06 - New Methods of Interpretation
VI- NEW METHODS OF INTERPRETATION "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Psalms 11:3. ARE you seeking truth? Then look not to the men, but to the teaching. This is the Bible method, and the only effectual one. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20. Adopting this principle, let us fearlessly apply it to the higher criticism. The interpretation of the Old Testament by New Testament writers is marked by their practice of seeing Christ in all parts of the Old Testament. But the interpretation of the Old Testament by higher critics is, on the contrary, marked by their practice of excluding Him from it entirely.
Says the most recent, and, from the higher critical viewpoint, the most authoritative history of interpretation: "There is no evidence that Jesus saw a predictive element in the Old Testament; no evidence that, in His thought, any Old Testament author had foreseen His historical appearance, the circumstances of His ministry, His death and resurrection."- Dr. Gilbert, "History of Interpretation," page 71.
What about Christ’s quoting Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:17-21, and saying, "To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears"? And still further: "And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." Luke 24:27. And yet, there is "no evidence that, in His thought, any Old Testament author had foreseen His historical appearance"! In order to exalt their own authority and infallibility, they must first insist that Christ’s methods of interpretation were not only faulty, but mistaken. "Of what in modern times is regarded as the technical qualification for scientific exegesis, He had, of course, no more than the generation in which He belonged."- Dr. Gilbert, "History of Interpretation," page 72. So Christ Himself is held up to ridicule because He does not doubt His own words, because He was not a higher critic, because, forsooth, He was not an infidel!
Higher critics defend their position-by illustration. "Many people are alarmed, as if, when we begin to remove the dirt from an old master, we were going to destroy the glorious picture itself. But we remove the dirt which has become incrusted, that the picture may be more clearly seen and better appreciated than before." Joseph Wood, "The Bible," page 12.
What should we think of the student of art who brought a microscope with him into an art gallery, and when he saw what looked like a flyspeck off in the corner of a picture, immediately turned his microscope upon it, and lost himself in examination of that flyspeck, and left the gallery without having even noticed the picture itself, but discoursed learnedly and wrote profound tomes upon the chemistry, etc., of the flyspeck in the corner? But one who is not willing to spend time in erudite investigation of supposed flyspecks, but prefers to devote it to the study of the majesties, splendors, and unrivaled beauties of the Bible, is laughed to scorn as ignorant, if not an imbecile. Their principles of interpretation lead the critics far astray. One of their primary principles, tacitly used or openly avowed, is this: Given a scripture which admits of two meanings, one making sense and the other nonsense, choose the latter as the only meaning admissible, criticize according to higher criticism, and eliminate from the Bible, as evidence of the ignorance of the writer, and proof that the Bible is "full of errors, imperfections, contradictions, prejudices, passions, . . . that it had its birth in the mind of man." Bampforth, "The Bible from the Standpoint of Higher Criticism," volume 2, page 263.
Disagreements are confessedly assumed, and then the whole account is discredited because of this disagreement. This is one of the higher critical favorite methods of attack.
Another principle of interpretation is one laid down by Dr. Briggs: "The argument from silence is of great importance in the higher criticism of Holy Scripture."- "Study of Holy Scripture," page 307. In this way, critics can prove almost anything. So they proceed to build, with all gravity, massive systems of theology, or lack of theology, upon things not in the Bible or any other book, only in their own imaginations. For instance, we are told: "From the silence of the periods of Samuel and the kings regarding the Priest’s Code, it is reasoned that the provisions of this code were unknown at the time; hence they were not in existence; for they must have been known if they existed; hence the books commonly ascribed to Moses, the Pentateuch,- in which alone we have a record of the alleged origin of the Priest’s Code,-were not in existence at the time of Samuel and kings."-Zenos, "Elements of Higher Criticism," page 88. But let us admit this loss for the present, and see if it proves anything. Says Sir James Stephen: "When the barbarism of the domestic government [under the Carlovingian dynasty] had thus succeeded the barbarism of the government of the state, one of the most remarkable results of that political change was the disappearance of the laws and institutions by which Charlemagne had endeavored to elevate and civilize his subjects. Before the close of the century in which he died, the whole body of his laws had fallen into utter disuse throughout the whole extent of his Gallic dominions. They who have studied the characters, laws, and chronicles of the later Carlovingian princes most diligently, are unanimous in declaring that they indicate either absolute ignorance or an entire forgetfulness of the legislation of Charlemagne."-"Lectures on the History of France," lecture 4, page 94. This case, taken together with the even more remarkable one of the utter loss and eradication from all secular records, for over four thousand years, of the extensive laws of Hammurabi, demonstrates that it is possible for not only the observance but all knowledge of a law to perish.
Thus we see how futile is the argument from silence in this case, even granting the premises, - that the law was forgotten during the time; but there is no evidence that such was the case. On the contrary, there is abundant reference, in both the books of Samuel, to the law, or code. See 1 Samuel 2:28-29; 1 Samuel 3:3; 1 Samuel 4:3; 1 Samuel 7:9; 1 Samuel 8:1-22; etc. But the most remarkable use ever made of the argument from silence must be accredited to the Rev. Dr. Briggs: "A careful study of all the ethical passages of the Old Testament convinces me that there is an entire absence of censure of the sin of falsehood until after the exile; and then largely under the influence of Persian ethics."-"Study o f the Holy Scripture," pages 308, 309. No censure of falsehood until after the sixth century B. C., and even then borrowed from Persia! What does the discerning reader think of such a statement, in the teeth of "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," "Thou shalt not take up a false report," not to mention the multitudes of scathing rebukes poured forth in burning eloquence by the prophets prior to the exile? See Exodus 20:16; Exodus 23:1, Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 5:20; Deuteronomy 19:16-19; Judges 16:10; Exodus 18:21; et al.
Dr. Briggs then pauses to admire the results and the method of his work: "These are examples of the methods by which the evidences of the higher criticism may be applied to Holy Scripture. They are constantly applied by scholars all over the world, in all the ranges of Biblical literature. If carefully applied, tested, and verified, they lead to sure results."-"Study of Holy Scripture," page 309.
Says Dr. Briggs in another place, "Joel used to be regarded as the earliest of the prophets; he is now commonly considered one of the latest."-Id. This is how "sure" their results are, himself being the judge.
Another principle of interpretation is this: If two writers record the same event in the same or practically the same language, as do Matthew and Mark, then they both borrowed their ideas from some common source, and are not to be relied upon, because we do not know how trustworthy that common source is. On the other hand, if two writers see the same event from different but equally true angles, as do James and Paul, then one or the other must be wrong, probably both, and the higher critic constructs a theory which alone can be right.
If a certain event is recorded by only one writer, it is not to be credited, because it is unsupported by other testimony! And the moment it should receive such support, it would be ruled out of court on other grounds! But this is not all; for if a writer is silent concerning a certain event which the higher critics think he ought to have written about, of course he is then adjudged as ignorant of it, and held up to ridicule because of this ignorance, and branded as unreliable in everything else. Even Christ has been denounced by higher critics because He was silent concerning a hundred things they think He ought to have left teachings about. And because He did not, He has been called ignorant of them. This is no trivial matter for the Christian. It strikes at the very foundations of his faith; for if the higher critic’s methods of interpretation are true, then every inspired writer is discredited, on one pretext or another, as ignorant, or denounced as maliciously deceiving, and faith in the Bible is absurd, and faith in Christ impossible, for the means for knowing Him have been destroyed.
Seeing where these principles lead us, we need no other proof that they are not only false, but the baseless figment of a chimerical imagination. And we are led back to the consideration of the fact that the only safe, the only true method of interpretation is that employed by our divine Lord and Master: "Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." Luke 24:27.
Human theories of salvation are no more efficacious to save than a wreath of water-saturated flowers. "The Everlasting Gospel" is God’s life-buoy to the soul struggling in the billows of sin.