. 40: 26 and 40: 28 and 42: 5 and
45: 18 (twice), Amos 4: 13. Also Isa. 45: 7 (twice); making
fourteen times in all.――――2. Of rational man: Gen. 1: 27
(thrice) and 5: 1, 2 (twice) and 6: 7 and Deut. 4: 32 and
Isa. 45: 12 and Eccl. 12: 1 and Mal. 2: 10. Here also we
may conveniently place Ps. 89: 47; twelve times.
II. _Of a subsequent creation_: 1. Of the successive
generations of men, Ps. 102: 18 and of animal beings, Ps.
104: 30.――――2. Of nations under the figure of individuals,
Ezek. 21: 35 (Eng. version v. 30) and 28: 13, 15; three
times in Ezekiel only.――――3. Of particular men as the
instruments of God’s purposes; Isa. 54: 16 (twice).――――4.
Of miraculous events; Ex. 34: 10 and Num. 16: 30 and Jer.
31: 22.――――5. Of events foretold in prophecy; Isa. 48: 7.
III. _Of creation in a moral sense_: 1. Of a clean heart
and holy affections and actions; Ps. 51: 10 and Isa. 45: 8
and 57: 19.――――2. Of Israel as God’s covenant people, or
of a member of Israel; Isa. 43: 1, 7, 15.――――3. Of a new
and glorious order of things for Israel and in Israel; Isa.
4: 5 and 41: 20 and 65: 17, 18 (twice).
An examination of these passages (half of which relate to
the original creation) will show that in every instance
the idea is that of bringing into being by divine power.
Whether that which is created is new matter, or something
else that is new, must be determined by the context.”
7 – See Bib. Sacra, April, 1855, pp. 325, 326.
8 – The word, “generations,” obtains the secondary sense of
family history and then the sense of history in general,
from the fact that the earliest written historical records
were so largely made up of genealogies――the records of
human generations.
9 – Darwin’s Origin of Species, p. 420.
10 – “The Quadrumana and all the higher mammals are probably
derived from an ancient marsupial animal, and this,
through a long line of diversified forms, either from some
reptile-like or some amphibian-like creature, and this
again from some fish-like animal. In the dim obscurity of
the past we can see that the early progenitor of all the
vertebratæ must have been an aquatic animal, provided with
branchiæ [gills] with the two sexes united in the same
individual, and with the most important organs of the body
(such as the brain and the heart) imperfectly developed.
This animal seems to have been more like the larvæ of our
existing marine Ascidians than any other known form.”
Darwin’s Descent of Man, vol. 2, 372.
11 – “If my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the
lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods must
have elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the
whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day;
and that, during these vast yet quite unknown periods of
time, the world swarmed with living creatures.” Darwin’s
Origin of Species, p. 269.
12 – These are his words――“Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate
links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most
obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against
my theory. The explanation lies as I believe in the
extreme imperfection of the geological records.”――――And
again――“He who rejects these views on the nature [_i. e._
the defects] of the geological record will rightly reject
my whole theory. For he may ask in vain: Where are the
numberless transitional links which must formerly have
connected the closely allied or representative species
found in the several stages of the great formations? He
may ask, Where are the remains of those numerous organisms
which must have existed long before the first bed of the
Silurian system was deposited?” Origin of Species, pp.
246, 299.
13 – See Thompson’s “Man in Genesis and in Geology,” pp. 88–90,
and Lyell on the Antiquity of Man, pp. 17–29.
14 – Lyell’s Antiquity of Man, pp. 43 and 204.
15 – See Report upon the Physics and Hydraulics of the
Mississippi River by Capt. A. A. Humphreys and Lieut.
H. L. Abbott; 1861, pp. 435.
The following extract will impress the reader as at once
definite and reliable.――――“If it be assumed that the rate
of progress has been uniform to the present day――and there
are some considerations connected with the manner in which
the river pushes the bar into the gulf each year which
tend to establish the correctness of that opinion――the
number of years which have elapsed since the river began
to advance into the gulf can be computed. The present
rate of progress of the mouth may be obtained by a careful
comparison of the progress of all the mouths of the
river as shown by the maps of Capt. Talbot, United States
Engineer, 1838, and of the United States Coast Survey in
1851――the only maps that admit of such comparison. They
give two hundred and sixty-two feet for the mean yearly
advance of all the passes. This mean advance of all the
passes represents correctly the advance of the river....
Adopting this rate of progress (two hundred and sixty-two
feet per annum) four thousand four hundred years have
elapsed since the river began to advance into the gulf.”
Bib. Sacra, April, 1873, p. 331.
16 – Hodge’s Systematic Theology, vol. 2, p. 33.
17 – See Lyell’s Antiquity of Man, pp. 9–11.
18 – See “Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race,” by Rev.
Ebenezer Burgess, pp. 25–30.
19 – Josephus states explicitly that Samuel and Saul combined
fill out 40 years.
20 – It is a telling fact that according to Julius Africanus,
Manetho’s numbers for the entire reigns of all the kings
foot up 5404 years, while the aggregate duration of all
the dynasties (within the same chronological termini) is
3555 years――_i. e._ the sum of all the dynasties is less
by 1849 years than the sum of all the kings’ reigns which
make up those dynasties. See Burgess on the Antiquity of
Man, pp. 70, 73.
21 – Bunsen is cited not as the best authority, but as one
of the most strenuous for an exceedingly, not to say
excessively, long duration.
22 – ידוך
23 – Or this one hundred and twenty years may be the reduced
standard duration of human life, the thought being――So
long a probation, almost a thousand years, is too much; my
Spirit shall not prolong his effort in vain to this extent;
I reduce the average life-period to one hundred and twenty
years.
24 – See Smith’s Bible Dictionary, “Noah,” for numerous
traditions of the flood.
25 – שאל
26 – שלה
27 – Many an American reader will be reminded of John Brown
striking for the redemption of the American slave.
28 – See on the Scripture usage of “the angel of the Lord,”
p. 130.
29 – כביס
30 – Hengstenberg’s Egypt and Moses, pp. 115 and 116.
31 – ענוב
32 – That this fear was by no means groundless appears in the
panic which smote their hearts when they saw Pharaoh’s
host pursuing (Ex. 14: 10–12), and also in the unbelieving
fear manifested on hearing the report of ten of the spies
returned from their forty days traversing of Canaan (Num.
13: 28, 31–33, and 14: 1–4).
33 – Connecting the fact given in profane history that Egypt
worshiped the ox and the cow as gods, with the fact of
sacred history――that all the first-born of their cattle
fell in this fearful plague, we shall understand how
signally God “executed judgment on _Egypt’s gods_.”
34 – See Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct., 1863, p. 881.
35 – The term “Bekhen” is used for any kind of building――a
temple, palace, or even a common house. Descriptions
of what they built correspond to the sacred record,
“treasure-cities.”
36 – See Burgess on “The Antiquity of Man,” pp. 68–84, on the
unreliability of Manetho’s lists and on the relative value
of other authorities in Egyptian chronologies.
37 – The passages which treat of it are Ex. 16: 14–36 and
Num. 11: 7–9 and Deut. 8: 3, 16 and Josh. 5: 12, Ps. 78:
24, 25 and Wisdom 16: 20, 21.
38 – The precise date of the scenes at Kadesh (Num. 20) may be
inferred from the death of Aaron which followed shortly
after (Num. 20: 23–29), and is definitely dated (Num.
33: 38), viz. on the first day of the fifth month in the
fortieth year from Egypt. The “first month” therefore,
spoken of Num. 20: 1 must have been that of the fortieth
year.
39 – Bearing in mind that the Israelites had lived in the
valley of the Nile, all unused to mountain scenery, we
may readily understand how these scenes around the base
of Sinai must have impressed them. It is quite in place
here to bring before our mind the physical features of
this wonderful pile of rocks and cliffs. A modern writer
supplies the following sketch:
“The entire Sinaitic group presents the most impressive
indications of the terrible convulsions by which its
labyrinth of mountain heights has been rent and torn since
its first upheaval. From the summit of Mt. Serbal, as
from a watchtower in high heaven, one looks down upon a
perfect sea of mountain ridges, often precipitous, always
intensely steep, and culminating in a sharp edge at the
height of two, three, or four thousand feet from their
base. The entire line of these mountains is seen to have
been rent transversely by clefts from the base to the
summit, filled with injections of basaltic rocks, striping
the mountain on every side with black bands. The whole
assemblage is a perfect ganglion of ridges thrown up in
wild confusion with its strata dislocated, disjointed,
dipping in all directions and at every angle from
horizontal to perpendicular. The mountains of Sinai form
no system, no regular ranges, like the Alps, the Appenines,
the Pyrenees, or the mountains of America.” (Bib. Sac.
April, 1867, p. 253).
――――Dr. E. Robinson gives his impressions from personal
inspection――thus: “Here the interior and loftier peaks of
the great circle of Sinai began to open upon us――black,
rugged, desolate summits; and as we advanced, the dark
and frowning front of Sinai itself (the present Horeb
of the monks) began to appear.――――The scenery reminded
me strongly of the mountains around the Mer de Glace
in Switzerland. I had never seen a spot more wild and
desolate.――――As we advanced the valley still opened
wider and wider, shut in on each side by lofty granite
ridges with rugged, shattered peaks a thousand feet high,
while the face of Horeb rose directly before us. Both my
companion and myself involuntarily exclaimed: “Here is
room enough for a large encampment”! Reaching the top
of the ascent, a fine broad plain lay before us, sloping
down gently toward the S. S. E., inclosed by rugged
and venerable mountains of dark granite, stern, naked,
splintered peaks and ridges, of indescribable grandeur;
and terminated at the distance of more than a mile by the
bold and awful front of Horeb, rising perpendicularly in
frowning majesty from twelve to fifteen hundred feet high.
It was a scene of solemn grandeur, and the associations
which at the moment rushed upon our minds, were almost
overwhelming.” [Robinson’s Researches Vol. I. p. 130,
131.]――――This plain stretching out from the foot of this
precipitous mount, is supposed to have been the identical
place where the people were gathered to see the mountain
all aflame――to hear the sound of trumpet long and loud,
and to listen to the voice of God proclaiming the words
of his law.
40 – שוא
41 – The word necromancer comes from the Greek; necros――a dead
one; and “mantis” divination――gaining superhuman knowledge
from the dead.
42 – See a “State trial in ancient Egypt,” fully reported in
Bib. Sacra, July, 1869, p. 577. This is written in the
hieratic text; is known as “The Judicial Papyrus”; is now
in the museum of Turin and is presumed to be the official
record.
43 – Of Ptolemy Philadelphus Prof. Wines says――“He was
delighted with the laws of Moses; pronounced his
legislation wonderful; was astonished at the depth of his
wisdom, and professed to have learned from him the true
science of government.”――Wines’ Commentaries. See also
Josephus against Apion, p. 308.
44 – Prof. Wines’ Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient
Hebrews, pp. 312–388, a work which elaborates its
theme very fully, substantiating its points by copious
authorities.
45 – Taylor’s Manual of History, p. 335. Moses and the Lord
speaking through him (Deut. 1: 16, 17 and 16: 18–20)
had announced this doctrine more than two thousand
years before. It is fair to presume that the earlier
promulgation had sent its influence down the ages to
Justinian’s time.
46 – Jacob might properly be called a “Syrian” as having lived
full twenty years with Laban the Syrian in the great
_Aram_ of the East. The point of his history where he was
“ready to perish” was that of the great famine in Canaan
which drove him and his household into Egypt for bread.
47 – Greppo’s Essay, p. 235.
48 – Greppo’s Essay, p. 237.
Transcriber’s Notes.
The following corrections have been made in the text:
TOC:
Sentence starting: (7) It is reckless....
– ‘recklesss’ replaced with ‘reckless’
((7) It is reckless)
Page 35:
Sentence starting: But these differences....
– ‘discrepances’ replaced with ‘discrepancies’
(are not discrepancies)
Page 61:
Sentence starting: Placing 450 in the above....
– ‘A. D.’ replaced with ‘B. C.’
(Usher’s figures B. C. 1491.)
Page 67:
Sentence starting: 8. Methuselah....
– ‘Methusaleh’ replaced with ‘Methuselah’
(8. Methuselah)
Page 71:
Sentence starting: This approximates toward harmony....
– ‘Baylonian’ replaced with ‘Babylonian’
(also the Babylonian, B. C. 6158,)
Sentence starting: The approach toward harmony....
– ‘Baylonian’ replaced with ‘Babylonian’
(the Babylonian and the Chinese)
Page 74:
Sentence starting: Eratosthenes and Apollodorus,...
– ‘Appollodorus’ replaced with ‘Apollodorus’
(Eratosthenes and Apollodorus,)
Page 165:
Sentence starting: A coincidence so minute....
– ‘befor’ replaced with ‘before’
(might appear before the king)
Page 178:
Sentence starting: Like the somewhat similar....
– ‘Melchisedek’ replaced with ‘Melchizedek’ for consistency
(priest of Salem, Melchizedek,)
Page 212:
Sentence starting: If there were godly men....
– ‘iexpressible’ replaced with ‘inexpressible’
(with inexpressible hope and)
Page 214:
Sentence starting: The historian alludes to yet....
– ‘figheth’ replaced with ‘fighteth’
(Jehovah fighteth for them)
Sentence starting: The case falls into the....
– ‘dipleasure’ replaced with ‘displeasure’
(his displeasure against sin,)
Page 222:
Sentence starting: THE EVENTS NEAR AND AT SINAI....
– The header for Chapter XV was omitted from the text. It has
been reproduced from the information in the Table of Contents.
(THE EVENTS NEAR AND AT SINAI.)
Page 412:
Sentence starting: It was too painful for me....
– ‘sactuary’ replaced with ‘sanctuary’
(into the sanctuary of God;)
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Pentateuch, in Its Progressive Revelations of God to Men" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.