We are now to study the first five books of the Bible, known as the
Pentateuch. This word "Pentateuch" is not in the Bible; it is a Greek
word signifying literally the Five-fold Work; from penta, five, and teuchos, which in the later Greek means roll or volume.
The
Jews in the time of our Lord always considered these five books as one
connected work; they called the whole sometimes "Torah," or "The Law,"
sometimes "The Law of Moses," sometimes "The Five-fifths of the Law." It
was originally one book, and it is not easy to determine at what time
its division into five parts took place.
Later criticism is also
inclined to add to the Pentateuch the Book of Joshua, and to say that
the first six books of the Bible were put into their present form by the
same hand. "The Hexateuch," or Six-fold Work, has taken the place in
these later discussions of the Pentateuch, or Five-fold Work. Doubtless
there is good reason for the new classification, but it will be more
convenient to begin with the traditional division and speak first of the
five books reckoned by the later Jews as the "Torah," or the
Five-fifths of the Law.
Who wrote these books? Our modern Hebrew Bibles give them the general title,
"Quinque Libri Mosis."
This means "The Five Books of Moses." But Moses could never have given
them this title, for these are Latin words, and it is not possible that
Moses should have used the Latin language because there was no Latin
language in the world until many hundreds of years after the day of
Moses. The Latin title was given to them, of course, by the editors who
compiled them. The preface and the explanatory notes in these Hebrew
Bibles are also written in Latin.
But over this Latin title in the
Hebrew Bible is the Hebrew word "Torah." This was the name by which
these books were chiefly known among the Jews; it signifies simply "The
Law." This title gives us no information, then, concerning the
authorship of these books.
When we look at our English Bibles we find no separation, as in the
Hebrew Bible, of these five books from the rest of the Old Testament
writings, but we find over each one of them a title by which it is
ascribed to Moses as its author, -- "The First Book of Moses, commonly
called Genesis;" "The Second Book of Moses, commonly called Exodus;" and
so on. But when I look into my Hebrew Bible again no such title is
there. Nothing is said about Moses in the Hebrew title to Genesis.
It
is certain that if Moses wrote these books he did not call them
"Genesis," "Exodus," "Leviticus," "Numbers," "Deuteronomy;" for these
words, again, come from languages that he never heard. Four of them are
Greek words, and one of them, Numbers, is a Latin word. These names were
given to the several books at a very late day. What are their names in
the Hebrew Bible? Each of them is called by the first word, or some of
the first words in the book. The Jews were apt to name their books, as
we name our hymns, by the initial word or words; thus they called the
first of these five books, "Bereshith," "In the Beginning;" the second
one "Veelleh Shemoth," "Now these are the names;" the third one
"Vayikra," "And he called," and so on. The titles in our English Bible
are much more significant and appropriate than these original Hebrew
titles; thus Genesis signifies origin, and Genesis is the Book of
Origins; Exodus means departure, and the book describes the departure of
Israel from Egypt; Leviticus points out the fact that the book is
mainly occupied with the Levitical legislation; Numbers gives a history
of the numbering of the people, and Deuteronomy, which means the second
law, contains what seems to be a recapitulation and reenactment of the
legislation of the preceding books. But these English titles, which are
partly translated and partly transferred to English from older Latin and
Greek titles, tell us nothing trustworthy about the authorship of the
books.
How, then, you desire to know, did these books come to be known as the books of Moses?
"They
were quoted," answer some, "and thus accredited by our Lord and his
apostles. They are frequently mentioned in the New Testament as inspired
and authoritative books; they are referred to as the writings of Moses;
we have the testimony of Jesus Christ and of his apostles to their
genuineness and authenticity." Let us see how much truth this answer
contains. It confronts us with a very important matter which may as well
be settled before we go on.
It is true, to begin with, that Jesus
and the Evangelists do quote from these books, and that they ascribe to
Moses some of the passages which they quote. The soundest criticism
cannot impugn the honesty or the intelligence of such quotations. There
is good reason, as we shall see, for believing that a large part of this
literature was written in the time of Moses, and under the eye of
Moses, if not by his hand. In a certain important sense, which will be
clearer to us as we go on, this literature is all Mosaic. The reference
to it by the Lord and his apostles is therefore legitimate.
But this reference does by no means warrant the sweeping conclusion
that the five books of the law were all and entire from the pen of the
Lawgiver. Our Lord nowhere says that the first five books of the Old
Testament were all written by Moses. Much less does he teach that the
contents of these books are all equally inspired and authoritative.
Indeed he quotes from them several times for the express purpose of
repudiating their doctrines and repealing their legislation. In the very
fore-front of his teaching stands a stern array of judgments in which
undoubted commandments of the Mosaic law are expressly condemned and set
aside, some of them because they are inadequate and superficial, some
of them because they are morally defective. "Ye have heard that it was
said to them of old time" thus and thus; "but I say unto you" -- and
then follow words that directly contradict the old legislation. After
quoting two of the commandments of the Decalogue and giving them an
interpretation that wholly transforms them, he proceeds to cite several
old laws from these Mosaic books, in order to set his own word firmly
against them. One of these also is a law of the Decalogue itself. There
can be little doubt that the third commandment is quoted and criticised
by our Lord, in this discourse. That commandment forbids, not chiefly
profanity, but perjury; by implication it permits judicial oaths. And
Jesus expressly forbids judicial oaths. "Swear not at all." I am aware
that this is not the usual interpretation of these words, but I believe
that it is the only meaning that the words will bear. Not to insist upon
this, however, several other examples are given in the discourse
concerning which there can be no question.
Jesus quotes the law of
divorce from Deuteronomy xxiv.1,2. "When a man taketh a wife and
marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes,
because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write
her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of
his house. And when she is departed out of his house she may go and be
another man's wife." These are the words of a law which Moses is
represented as uttering by the authority of Jehovah. This law, as thus
expressed, Jesus Christ unqualifiedly repeals. "I say unto you that
every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, maketh her an adulteress, and whosoever shall marry her
when she is put away committeth adultery."
The law of revenge is
treated in the same way. "Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an
eye and a tooth for a tooth." Who said this? Was it some rabbin of the
olden time? It was Moses; nay, the old record says that this is the word
of the Lord by Moses: "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying [among other
things], If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done so
shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered
unto him." (Lev. xxiv.19,20.) So in Exodus xxi.24, "Thou shalt give life
for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, burning for
burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." It is sometimes said that
these retaliations were simply permitted under the Mosaic law, but this
is a great error; they were enjoined: "Thine eye shall not pity," it is
said in another place (Deut. xix.21); "life shall go for life, eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." This law of
retaliation is an integral part of the moral legislation of the
Pentateuch. It is no part of the ceremonial law; it is an ethical rule.
It is clearly ascribed to Moses; it is distinctly said to have been
enacted by command of God. But Christ in the most unhesitating manner
condemns and countermands it.
"Ye have heard," he continues, "that it was said, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies,
and pray for them that persecute you." "But this," it is objected, "is
not a quotation from the Old Testament. These words do not occur in that
old legislation." At any rate Jesus introduces them with the very same
formula which he has all along been applying to the words which he has
quoted from the Mosaic law. It is evident that he means to give the
impression that they are part of that law. He is not careful in any of
these cases to quote the exact words of the law, but he does give the
meaning of it. He gives the exact meaning of it here. The Mosaic law
commanded Jews to love their neighbors, members of their own tribe, but
to hate the people of surrounding tribes: "An Ammonite or a Moabite
shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth
generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of the
Lord for ever.... Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity
all thy days for ever." (Deut. xxiii.3-6.)
"When the Lord thy God
shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and
shalt cast out many nations before thee, ... then thou shalt utterly
destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto
them." (Deut. vii.1,2.) This is the spirit of much of this ancient
legislation; and these laws were, if the record is true, literally
executed, in after times, by Joshua and Samuel, upon the people of
Canaan. And these bloody commands, albeit they have a "Thus said the
Lord" behind every one of them, Jesus, in the great discourse which is
the charter of his kingdom, distinctly repeals.
Such is the method
by which our Lord sometimes deals with the Old Testament. It is by no
means true that he assumes this attitude toward all parts of it.
Sometimes he quotes Lawgiver and Prophets in confirmation of his own
words; often he refers to these ancient Scriptures as preparing the way
for his kingdom and foreshadowing his person and his work. Nay, he even
says of that law which we are now studying that not one jot or tittle
shall in any wise pass from it till all things be accomplished. What he
means by that we shall be able by and by to discover. But these passages
which I have cited make it clear that Jesus Christ cannot be appealed
to in support of the traditional view of the nature of these old
writings.
It is needful, thus, on the threshold of our argument, to have a
clear understanding respecting the nature of the testimony borne by our
Lord and his apostles to this ancient literature. It is upon this that
the advocates of the traditional view of the Old Testament wholly rely.
"Christ was authority," they say; "the New Testament writers were
inspired; you all admit this; now Christ and the New Testament writers
constantly quote the Scriptures of the Old Testament as inspired and as
authoritative. Therefore they must be the infallible word of God." To
this it is sufficient to reply, Christ and the apostles do quote the Old
Testament Scriptures; they find a great treasure of inspired and
inspiring truth in them, and so can we; they recognize the fact that
they are organically related to that kingdom which Christ came to found,
and that they record the earlier stages of that great course of
revelation which culminates in Christ; but they nowhere pronounce any of
these writings free from error; there is not a hint or suggestion
anywhere in the New Testament that any of the writings of the Old
Testament are infallible; and Christ himself, as we have seen, clearly
warns his disciples that they do not even furnish a safe rule of moral
conduct. After this, the attempt to prove the inerrancy of the Old
Testament by summoning as witnesses the writers of the New Testament may
as well be abandoned.
But did not Jesus say, "Search the
Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they
that testify of me?" Well, if he had said that, it would not prove that
the Scriptures they searched were errorless. The injunction would have
all the force to-day that it ever had. One may very profitably study
documents which are far from infallible. This was not, however, what our
Lord said. If you will look into your Revised Version you will see that
his words, addressed to the Jews, are not a command but an assertion:
"Ye search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life"
(John v.39); if you searched them carefully you would find some
testimony there concerning me. It is not an injunction to search the
Scriptures; it is simply the statement of the fact that the Jews to whom
he was speaking did search the Scriptures, and searched them as many
people in our own time do, to very little purpose.
For more information on the first five books of the Bible and the role Moses played in it, click on the link below and dive into more reading about the authorship, the contrast and the impelling message the Holy Bible still holds for us all. Until the day of His Return. Go and be blessed.
reposted by DeMaster Thomas courtesy of:
