STUDY III
THE BIBLE AS A DIVINE REVELATION
VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF REASON
The Claims of the Bible and its Surface Evidence of Credibility--Its Antiquity
and Preservation--Its Moral Influence--Motives of the
Writers--General Character of the Writings--The Books of Moses--
The Law of Moses--Peculiarities of the Government Instituted by
Moses--It was not a System of Priestcraft--Instructions to Civil
Rulers--Rich and Poor on a Common Level Before the Law--Safeguards
Against Tampering With the Rights of the People--The Priesthood
Not a Favored Class, How Supported, etc.--Oppression of Foreigners,
Widows, Orphans and Servants Guarded Against--The
Prophets of the Bible--Is There a Common Bond of Union Between the
Law, the Prophets and the New Testament Writers?--Miracles Not
Unreasonable--The Reasonable Conclusion.
THE Bible is the torch of civilization and liberty. Its influence
for good in society has been recognized by the greatest
statesmen, even though they for the most part have
looked at it through the various glasses of conflicting creeds,
which, while upholding the Bible, grievously misrepresent
its teachings. The grand old book is unintentionally but
woefully misrepresented by its friends, many of whom
would lay down life on its behalf; and yet they do it more
vital injury than its foes, by claiming its support to their
long-revered misconceptions of its truth, received through
the traditions of their fathers. Would that such would
awake, re-examine their oracle, and put to confusion its
enemies by disarming them of their weapons!
Since the light of nature leads us to expect a fuller revelation
of God than that which nature supplies, the reasonable,
thinking mind will be prepared to examine the claims
of anything purporting to be a divine revelation, which
[A38]
bears a reasonable surface evidence of the truthfulness of
such claims. The Bible claims to be such a revelation from
God, and it does come to us with sufficient surface evidence
as to the probable correctness of its claims, and gives us a
reasonable hope that closer investigation will disclose more
complete and positive evidence that it is indeed the Word
of God.
The Bible is the oldest book in existence; it has outlived
the storms of thirty centuries. Men have endeavored by every
means possible to banish it from the face of the earth:
they have hidden it, burned it, made it a crime punishable
with death to have it in possession, and the most bitter and
relentless persecutions have been waged against those who
had faith in it; but still the book lives. Today, while many
of its foes slumber in death, and hundreds of volumes written
to discredit it and to overthrow its influence, are long
since forgotten, the Bible has found its way into every nation
and language of earth, over two hundred different
translations of it having been made. The fact that this book
has survived so many centuries, notwithstanding such unparalleled
efforts to banish and destroy it, is at least strong
circumstantial evidence that the great Being whom it
claims as its Author has also been its Preserver.
It is also true that the moral influence of the Bible is uniformly
good. Those who become careful students of its
pages are invariably elevated to a purer life. Other writings
upon religion and the various sciences have done good and
have ennobled and blessed mankind, to some extent; but
all other books combined have failed to bring the joy, peace
and blessing to the groaning creation that the Bible has
brought to both the rich and the poor, to the learned and
the unlearned. The Bible is not a book to be read merely: it
is a book to be studied with care and thought; for God's
thoughts are higher than our thoughts, and his ways than
[A39]
our ways. And if we would comprehend the plan and
thoughts of the infinite God, we must bend all our energies
to that important work. The richest treasures of truth do
not always lie on the surface.
This book throughout constantly points and refers to one
prominent character, Jesus of Nazareth, who, it claims, was
the Son of God. From beginning to end his name, and office,
and work, are made prominent. That a man called
Jesus of Nazareth lived, and was somewhat noted, about
the time indicated by the writers of the Bible, is a fact of
history outside the Bible, and it is variously and fully corroborated.
That this Jesus was crucified because he had
rendered himself offensive to the Jews and their priesthood
is a further fact established by history outside the evidence
furnished by the New Testament writers. The writers of the
New Testament (except Paul and Luke) were the personal
acquaintances and disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, whose
doctrines their writings set forth.
The existence of any book implies motive on the part of
the writer. We therefore inquire, What motives could have
inspired these men to espouse the cause of this person? He
was condemned to death and crucified as a malefactor by
the Jews, the most religious among them assenting to and
demanding his death, as one unfit to live. And in espousing
his cause, and promulgating his doctrines, these men
braved contempt, deprivation and bitter persecution,
risked life itself, and in some cases even suffered martyrdom.
Admitting that while he lived Jesus was a remarkable
person, in both his life and his teaching, what motive could
there have been for any to espouse his cause after he was
dead?--especially when his death was so ignominious? And
if we suppose that these writers invented their narratives,
and that Jesus was their imaginary or ideal hero, how absurd
it would be to suppose that sane men, after claiming
[A40]
that he was the Son of God, that he had been begotten in a
supernatural way, had supernatural powers by which he
had healed lepers, restored sight to those born blind, caused
the deaf to hear, and even raised the dead--how very absurd
to suppose that they would wind up the story of such a
character by stating that a little band of his enemies executed
him as a felon, while all his friends and disciples, and
among them the writers themselves, forsook him and fled in
the trying moment?
The fact that profane history does not agree in some respects
with these writers should not lead us to regard their
records as untrue. Those who do thus conclude should assign
and prove some motive on the part of these writers for
making false statements. What motives could have
prompted them? Could they reasonably have hoped
thereby for fortune, or fame, or power, or any earthly advantage?
The poverty of Jesus' friends, and the unpopularity
of their hero himself with the great religionists of
Judea, contradict such a thought; while the facts that he
died as a malefactor, a disturber of the peace, and that he
was made of no reputation, held forth no hope of enviable
fame or earthly advantage to those who should attempt to
re-establish his doctrine. On the contrary, if such had been
the object of those who preached Jesus, would they not
speedily have given it up when they found that it brought
disgrace, persecution, imprisonment, stripes and even
death? Reason plainly teaches that men who sacrificed
home, reputation, honor and life; who lived not for present
gratification; but whose central aim was to elevate their
fellowmen, and who inculcated morals of the highest type,
were not only possessed of a motive, but further that their
motive must have been pure and their object grandly sublime.
Reason further declares that the testimony of such
men, actuated only by pure and good motives, is worthy of
[A41]
ten times the weight and consideration of ordinary writers.
Nor were these men fanatics: they were men of sound and
reasonable mind, and furnished in every case a reason for
their faith and hope; and they were perseveringly faithful
to those reasonable convictions.
And what we have here noticed is likewise applicable to
the various writers of the Old Testament. They were, in the
main, men notable for their fidelity to the Lord; and this
history as impartially records and reproves their weaknesses
and shortcomings as it commends their virtues and faithfulness.
This must astonish those who presume the Bible to
be a manufactured history, designed to awe men into reverence
of a religious system. There is a straightforwardness
about the Bible that stamps it as truth. Knaves, desirous of
representing a man as great, and especially if desirous of
presenting some of his writings as inspired of God, would
undoubtedly paint such a one's character blameless and
noble to the last degree. The fact that such a course has not
been pursued in the Bible is reasonable evidence that it was
not fraudulently gotten up to deceive.
Having, then, reason to expect a revelation of God's will
and plan, and having found that the Bible, which claims to
be that revelation, was written by men whose motives we
see no reason to impugn, but which, on the contrary, we see
reason to approve, let us examine the character of the writings
claimed as inspired, to see whether their teachings correspond
with the character we have reasonably imputed to
God, and whether they bear internal evidence of their
truthfulness.
The first five books of the New Testament and several of
the Old Testament are narratives or histories of facts
known to the writers and vouched for by their characters. It
is manifest to all that it did not require a special revelation
simply to tell the truth with reference to matters with which
[A42]
they were intimately and fully acquainted. Yet, since God
desired to make a revelation to men, the fact that these histories
of passing events have a bearing on that revelation
would be a sufficient ground to make the inference a reasonable
one, that God would supervise, and so arrange, that
the honest writer whom he selected for the work should be
brought in contact with the needful facts. The credibility of
these historic portions of the Bible rests almost entirely
upon the characters and motives of their writers. Good men
will not utter falsehoods. A pure fountain will not give forth
bitter waters. And the united testimony of these writings silences
any suspicion that their authors would say or do evil,
that good might follow.
It in no way invalidates the truthfulness of certain books
of the Bible, such as Kings, Chronicles, Judges, etc., when
we say that they are simply truthful and carefully kept histories
of prominent events and persons of their times. When
it is remembered that the Hebrew Scriptures contain history,
as well as the law and the prophecies, and that their
histories, genealogies, etc., were the more explicit in detailing
circumstances because of the expectancy that the promised
Messiah would come in a particular line from Abraham,
we see a reason for the recording of certain facts of
history considered indelicate in the light of this twentieth
century. For instance, a clear record of the origin of the nations
of the Moabites and of the Ammonites, and of their
relationship to Abraham and the Israelites, was probably
the necessity in the historian's mind for a full history of
their nativity. (Gen. 19:36-38) Likewise, a very detailed account
of Judah's children is given, of whom came David,
the king, through whom the genealogy of Mary, Jesus'
mother, as well as that of Joseph, her husband (Luke 3:23,31,33,34;
Matt. 1:2-16), is traced back to Abraham.
Doubtless the necessity of thoroughly establishing the pedigree
[A43]
was the more important, since of this tribe (Gen. 49:10)
was to come the ruling King of Israel, as well as the
promised Messiah, and hence the minutiae of detail not
given in other instances. Gen. 38
There may be similar or different reasons for other historic
facts recorded in the Bible, of which by and by we may
see the utility, which, were it not a history, but simply a
treatise on morals, might without detriment be omitted;
though no one can reasonably say that the Bible anywhere
countenances impurity. It is well, furthermore, to remember
that the same facts may be more or less delicately stated
in any language; and that while the translators of the Bible
were, rightly, too conscientious to omit any of the record,
yet they lived in a day less particular in the choice of refined
expressions than ours; and the same may be surmised of the
early Bible times and habits of expression. Certainly the
most fastidious can find no objection on this score to any
expression of the New Testament.
The Books of Moses and the
Laws Therein Promulgated
The first five books of the Bible are known as the Five
Books of Moses, though they nowhere mention his name as
their author. That they were written by Moses, or under his
supervision, is a reasonable inference; the account of his
death and burial being properly added by his secretary.
The omission of the positive statement that these books
were written by Moses is no proof against the thought; for
had another written them to deceive and commit a fraud,
he would surely have claimed that they were written by the
great leader and statesman of Israel, in order to make good
his imposition. (See Deut. 31:9-27.) Of one thing we are
certain,
Moses did lead out of Egypt the Hebrew nation. He
did organize them as a nation under the laws set forth in
[A44]
these books; and the Hebrew nation, by common consent,
for over three thousand years, has claimed these books as a
gift to them from Moses, and has held them so sacred that a
jot or tittle must not be altered--thus giving assurance of
the purity of the text.
These writings of Moses contain the only credible history
extant, of the epoch which it traverses. Chinese history affects
to begin at creation, telling how God went out on the
water in a skiff, and, taking in his hand a lump of earth, cast
it into the water. That lump of earth, it claims, became this
world, etc. But the entire story is so devoid of reason that
the merest child of intelligence would not be deceived by it.
On the contrary, the account given in Genesis starts with
the reasonable assumption that a God, a Creator, an intelligent
First Cause, already existed. It treats not of God's
having a beginning, but of his work and of its beginning
and its systematic orderly progress--"In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth." Then stepping over the
origin of the earth without detail or explanation, the narrative
of the six days [epochs] of preparing it for man proceeds.
That account is substantially corroborated by the accumulating
light of science for four thousand years; hence
it is far more reasonable to accept the claim that its author,
Moses, was divinely inspired, than to assume that the intelligence
of one man was superior to the combined intelligence
and research of the rest of the race in three thousand
years since, aided by modern implements and millions
of money.
Look next at the system of laws laid down in these writings.
They certainly were without an equal, either in their
day or since, until this twentieth century; and the laws of
this century are based upon the principles laid down in the
Mosaic Law, and framed in the main by men who acknowledged
the Mosaic Law as of divine origin.
[A45]
The Decalogue is a brief synopsis of the whole law. Those
Ten Commandments enjoin a code of worship and morals
that must strike every student as remarkable; and if never
before known, and now found among the ruins and relics
of Greece, or Rome, or Babylon (nations which have risen
and fallen again, long since those laws were given), they
would be regarded as marvelous if not supernatural. But
familiarity with them and their claims has begotten
measurable indifference, so that their real greatness is unnoticed
except by the few. True, those commandments do
not teach of Christ; but they were given, not to Christians,
but to Hebrews; not to teach faith in a ransom, but to
convince men of their sinful state, and need of a ransom.
And the substance of those commandments was grandly
epitomized by the illustrious founder of Christianity, in
the words: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and
with all thy strength"; and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself." Mark 12:30,31
The government instituted by Moses differed from all
others, ancient and modern, in that it claimed to be that of
the Creator himself, and the people were held accountable
to him; their laws and institutions, civil and religious,
claimed to emanate from God, and, as we shall presently
see, were in perfect harmony with what reason teaches us to
be God's character. The Tabernacle, in the center of the
camp, had in its "Most Holy" apartment a manifestation of
Jehovah's presence as their King, whence by supernatural
means they received instruction for the proper administration
of their affairs as a nation. An order of priests was
established, which had complete charge of the Tabernacle,
and through them alone access and communion with Jehovah
was permitted. The first thought of some in this connection
would perhaps be: "Ah! there we have the object of
[A46]
their organization: with them, as with other nations, the
priests ruled the people, imposing upon their credulity and
exciting their fears for their own honor and profit." But
hold, friend; let us not too hastily assume anything. Where
there is such good opportunity for testing this matter by the
facts, it would not be reasonable to jump to conclusions
without the facts. The unanswerable evidences are contrary
to such suppositions. The rights and the privileges of the
priests were limited; they were given no civil power whatever,
and wholly lacked opportunity for using their office to
impose upon the rights or consciences of the people; and
this arrangement was made by Moses, a member of the
priestly line.
As God's representative in bringing Israel out of Egyptian
bondage, the force of circumstances had centralized
the government in his hand, and made the meek Moses an
autocrat in power and authority, though from the meekness
of his disposition he was in fact the overworked servant
of the people, whose very life was being exhausted by the
onerous cares of his position. At this juncture a civil government
was established, which was virtually a democracy.
Let us not be misunderstood: Regarded as unbelievers
would esteem it, Israel's government was a democracy, but
regarded in the light of its own claims, it was a theocracy,
i.e., a divine government; for the laws given by God,
through Moses, permitted of no amendments: they must
neither add to nor take from their code of laws. Thus seen,
Israel's government was different from any other civil government,
either before or since. "The Lord said unto Moses,
Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom
thou knowest to be elders of the people and officers over
them; and bring them unto the Tabernacle of the congregation,
that they may stand there with thee. And I will
come down and talk with thee there, and I will take of the
[A47]
spirit which is upon thee and will put it upon them, and
they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that
thou bear it not alone." (Num. 11:16,17. See also verses
24
to 30for an example of true and guileless statesmanship
and meekness.) Moses, rehearsing this matter, says: "So I
took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known [of influence],
and made them heads over you: captains over
thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over
fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your
tribes." Deut. 1:15; Exod. 18:13-26
Thus it appears that this distinguished lawgiver, so far
from seeking to perpetuate or increase his own power by
placing the government of the people under the control of
his direct relatives, of the priestly tribe, to use their religious
authority to fetter the rights and liberties of the people, on
the contrary introduced to the people a form of government
calculated to cultivate the spirit of liberty. The histories
of other nations and rulers show no parallel to this. In
every case the ruler has sought his own aggrandizement
and greater power. Even in instances where such have
aided in establishing republics, it has appeared from subsequent
events that they did it through policy, to obtain favor
with the people, and to perpetuate their own power.
Circumstanced as Moses was, any ambitious man, governed
by policy and attempting to perpetuate a fraud upon
the people, would have worked for greater centralization of
power in himself and his family; especially as this would
have seemed an easy task from the religious authority being
already in that tribe, and from the claim of this nation to be
governed by God, from the Tabernacle. Nor is it supposable
that a man capable of forming such laws, and of ruling
such a people, would be so dull of comprehension as not to
see what the tendency of his course would be. So completely
was the government of the people put into their own hands,
[A48]
that though it was stipulated that the weightier cases which
those governors could not decide were to be brought unto
Moses, yet they themselves were the judges as to what cases
went before Moses: "The cause which is too hard for you,
bring it unto me, and I will hear it." Deut. 1:17
Thus seen, Israel was a republic whose officers acted under
a divine commission. And to the confusion of those who
ignorantly claim that the Bible sanctions an established
empire rule over the people, instead of "a government of
the people by the people," be it noted that this republican
form of civil government continued for over four hundred
years. And it was then changed for that of a kingdom at the
request of "The Elders," without the Lord's approval, who
said to Samuel, then acting as a sort of informal president,
"Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they shall
say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have
rejected Me, that I should not reign over them." At God's
instance Samuel explained to the people how their rights
and liberties would be disregarded, and how they would
become servants by such a change; yet they had become infatuated
with the popular idea, illustrated all around them
in other nations. (1 Sam. 8:6-22) In considering this account
of their desire for a king, who is not impressed with the
thought that Moses could have firmly established himself
at the head of a great empire without difficulty?
While Israel as a whole constituted one nation, yet the
tribal division was ever recognized after Jacob's death.
Each family, or tribe, by common consent, elected or recognized
certain members as its representatives, or chiefs. This
custom was continued even through their long slavery in
Egypt. These were called chiefs or elders, and it was to these
that Moses delivered the honor and power of civil government;
whereas, had he desired to centralize power in himself
[A49]
and his own family, these would have been the last men
to honor with power and office.
The instructions given those appointed to civil rulership
as from God are a model of simplicity and purity. Moses
declares to the people, in the hearing of these judges: "I
charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes
between your brethren, and judge righteously between every
man and his brother, and the stranger [foreigner] that is
with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye
shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be
afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God's; and the
cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will
hear it." (Deut. 1:16,17) Such hard cases were, after
Moses' death, brought directly to the Lord through the
High Priest, the answer being Yes or No, by the Urim and
Thummim.
In view of these facts, what shall we say of the theory
which suggests that these books were written by knavish
priests to secure to themselves influence and power over the
people? Would such men for such a purpose forge records
destructive to the very aims they sought to advance--
records which prove conclusively that the great Chief of Israel,
and one of their own tribe, at the instance of God, cut
off the priesthood from civil power by placing that power in
the hands of the people? Does any one consider such a conclusion
reasonable?
Again, it is worthy of note that the laws of the most advanced
civilization, in this twentieth century, do not more
carefully provide that rich and poor shall stand on a common
level in accountability before the civil law. Absolutely
no distinction was made by Moses' laws. And as for the protection
of the people from the dangers incident to some becoming
very poor and others excessively wealthy and powerful,
[A50]
no other national law has ever been enacted which so
carefully guarded this point. Moses' law provided for a restitution
every fiftieth year--their Jubilee year. This law, by
preventing the absolute alienation of property, thereby prevented
its accumulation in the hands of a few. (Lev. 25:9,13-23,27-30)
In fact, they were taught to consider themselves
brethren, and to act accordingly; to assist each other
without compensation, and to take no usury of one another.
See Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36,37; Num. 26:52-56.
All the laws were made public, thus preventing designing
men from successfully tampering with the rights of the
people. The laws were exposed in such a manner that any
who chose might copy them; and, in order that the poorest
and most unlearned might not be ignorant of them, it was
made the duty of the priests to read them to the people at
their septennial festivals. (Deut. 31:10-13) Is it reasonable
to suppose that such laws and arrangements were designed
by bad men, or by men scheming to defraud the people of
their liberties and happiness? Such an assumption would
be unreasonable.
In its regard for the rights and interests of foreigners, and
of enemies, the Mosaic law was thirty-two centuries ahead
of its times--if indeed the laws of the most civilized of today
equal it in fairness and benevolence. We read:
"Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger
[foreigner] as for one of your own country; for I am the
Lord your God." Exod. 12:49; Lev. 24:22
"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall
not vex him; but 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."
Lev. 19:33,34
"If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou
[A51]
shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of
him that hateth thee lying under his burden, wouldst thou
cease to leave thy business and help him? Thou shalt surely
leave it, to join with [assist] him." Exod. 23:4,5, margin
Even the dumb animals were not forgotten. Cruelty to
these as well as to human beings was prohibited strictly. An
ox must not be muzzled while threshing the grain; for the
good reason that any laborer is worthy of his food. Even the
ox and the ass must not plow together, because so unequal
in strength and tread: it would be cruelty. Their rest was
also provided for. Deut. 25:4; 22:10; Exod. 23:12
The priesthood may be claimed by some to have been a
selfish institution, because the tribe of Levites was supported
by the annual tenth, or tithe, of the individual produce
of their brethren of the other tribes. This fact, stated
thus, is an unfair presentation too common to skeptics,
who, possibly ignorantly, thereby misrepresent one of the
most remarkable evidences of God's part in the organization
of that system, and that it was not the work of a selfish
and scheming priesthood. Indeed, it is not infrequently misrepresented
by a modern priesthood, which urges a similar
system now, using that as a precedent, without mentioning
the condition of things upon which it was founded, or its
method of payment.
It was, in fact, founded upon the strictest equity. When
Israel came into possession of the land of Canaan, the Levites
certainly had as much right to a share of the land as
the other tribes; yet, by God's express command, they got
none of it, except certain cities or villages for residence, scattered
among the various tribes, whom they were to serve in
religious things. Nine times is this prohibition given, before
the division of the land. Instead of the land, some equivalent
should surely be provided them, and the tithe was
[A52]
therefore this reasonable and just provision. Nor is this all:
the tithe, though, as we have seen, a just debt, was not enforced
as a tax, but was to be paid as a voluntary contribution.
And no threat bound them to make those contributions:
all depended upon their conscientiousness. The only
exhortations to the people on the subject are as follows:
"Take heed to thyself that thou forsake not the Levite as
long as thou livest upon the earth." (Deut. 12:19) "And
the
Levite that is within thy gates, thou shalt not forsake him;
for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee" [in the land].
Deut. 14:27
Is it, we ask, reasonable to suppose that this order of
things would have been thus arranged by selfish and ambitious
priests?--an arrangement to disinherit themselves
and to make them dependent for support upon their brethren?
Does not reason teach us to the contrary?
In harmony with this, and equally inexplicable on any
other grounds than those claimed--that God is the author
of those laws--is the fact that no special provision was made
for honoring the priesthood. In nothing would imposters be
more careful than to provide reverence and respect for
themselves, and severest penalties and curses upon those
who misused them. But nothing of the kind appears: no
special honor, or reverence, or immunity from violence or
insult, is provided. The common law, which made no distinction
between classes, and was no respecter of persons,
was their only protection. This is the more remarkable because
the treatment of servants, and strangers, and the
aged, was the subject of special legislation. For instance:
Thou shalt not vex nor oppress a stranger, or widow, or fatherless
child; for if they cry at all unto me [to God] I will surely
hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill
you with the sword, and your wives shall be widows and
[A53]
your children fatherless. (Exod. 22:21-24; 23:9; Lev. 19:33,34)
"Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and
needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of strangers that
are in thy land, within thy gates. At his day thou shalt give
him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it, for he is
poor, and setteth his heart upon it; lest he cry against thee
unto the Lord and it be sin unto thee." (Lev. 19:13;
Deut. 24:14,15;
Exod. 21:26,27) "Thou shalt rise up before the
hoary head and honor the face of the old man." (Lev. 19:32.
See also Lev. 19:14.) All this, yet nothing special for
Priests, or Levites, or their tithes.
The sanitary arrangements of the law, so needful to a
poor and long-oppressed people, together with the arrangements
and limitations respecting clean and unclean animals
which might or might not be eaten, are remarkable,
and would, with other features, be of interest if space permitted
their examination, as showing that law to have been
abreast with, if not in advance of, the latest conclusions of
medical science on the subject. The law of Moses had also a
typical character, which we must leave for future consideration;
but even our hasty glance has furnished overwhelming
evidence that this law, which constitutes the very
framework of the entire system of revealed religion, which
the remainder of the Bible elaborates, is truly a marvelous
display of wisdom and justice, especially when its date is
taken into consideration.
In the light of reason, all must admit that it bears no evidence
of being the work of wicked, designing men, but that
it corresponds exactly with what nature teaches to be the
character of God. It gives evidence of his Wisdom, Justice
and Love. And further, the evidently pious and noble lawgiver,
Moses, denies that the laws were his own, and attributes
them to God. (Exod. 24:12; Deut. 9:9-11; Exod. 26:30;
[A54]
Lev. 1:1) In view of his general character, and his commands
to the people not to bear false witness, and to avoid
hypocrisy and lying, is it reasonable to suppose that such a
man bore false witness and palmed off his own views and
laws for those of God? It should be remembered also that
we are examining the present copies of the Bible, and that
therefore the integrity for which it is so marked applies
equally to the successors of Moses; for though bad men
were among those successors, who did seek their own and
not the people's good, it is evident that they did not tamper
with the Sacred Writings, which are pure to this day.
|
