The Authority of the Old Testament.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE Disciples not long since issued a pamphlet entitled, “Our Position.” One part of their position is stated as follows:— “We accept the Old Testament as true; . . . but as a book of authority to teach us what we are to do, the New Testament alone, as embodying the teachings of Christ and his apostles, is our standard.” Upon this the Christian Intelligencer makes the following excellent comment:— “But they forget that in thus denying the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures they fly directly in the face of the teaching of Christ and his apostles. When the Saviour repelled the tempter in the wilderness it was by quoting the Old Testament. He said again and again, ‘It is written;’ but if the words written had no authority, why were they cited? In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord said that he came not to destroy (abrogate) the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. But if the law and the prophets were not abrogated by him, then they are of binding authority still. When he was asked what was the great command, he answered, quoting the words of the Pentateuch which enjoin supreme love to God and to love our neighbor as ourselves, words which are unlimited either in time or place, and therefore are authoritative now and evermore. When he was asked about marriage, he quoted from Genesis the passage which settles the question for all time. When he was asked about the resurrection, he referred to the Old Testament as deciding the point not for Jews only but for all men. When he was asked about the way to eternal life, he gave the most explicit sanction to the decalogue, saying, ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ It follows, then, that to deny the authority of the Old Testament is to deny the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. “The apostle Paul throughout his epistles cites the old scriptures, not simply as illustration, but as confirmation of his utterances. Not only so, but he affirms that ‘whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope,’ and again, that ‘they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.’ He also said that ‘every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness’ [Revised Version]; but how could it be this unless it were authoritative? In the conference at Jerusalem the apostle James quoted from the361prophets as a means of settling the question which caused the assembling of the council, and in his epistle he refers to ‘the royal law according to the Scripture’ as a decisive rule of action. The apostle Peter not only quotes the Old Testament as authority, but tells his brethren that they do well to take heed unto it as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, since they knew that its authors ‘spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost.’ “It is clear, then, that they who restrict authority to the teachings of Christ and his apostles run counter to those very teachings. And they cut themselves off from three-fourths of the rule of faith which God has given. They also greatly disparage the divine wisdom. It pleased the Most High to make his revelation of himself gradual. Through a long course of years the disclosures were made, the late never superseding but supplementing the earlier, and the whole together constituting the divine directory for men. The Bible, the whole Bible, is one book, and it is needful in order to accomplish its purposes; but to deny authority to the greater part of it is sadly to mutilate the inspired rule of faith and practice. If the Old Testament has and was designed to have no grip upon the conscience of Christians, its use and advantage to them is wofully abridged. In fact, it is reduced to the level of uninspired productions. It may contain many excellent things, but the reader is to sit in judgment upon their value to him just as he would in the case of any human production. Whatever it be, narrative, proverb, psalm, statute, or prophecy, he is to accept it if it commends itself to his mind, otherwise not. To all who hold such views one may well repeat the incisive words of our Lord, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’” Yet as plain as all this is, the Christian Standard seriously sets about to controvert it, and begins by asking the ever mistaken question of that denomination, namely:— “Who is now the Lawgiver in the spiritual universe? . . . That is the question. Moses or Christ—which? . . . Those scriptures were a standard to those who lived under the authority of Moses; but they cannot, in the nature of things, be a standard of authority to those who live under the authority of Christ.” We would ask the Standard, who, but God, has ever been the Lawgiver in the spiritual universe? Where was Moses ever a lawgiver in the spiritual, or in any other, universe? We challenge the Standard to show, from the hour that Moses saw the burning bush to the hour of his death, that he ever did anything upon his own authority, unless it be at the rock of Meribah, when he said, “Must we fetch you water out of this rock?” Num. 20:8-12. But as this forfeited his entrance into the promised land, we think that even the Standard would hardly present that as proof that Moses acted on his own authority. The calamity that came upon Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and all their company, was to demonstrate that the authority by which Moses acted was the authority of God. “Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.” Num. 16:28. Then by what right is it that the Standard speaks of the “authority of Moses”? None whatever but an assumed right. It is directly against the word of Moses, to speak of what he did as being the authority of Moses. From Exodus 3:4 to Deuteronomy 34:4, from the burning bush to Pisgah, always the word is, “The Lord spake unto Moses, saying,” “And the Lord said unto Moses,” etc. So it is all through the Old Testament. The Lord spoke to Joshua, to the Judges, to Samuel, to David, to Nathan, to Isaiah, to Jeremiah, to Ezekiel, to Daniel, and to all the prophets. None of these spoke on their own authority, nor upon the authority of Moses, but ever by the authority of the Lord. None of these things ever purported to be the authority of Moses. Nobody ever obeyed them as of the authority of Moses, but always as of the authority of God. And this authority is the authority of Christ. It was the Spirit of Christ that was in all the prophets from Moses—yes, from Abraham, from Enoch—to Malachi. It was the Spirit of Christ that testified in all their writings, “searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ, which was in them did signify, when it testified,” etc. 1 Peter 1:11. The Old Testament, then, is the testimony of Christ, and the testimony of Christ is the testimony of God. Therefore, to deny the authority of the Old Testament is to deny the authority of Christ and of God. But this will not suit the Standard at all; for according to it the authority of Christ did not begin till after his resurrection. It says:— “It was after his resurrection that Jesus claimed the possession of ‘all authority in Heaven and on earth,’ . . . and from that time men are under the authority of the Lord Jesus.” It is true that it was after his resurrection—in fact, on the day of his ascension—that Jesus said this; but to claim that he had not this authority till that time is more than the record will justify. Nearly the beginning of his ministry, before the imprisonment of John the Baptist, the record is, “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” John 3:35. And before the death of John the Baptist, Jesus said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” Matt. 11:27. “By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Col. 1:16, 17. “Without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1:3. Before he came into the world, he upheld “all things by the word of his power.” Heb. 1:1-3. Now if the Christian Standard can conceive how Christ could have all things delivered to him, how he could create all things, how he could uphold all things by the word of his power, and yet have no authority till after his resurrection, it has a power of conception that is truly phenomenal. Besides this, if the Standard's position were true, it would follow that no part of the New Testament even would be of authority except that which was spoken after the resurrection of Christ. For it was not till then that Christ “claimed the possession of authority.” In reply to the Intelligencer's instance of Jesus telling the young man, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” the Standard again lets itself out after this fashion:— “Let the reader carefully observe that this was the question of a Jew, propounded to one whom the questioner regarded as an expounder of the law; and therefore Jesus answers him out of the law. This certainly proves that the law of Moses was then authoritative. But does the Intelligencer mean to say that this is the way of life taught in the gospel? and that to deny this is ‘to deny the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ’? We have not so learned Christ.” Then we say that the Standard has not properly learned Christ. This was not all that Jesus said to the young man. He said also to him, “Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven; and come and follow me.” Was it as “a Jew,” “an expounder of the law” to a Jew, that this was said by the Lord Jesus? No; it was said by the Saviour of the world, the One by whom comes eternal life, to one who honestly asked the way to eternal life, and one whom Jesus wanted to follow him. It was said to one whom Jesus wanted to be his disciple. Therefore, what Jesus told this young man to do is what his disciples must do that they may have eternal life. Had the young man done it, he would assuredly have been a disciple of Christ; therefore, to deny the commandments of God of the Old Testament, is to deny an essential part of the duty of a disciple of Christ. The Standard, and the “Disciples” whom it represents, need to learn more thoroughly what constitutes a true disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Standard needs to so learn Christ. But aside from this special pleading, the Standard cannot make its own system work. In answer to the statement that “Jesus repelled the tempter by quoting the Old Testament,” it says:— “Those Scriptures had authority. Jesus was a Jew, ‘born under the law,’ and it was his office to ‘magnify the law and make it honorable.’ Not one jot or tittle of the law was to pass until all was fulfilled; and Jesus was then engaged in fulfilling it. What has that to do with the question concerning the present Lawgiver, whose authority we are to honor?” And yet in an editorial on the same page, in reply to a Catholic on the worship of Mary, it says:— “There are no hymns of praise, there is no worship, addressed to Mary in the Scriptures. ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve,’ is what the Son of Mary uttered as true doctrine.” But hold, Mr. Standard. Why may not the Catholic answer you in your own words, that it was as “a Jew ‘born under the law,’” and “as an expounder of the law,” and while he was “engaged in fulfilling it,” that Jesus uttered these words? He was speaking to one who regarded him “as an expounder of the law, therefore Jesus answered him out of the law. This certainly proves that the law of Moses was then authoritative.” But “what has that to do with the question concerning the present Lawgiver whose authority Catholics are to follow?” Now why is not that argument as sound in behalf of the Catholics as the foregoing is in behalf of the Disciples? Or is it true that argument against the authority of the Old Testament is good for the Disciples alone, and is not to be used by other people? “It is a poor rule that will not work both ways.” And as the Standard's rule, by its own application, will not work both ways, we set it down that the argument against the authority of the Old Testament is a poor, miserable shift to escape the obligation of the Law of God. J.