« VorigeDoorgaan »
what authority was His teaching upon Moses and the Prophets to be received? His expository teaching, I mean. For as to the letter of the Law and the Prophets, or rather of the Law, for Law and Prophets and Psalms were all one Law to Him, there was no dispute between Him and the rulers of Israel, except that He knew the meaning of the Scriptures (which they and He accepted in every jot and tittle), and they did not. He knew their origin also. And if He who gave a new sense to every line of them had had anything new to declare concerning their authority, would He have been afraid to speak it out? The idea that things are known to Professor Driver and George Adam Smith which were unknown to the LORD and His Apostles and these things in the department of "the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms" which He "came to fulfil," and further, that they were unknown to the Holy Ghost also, and to that "mind of JHVH" (Isaiah xl. 13), which is also "the Mind of Christ" (1 Cor. ii. 16)—whence
is it, or what shall we say to it? Or what shall be the judgment on it when, like Moses, we come to see, not "in dark speeches," and "by means of a mirror," but "face to face," and recognising those who see us from the invisible, as we have been seen all the while ourselves?
Professor Driver rejects the whole Foundation of the Authority of Holy Scripture as laid down by the Book of Deuteronomy, and provides nothing substantial in its place.
[It is as though the tops and pinnacles of the Royal Palace stood up in the winter sunshine and all below was shrouded in a winter Fog. Professor Driver in effect asserts that, "The Fog is the Foundation."]
I HAVE now to prove that Professor Driver's view of the authorship of "the Law given from God by Moses" overthrows the whole foundation of the authority of Holy Scripture as stated by the Scripture itself.
This brings me to the Book of Deuteronomy. There is no one book in the Bible which distinctly states the Law of the Bible, except the Book of Deuteronomy. This book is the work of the first author of Holy Scripture. It declares the autho
rity of Scripture in Israel, and the conditions upon which alone any addition to the Scripture of the Law could be made. Obviously this question is bound up with the authorship of Deuteronomy itself. Here Professor Driver is more astray than anywhere else. For he says that Moses does not even claim to be the author of Deuteronomy. The result of this is, that he deprives the Old Testament of any distinct authority whatsoever. He leaves us with Scriptures, i.e. books which have come to be regarded as Scriptures, but without any definite information as to what Scripture in itself is, or how it came to be Scripture. If we accept his conclusions as to this matter, we are left to conjecture the origin and nature of sacred books as distinct from literature in general. The question, How there come to be sacred books, and how sacred literature differs in its origin from any other literature, is left unsolved. No wonder that with this belief everything is made to depend upon inspiration. Authority as attaching to any
book above another is destroyed. I refer, of course, to Divine Authority. For the laws of human legislators have the authority of their authors, whatsoever that may happen to be. No book can have Divine Authority as Law (which is exactly what the Scriptures of the Old Testament had for our Lord) unless that authority is formally given them from above, just as human laws receive authority from the legislator, whosoever he may be.
We are so used to the possession of the Holy Scriptures, that it does not seem to occur to one person in ten thousand to inquire how there came to be such books, or what is the true account of their origin.
I repeat, that the direct answer to this inquiry is to be found in the Book of Deuteronomy, regarded as the work of Moses, and nowhere else. Indirectly, the same thing may be gathered from the whole tenor of Scripture. But this is only because the Law of Scripture as set forth in Deuteronomy governs the rest of the Bible, and has never been disobeyed in