The Context, the Facts, and the Sense Must Be Taken into Account — Otherwise We May Wrest the Scriptures
By F. D. Starr.
Much query and some misunderstanding has arisen concerning the statement found in Ex. 34:28: “And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”
The claim is made that inasmuch as the “he” used in the first two instances in this text, most surely refers to Moses, this pronoun must also refer to him in the last instance. To hold to such a rule of interpretation would bring us into serious difficulties. Let us examine a few passages.
“And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. And he had judged Israel forty years.” 1 Sam. 4:18.
Who was it that made mention of the ark of God?—Of course it was the messenger mentioned in the preceding verses. Who was it that fell from his seat and his neck broke? Was it the same person? There is nothing to indicate a change of antecedents. Was the messenger who ran from the army an old man, heavy and blind? And had he judged Israel forty years?—Evidently not. To whom, then, does the “he” in the last four instances refer?—As all can plainly see, to Eli, to whom the tidings were brought.
Decided by Facts
We decide the matter not by our ideas of grammar, but by the undisputable facts in the case. “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” 1 John 5:16.
“Was there with the Lord forty days”
No one will fail to understand that the “he” that asks, that prays, is a mortal man. But who is it that gives life? Is that the same person? All give the prompt reply, No, of course not: It refers unquestionably to the One who is asked for life and forgiveness, the only Being in the universe who can give life. We must not ascribe to fallible man an impossible attribute, so as to defend grammatical construction.
“For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” 1 Cor. 15:27, 28. In these numerous occurrences of the personal pronoun “he,” it is evident that they do not all have application to the same person.
To substitute the nouns for the pronouns, the passage would read thus: “For God hath put all things under Christ’s feet. But when God saith all things are put under Christ, it is manifest that God is excepted, which did put all things under Christ. And when all things shall be subdued unto Christ, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto God that put all things under Christ, that God may be all in all.”
Verses 23-25 are similar, and help to make the true meaning clearer. We must decide the application of the word “he,” etc., by the context and the facts in the case. We must not apply it in such a way as to make the Scriptures stultify or contradict themselves.
David Could Not Uphold the World
In Psalm 75, David evidently alludes to himself in verses 1, 2; but when he says in verse 3, “I bear up the pillars of it” [the earth], we know very well that he does not mean himself, for he was surely unable to bear up the pillars of the world.
In Ps. 81:6-8, the personal pronoun “I” clearly refers to God; but if we persist in applying the same word to Him in the verse immediately preceding, then we are to suppose there are some languages that the Lord does not understand. “I heard a language that I understood not.” This was Israel’s experience, not the Lord’s.
In all such cases, we may say in the language of Acts 8:34: “Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?” and by “comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” and seeking, like Daniel, for the meaning, we shall arrive at conclusions which are not out of harmony with other scriptures and with the facts in the case.
What are the facts in reference to Ex. 34:28?—They are these: The Lord promised Moses that He would write on the tables of stone that Moses was to hew out, the words that were in the first tables, which Moses broke. Did the Lord keep His promise? Who dare think otherwise? In Deut. 10:4, Moses distinctly states that the Lord did write the commandments on the second set of tables of stone. Then we can not suppose that Moses wrote the commandments on the tables of stone. This could be done by God only, just the same as He only can give life.
It may be said that God told Moses to write these words, Ex. 34:27. But the words to which reference is here made are those preceding, and refer to ceremonial rather than moral requirements. We should be careful not to wrest the Scriptures.
