In a former article we showed by extracts from Driver and others how the Book of Genesis is regarded by the destructive critics. The four or five authors who contributed to its composition, lived at too late a period to know any of the facts, and they had no such inspiration as could enable them to distinguish between fact and [25] fable in the remote past; consequently, the stories which they put into the book are legends or myths, some resting on possible facts which can not now be separated from the rubbish which has overlaid them. No part of the book, therefore, can be accepted as free from exaggeration or distortion. We are now to compare this view of the contents of the book with that which was taken by our Lord. We shall find that in all his allusions to the book he treats its narratives as unquestioned matters of fact, and, what is more worthy of notice, the portions to which he makes allusions, include those which are held by the critics to be the most incredible of all. We make a few specifications.

      1. The account of the formation of the first woman is one of these incredible narratives, and under the name of the "rib story" it has been the butt of ridicule to the irreverent critics, as it has been a stumbling-block to those who are styled reverent. But Jesus indirectly endorses the whole story in his discussion with the Pharisees about divorce. He says: "Have you not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh?" (Matt. 19:4, 5). Here he appeals to what the Pharisees had read; and they had read it where we read it, in the second chapter of Genesis, the paragraph which describes the formation, of the woman. His appeal to the passage to settle a question as to the will of God, shows that he regarded it not as containing a myth, but as a faithful record of an actual event. Furthermore, he quotes, as presenting the main point of his argument, the last sentence of that record, which makes it doubly certain that he indorsed the record itself. But he goes even beyond the mere [26] endorsement of the record--he affirms, by a necessary implication, the divine inspiration of the man who wrote it. The verse which he quotes was written by the author of the book, and not spoken by Adam, as appears from the consideration that Adam as yet knew nothing about father and mother, and forsaking them to cleave to one's wife; but Jesus quotes it as the language of God, saying: "He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause," etc. Now, the only ground on which it could be affirmed that God said this is, that the author was inspired of God to write it. Here, then, is not only an endorsement of the fact related, but an indirect affirmation of the divine inspiration of the writer. God said what this writer wrote.

      2. The earliest account of the deluge, according to the "critics," is that recently deciphered from Assyrian inscriptions; and the account in Genesis was formed from that by eliminating its polytheism, and conforming it to the monotheism which, after the Babylonian captivity, had become the theology of the Jews. The latter learned the story while they were in captivity. It is a legend based upon some local disaster of early times. How did our Lord speak of it? In announcing his second coming to judgment he said: "And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the days of the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days which were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not until the flood came and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man" (Matt. 24:37-39). Now, if a modern critic had been present in the person of a Pharisee, how easily he could have broken the whole force of this, warning [27] by answering: "Just so, Master, that story about Noah is all a humbug, and you know it; and so we must understand that your talk about coming again is cut from the same cloth." The Pharisees, however, did not know this, for it is a modern discovery; what, then, was Jesus doing but playing on their ignorance by giving them a warning that had nothing in it? This is the conclusion to which criticism, "scientific" criticism, would force us.

      3. The story of the fate of Sodom is not credited by any of the "critics," and that of Lot's wife, given in connection with it, is regarded as not less preposterous than--the "rib story," or the story of Jonah in the fish. But Jesus more than once held up the fate of Sodom as a warning to his generation, which he could not have done honestly if there was no truth in it; and he especially emphasizes the lesson to be drawn from the fate of Lot's wife. In a speech recorded in Luke 17, after speaking of the flood, he says: "Likewise, even as it came to pass in the days of Lot, they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded, but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all; after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he who shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not go down to take them away; and let him that is in the field not return back. Remember Lot's wife." If this story was a legend, and if Jesus knew it to be such, it is impossible to reconcile his use of it here with the truthfulness and absolute sincerity which belong to his nature. It would be impossible for him to thus use a fabulous tale which had been manufactured by some unknown writer of the middle Jewish [28] age; for the whole force of the warning depended upon the reality of the event on which the warning is based.

      4. One more specification must suffice at present. We have a saying of Jesus in regard to Abraham which, while a more indirect indorsement of Genesis than the preceding, is none the less emphatic. He said to the Jews: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56). This remark implies the truth of what is said in Genesis about the promises to Abraham concerning the seed through whom the world was to be blessed. There is nothing else in the recorded career of Abraham to which it can refer. It goes even beyond the record in Genesis on this subject; for the latter only affirms the fact that the promise was made, while Jesus sets forth the feeling of Abraham when he heard it, affirming that he looked forward to the day of its fulfillment, and saw it, and was glad. This is the indorsement not only of a fact, but of a fact of prophetic foresight, or, rather, of the explicit revelation by Jehovah of a fact then nearly two thousand years in the future. How could Jesus have thus spoken, if he regarded the stories in Genesis as mere "folk-lore," the idle tales of a people concerning their prehistoric times, like those of the Romans concerning Romulus and Remus? There is only one answer to this question consistent with common sense, and it is inconsistent with faith in Christ--it is the answer of the masters in criticism, that Jesus was as ignorant on the subject of the truthfulness of Old Testament stories, as were the Pharisees of his own age, and as are the "Traditionalists" of our age. Well, by this answer, the so-called traditionalists are placed in good company. "To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." We are content to stand with Christ against the critics, [29] and, with Paul, let God be true and every man a liar.

[SEBC 25-30]