The Christian View of the Old Testament Part 2
After a close study of the Genesis narrative and the numerous attempts of harmonizing it with science, the present writer has become thoroughly convinced that it is impossible to establish a complete, detailed harmony between the Genesis account of creation and the established facts of science without doing violence to the Bible or to science or to both. The only harmony possible is what has been called an "ideal harmony," that is, a harmony not extending to details, but limited to salient features. But this gives away the very position for which the "harmonists" have contended. As Driver says, "If the relative priority of plants and animals, or the period at which the sun and moon were formed, are amongst the details on which harmony cannot be established, what other statement (in the account of creation) can claim acceptance on the ground that it forms part of the narrative of Genesis?"[21]
Admitting now the presence of discrepancies between science and the Old Testament, what becomes of the Old Testament?[22] Must it be {53} discarded as no longer "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness"? Some there are who seem to fear such fate for the book they dearly love. On the other hand, there are mult.i.tudes who calmly admit the claims of science, and at the same time continue to read and study the pages of the Old Testament, a.s.sured that it can still furnish nourishment to their spiritual natures. This att.i.tude of confidence has been made possible, on the one hand, by a broader and truer conception of divine revelation, and, on the other, by a more adequate interpretation of the purpose of the Bible and of the biblical writers.
Believers in G.o.d have come to realize as never before that G.o.d has spoken and still speaks in a variety of ways. Manifestations of G.o.d may be seen on every hand:
The heavens declare the glory of G.o.d; And the firmament showeth his handiwork.
Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth knowledge.[23]
What is the universe but a manifestation of G.o.d? The whole realm of nature is in a real sense a record of divine revelations, which science seeks to interpret. "Now," says A. H. McNeile,[24] "If G.o.d created all things and carries the universe along by the utterance of his power, it is clear that every fresh item of knowledge gained by {54} scientific investigation is a fresh glimpse into the will of G.o.d. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as secular knowledge. A man only makes his studies secular for himself as he divorces them from the thought of G.o.d, so that all the scientific experiments in the world form part of the study of one aspect of G.o.d's Word."
On the other hand the purpose of scripture has come to be more adequately apprehended. The New Testament makes it perfectly clear that the aim of the Old Testament Scriptures is to bring man into harmony with G.o.d, to make him morally and spiritually perfect, and to point to the consummation of the redemptive purpose of G.o.d in and through the Christ.[25] There is no warrant anywhere for the belief that the Old Testament writers meant to teach science of any kind.
This is admitted even by some who insist upon the accuracy of the scientific teaching of the Bible. "It is true that the Scriptures were not designed to teach philosophy, science, or ethnology, or human history as such, and therefore they are not to be studied primarily as sources of information on these subjects."[26] Evidently, then, wherever the Old Testament touches upon questions of science it treats them only in so far as they serve a higher ethical or spiritual purpose. Is it necessary to have absolute scientific accuracy in every detail in order to do this {55} effectively? A moment's thought will show that it is not. The writer heard not long ago a powerful appeal on behalf of the boys in a certain community, in which the speaker referred to the "Gracchi, the most renowned citizens of Athens." The historical inaccuracy in no wise affected the moral force of the appeal. No one would be foolish enough to a.s.sume that the spiritual and ethical value of sermons preached by the early Church fathers is invalidated by the fanciful science mixed with their gospel message.
Who has not heard sermons that created a profound spiritual impression, though their science and history were not altogether faultless? It would seem, then, that in estimating extra-biblical utterances the principle is recognized that "ignorance of some departments of truth does not disqualify a man for knowing and imparting truth about G.o.d; that in order to be a medium of revelation a man does not need to be in advance of his age in secular learning; that intimate communion with G.o.d, a spirit trained to discern spiritual things, a perfect understanding of and zeal for G.o.d's purpose are qualities quite independent of a knowledge of the discoveries of science."[27]
Is it right to raise a different standard for the Scriptures?
"Certainly," say many, "because the Bible is inspired; it is the Word of G.o.d, and G.o.d cannot inspire an untruth of any kind." {56} Now, it may be readily admitted that G.o.d cannot inspire an untruth; but have we any right to argue as if we knew exactly how G.o.d ought to convey a revelation to man? Without entering upon a discussion of the entire subject of inspiration, the question may be raised whether or not inspiration covers purely scientific information. The claim has been put forth by some who believe that the Bible and science are in perfect agreement that this agreement "proves that the scientific element of scripture as well as the doctrinal was within the scope of inspiration."[28] Consistency might seem to require the admission that disagreement would prove that the scientific element does not fall within the scope of inspiration. At any rate, it is of enormous importance to remember, what should be a perfectly obvious principle, that the facts presented in the Bible must determine the answer to the inquiry. In other words, "We can learn what the Bible is only from what the Bible itself says."[29]
One thing is quite certain, namely, that the Bible makes not the slightest claim of being a scientific treatise complete and up-to-date.[30] It is equally true that it does not deny being such a treatise, hence the inquirer is thrown back upon a study of the facts presented in the Bible; and upon the basis of these he must determine whether or not there is reason for believing that scientific {57} knowledge comes within the scope of inspiration. Now, the abstract possibility of G.o.d communicating to man a knowledge of exact scientific facts in a prescientific age need not be denied. It is, however, a question whether G.o.d could have communicated such facts to man three thousand years ago without robbing him of his personality and changing him into a mechanism. So far as the ways of G.o.d are known from experience, observation, history, and other sources, he has always treated with respect and consideration the powers and faculties of his chief creature. "Had inspired men," says Dods,[31] "introduced into their writings information which antic.i.p.ated the discoveries of science, their state of mind would be inconceivable, and revelation would be a source of confusion. G.o.d's methods are harmonious with one another, and as he has given men natural faculties to acquire scientific knowledge and historical information, he did not stultify this gift by imparting such knowledge in a miraculous and unintelligible manner." The same truth is expressed by H. E. Ryle in these words: "We do not expect instruction upon matters of physical inquiry from revelation in the written Word. G.o.d's other gifts to men, of learning, perseverance, calculation, and the like, have been and are a true source of revelation. But scripture supplies no short cut for the intellect. Where {58} man's intellectual powers may hope to attain to the truth, be it in the region of historical, scientific, and critical study, we have no warrant to expect an antic.i.p.ation of results through the interposition of supernatural instruction in the letter of scripture.... Scripture is divinely inspired, not to release men from the toil of mental inquiry, but to lead and instruct their souls in things of eternal salvation."[32] This is not an arbitrary limitation of the scope of inspiration; it is a conclusion based upon a careful consideration of the facts of science and of the Bible, which seem to furnish sufficient evidence that the biblical writers were not in any marked degree in advance of their age in the knowledge of physical facts or laws. In other words, the Bible is primarily a book of religion, hence religion, and not science, is to be looked for in its pages. Altogether too much time has been spent in an effort to find in it scientific truth in a scientific form. Such attempts clearly disregard the purpose of the biblical writers as interpreted in the New Testament.
And could a Divine Providence have chosen a different method? Even now discoveries follow one another so fast in the realm of science that no book remains a standard work for more than a few years. It seems obvious, therefore, that a book written thousands of years ago could not remain a standard scientific work for all times. {59} But a.s.suming for the sake of argument that G.o.d had communicated the knowledge of scientific facts to these writers--evidence for which is entirely lacking--what would have been the result? Later occurrences suggest what might have happened. The great ma.s.s of people would have looked upon teachers of strange science as heretics and madmen, and would have rejected not only their scientific teaching but their religious teaching as well. What a loss that would have been to mankind! No serious loss would come to men if they were left a while longer in ignorance concerning scientific matters, but very serious loss would come to them by continuing in their lower religious and ethical beliefs and practices. The only way to make the higher religious truth understood was to present it in a form easily apprehended by the people. To do this is the chief purpose of the primitive, _prescientific science_ of the Old Testament Scriptures.
The peculiar element in scripture is the spirit and religious atmosphere which permeate all its parts and give to the Bible a unique place among the literatures of the world. This is the divine element due to inspiration. It is this element which establishes a gulf between the Hebrew account of creation and the cosmologies of other nations. Though the biblical writers had very much the same idea about the form and general {60} arrangement of the visible world as we find among other peoples--ideas that have satisfied at all times the majority of men even among nations with a pretense to culture, namely, the cosmology of appearances--these ideas were all connected with their sublime faith in Jehovah: to his omnipotence they referred the existence of the world, and they made all its changes depend entirely on his will. In their monotheistic religion they secured the foundation of a clear and simple cosmology different from the grotesque cosmologies of other nations and yet not beyond the demands of men of a primitive type and of simple mind, who were full of a lively imagination, but not much accustomed to a.n.a.lyze phenomena or their causes.
In this connection it may prove helpful to remember what, according to the biblical viewpoint and in the light of history, was the contribution of Israel to the development of the human race. "Israel,"
says G. W. Jordan,[33] "is comparatively young, politically it is provincial, socially it is not brilliant, in the realm of science it is narrow and dependent; yet when we lay stress on these limitations we only cause the peculiar glory of this nation's life to stand out more clearly; it has its own individuality; its real leaders are men of genius, their ambition is to speak in the name of the eternal king; they {61} hear the divine message and claim for it the supreme significance." This is the judgment of a Bible student. The same truth is expressed in the words of one who approaches the Bible from the viewpoint of the scientist, namely, the eminent Italian astronomer, Schiaparelli[34]: "Their [the Hebrews] natural gifts, as well as the course of events, carried them to a different mission [from that of Greece and Rome] of no smaller importance--that of purifying the religious sentiment and of preparing the way for monotheism. Of this way they mark the first clear traces. In the laborious accomplishment of this great task Israel lived, suffered, and completely exhausted itself. Israel's history, legislation, and literature were essentially coordinated toward this end; science and art were for Israel of secondary importance. No wonder, therefore, that the steps of the Jews' advance in the field of scientific conceptions and speculations were small and feeble; no wonder that in such respects they were easily vanquished by their neighbors on the Nile and the Euphrates."
In conclusion: Permanent harmony between science and the Bible will be secured when each is a.s.signed to its legitimate sphere. Science has a right to ask that, if men are seeking purely scientific information, they should turn to recent text-books in geology, astronomy, or the other {62} sciences. But in the sphere to which Jesus and the New Testament writers a.s.signed the Old Testament science cannot deny or seriously question its inspiration or permanent value. Unprejudiced science has never done this. It is perfectly ready to recognize the inestimable religious and ethical value of even those Old Testament narratives which refer to scientific facts, not because of their scientific teaching, but because of the presence of eternal truth in the crude form of primitive science. Fair-minded scientists readily admit that if anyone wishes to know what connection the world has with G.o.d, if he seeks to trace back all that now is to the very fountain head of life, if he desires to discover some unifying principle, some illuminating purpose in the history of the world, he may still turn to the early chapters of Genesis as a safe guide.
What, then, is the bearing of the conclusions of modern science upon the permanent value of the Old Testament? Science has compelled the Bible student to withdraw the attention from the nonessential and secondary, and to concentrate it upon the heart and substance. In doing this it has established upon a much firmer basis the conviction that, whatever the scientific value of scripture may be or may not be, the apostle was right when he wrote that "the sacred writings ... are able to make wise unto salvation through {63} faith which is in Christ Jesus. Every scripture inspired of G.o.d is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of G.o.d may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work."[35]
NOTES ON CHAPTER II
[1] Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 89.
[2] Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 238.
[3] Josh. 10. 12.
[4] The Bible--Its Meaning and Supremacy, p. 160.
[5] In a brief treatment it seems preferable to confine the discussion to a specific concrete case; therefore this chapter deals almost exclusively with questions centering around the subject of cosmogony.
[6] The margin of the Authorized Version still gives the chronology of Archbishop Ussher to that effect.
[7] Chapter IV, 1.
[8] The Expositor, 1902, pp. 159, 160.
[9] It requires but a reading of the "proofs" of the opposite view to understand their weakness. Compare Expositor, 1886, pp. 287-289.
[10] The book of Genesis, p. 4.
[11] Another difficulty has been found in the statement of Genesis that "vegetation" was complete two days before animal life appeared, but the disagreement is more apparent than real. The geological record, it is true, shows many more animal than plant remains in the very ancient rocks. It was not until Devonian and Carboniferous times that the plants became very abundant, as far as the geological records go.
Indeed, in the oldest rocks in which animal remains occur, no plant remains have been discovered. However, this is not to be {64} taken as proving that animals existed before plants, because low forms of the latter, having no hard parts, would be preserved with difficulty.
Moreover, in some of the primitive forms, it is not easy to distinguish plants from animals. But, apart from the records in the rocks, both biologists and geologists believe that plants existed as early as animals, if not earlier, for the latter needed the former to live upon.
An eminent geologist, Professor U. S. Grant, of Northwestern University, has expressed his opinion to the writer in these words: "It seems to me that, viewed in an abstract way, the Genesis statement of vegetation appearing before animal life is not far from correct."
[12] The Book of Genesis, p. 25.
[13] Natural Theology, Vol. I, pp. 229, 230.
[14] History of the Old Covenant, Vol. I, p. cxxix.
[15] The Testimony of the Rocks, Lecture IV.
[16] Reconciliation of Science and Religion, pp. 356ff.; compare also Pre-Adamites, _pa.s.sim_.
[17] Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science, _pa.s.sim_.
[18] Bibliotheca Sacra, 1885, pp. 201ff.
[19] The Conflict of Truth, pp. 162ff.
[20] Kurtz, Miller, Dawson, Dana, and the rest.
[21] Expositor, 1886, p. 38.
[22] The writer wants it clearly understood that an "ideal," harmony, as described above, can be established. He is equally certain, however, that the harmony cannot be carried into details.
[23] Psa. 19. 1, 2.
[24] Expository Times, October, 1907, p. 20.
[25] See above, Chapter I, p. 12.
[26] Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 239.
[27] Marcus Dods, The Book of Genesis, pp. 4, 5.
[28] Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 239.
[29] Expository Times, October, 1907, p. 20.
{65}
[30] Surely, there is not the slightest claim in Scripture that Moses or any other biblical writer received divine information concerning the beginnings of the universe; nor is there anything to support the a.s.sumption that the account of creation was supernaturally revealed to Adam, and that from him it was transmitted word for word through the families of the pious antediluvians, of Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., until it was finally received and committed to writing by Moses.