The Ignorance of Wisdom

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     The letter was like many of its kind which flood the mails today. It was an epistle of solicitation sent out by a national organization as part of a fund raising campaign. The letterhead was attractive, the message was appealing. On the left side of the sheet was a long list of endorsers, men prominent in the economic, social and religious realms. It is part of the psychological approach of these times to identify a movement with important persons. The status of a cause is judged by the prestige of those who are willing to be identified as sponsors.

     Contrast with this the method employed by God in launching the rule of heaven among men. For many days certain words of Jesus have been churning about in my consciousness. I have been earnestly endeavoring to grasp their significance and thus probe the divine motivation. I am convinced that much of our current thinking is in direct opposition to the design of God. In our anxiety to see the cause succeed it is possible that we are thwarting the will of God. We rely upon skill, cleverness and word jugglery to advance the kingdom of God. We place our dependence in psychological persuasiveness, forgetting that it is one thing to increase "our membership" and a wholly different thing to enlarge the borders of spiritual Zion.

     "At that time Jesus spoke these words: I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will" (Matt. 11:25, 26).

     Who are the wise and understanding ones? Why did God hide certain things from them? How did he do so? Why were the words spoken "at that time"? These are all relevant questions if we would understand the program of divine revelation. Certainly this passage illuminates the truth that God's ways are not the ways of men. His method is the exact opposite of that which men employ. It would seem that the purpose of God could best be promoted by the power, position and prestige of those whose wisdom is respected by the world, but His gracious will has decreed otherwise.

     Who are the wise? Let it be observed that the term is not here used as the opposite of ignorance. In no case does God speak with approval of wilful ignorance. While it is true that involuntary ignorance is not a sin, voluntary ignorance is always so because sin is "to miss the mark." Anyone who falls below his potential because of his indifference or unconcern sins to the extent that he does so. Neither are the wise those who merely have an education. To educate is to "lead out" or to "draw forth." It consists of bringing out the natural abilities and powers which one possesses. Since these are the gift of God it is an offence against him to not use them to the fullest.

[Page 2]

     The Greek word for wise is sophos. It is used in a commendatory as well as a condemnatory fashion. We are to be wise as to what is good" (Rom. 16:19); we are to walk "not as unwise men but as wise" (Eph. 5:15); the congregation is to submit problems of disagreement to wise men for arbitration (1 Cor 6:5). But there is a "wisdom from above"and a wisdom "which cometh not from above" (James 3:15, 17). The latter is variously referred to as "the wisdom of the world" (1 Cor 1:20); "the wisdom of men" (2:5); and "the wisdom of this age" (2:6).

     It is very essential that we know to what the term "world" applies in the expression "wisdom of the world." If we do not we may fall into the grave error of deprecating the knowledge and skills of those who serve God by serving the needs of humanity. It is true that science, mathematics, linguistics, and social studies are all of the world in a sense, but to conclude from this that one should not major in these fields in college is to have a misconception of God's word. God created the mind of man and gave him his rational faculties. He has placed no limit upon the scope of man's intellectual attainment. Deity is not anti-intellectual.

     We may best grasp the significance of the word "world" by studying some of its characteristics. The world resents and hates those who testify of the true nature of its works. "It hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil" (John 7:7). It has a distinct animosity toward those who are not of it. "The world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (John 17:14). Contact with the world defiles (2 Peter 2:20) and stains (James 1:27) because of the corruption that is in it through passion (2 Peter 1:4). We may define the world as that state which represents the totality of human life, apart from, alienated from, and hostile to God. The wisdom of this world seldom parades under a banner ascribed "Atheism." It prefers such labels as "secularism" or "humanism."

     In our introductory passage Jesus expresses gratitude that God has revealed to babes what he has hidden from the wise or sophists. Clearly that which is revelation to one group is concealment to the other. We are not to conclude from this that God has deliberately forbidden one group to have access to revealed truth. On the contrary, "God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). There must be something about the nature of the revelation which makes it invisible to those in a certain frame of thought.

     It is the conviction of this writer that while revelation is complete in one sense, it is not in another. The message of God involved in the new creation is complete, the discovery of what is contained in it is not. In view of the fact that revelation is an uncovering, the word of God does not actually become a revelation to us as individuals until we discover the real depth of its meaning. Of course there is no new truth as relates to God's mind but there are depths of understanding which have not yet been plumbed, and men will continue to bring up gems of truth they have not seen before from the unfathomed caves of God's grace. The Holy Spirit did not give the word and then retire from the

[Page 3]

scene. He dwells in the same heart into which the revelation is received and quickens the understanding. It is here that the merely natural (animal) man, motivated by "the spirit of the world" is at such a loss. "And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:13).

     The reason why God's revelation has been hidden from the wise is because it is spiritually discerned. The sun shines as brightly upon a blind man as upon one with full use of sight, but the former does not see it. It is hidden from him because of the lack of the faculty of sight. "In this case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God" (2 Cor 4:4). "The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). Note the expression "they are folly to him." This occurs in a context which is dealing with worldly philosophers. To such wise men the real wisdom of the ages is foolishness.

     It is a startling thing that while some did not know God because of ignorance, these did not know him because of wisdom. "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21). This is the folly of philosophy! This is the ignorance of wisdom! Please observe carefully how the word "believe" is used in direct contrast to "wisdom." The wisdom of this age creates its own criteria. These rule out "belief" and make "faith" the resort of the credulous and unlearned. Having decided by "wisdom" that there is no realm of the supernatural everything which purports to be in that category must be explained by naturalistic means or regarded as a myth. Anyone who believes it is just not "wise."

     By ruling out in advance any possibility of the miraculous all proof to the contrary is simply explained away with "plausible words of wisdom." The manna in the wilderness, for example, was not "bread from heaven" but the exudation of a honey-like sap from trees. The feeding of the multitude by Jesus was accomplished when selfish men were motivated to dig into their packs to share their food with those who had none, moved by the altruistic action of him who blessed a little store and began to share with those nearest him. Thus, what passes for "faith" rests in the wisdom of men and he is considered most faithful who can explain away the most. The power of example is substituted for the example of power. A demonstration of the spirit of sharing takes the place of sharing in a demonstration of the Spirit. In such a time as this the words of the apostle ring out, "And my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4, 5).

     This brings us to the point in our investigation where we can note the setting for the remarks of Jesus. The writer declares, "At that time Jesus spoke these words." If you will read the preceding paragraph you will note that Jesus was

[Page 4]

censuring the cities of his personal acquaintance. He compares them with the luxury-loving heathen cities of Tyre and Sidon and the vice-ridden city of Sodom. The basis of his condemnation was that enough miracles had been performed within their walls that would have caused the heathen cities to repent in sackcloth and ashes. But the worldly-wise citizens of Galilee paid no heed. "Then he began to upbraid the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent....At that time Jesus declared, 'I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them unto babes.'"

     It seems quite apparent that our faith must rest either in the demonstrations of God or in the explanations of men! But the explanations are of demonstrations. The very fact that men feel called upon to make an explanation is positive admission that something happened and the something that happened was of sufficient importance to require an explanation. Take, for instance, the work of feeding the multitude with a few loaves and fishes. It has been suggested that under the influence of Jesus a little lad was induced to share his meager lunch with those around him. This stimulated others to divide what they had brought with those who had none. When all shared in giving and receiving there was enough for all. Later, as men reflected upon the event, it seemed like a miracle that enough food had been produced to satisfy the need of everyone.

     This is an example of the "plausible words of men's wisdom." The event is thus reduced to a sort of glorified fish fry with everyone kicking in his share of the edibles. But no one goes to such length to discuss the thousands of "pot luck dinners" which have occurred in past centuries. Moreover, the explanation does not meet the demands of the demonstration. John was present on the occasion and helped to tidy up the place and gather up the scraps. In his straightforward and simple account it seems almost as if he anticipated that "there would be scoffers in the last days." He records that Jesus and his disciples were sitting down up in the hills on the other side of the Sea of Galilee when they looked up and saw a great crowd of people swarming toward them.

     Jesus turned to Philip and said, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?" John said he did this to test Philip because Jesus knew what he was going to do. What he was going to do was not to discover enough folks with prepared lunch boxes to take care of the multitude. Andrew remarked that there was a lad who had five barley loaves and two fish but he spoke deprecatingly of the fact. "What are they among so many?" John declares that Jesus took the loaves and when he had given thanks he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. Then occurs an interesting statement about the meal, "So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves left by those who had eaten."

     One cannot gauge the power of a miracle by its effect upon those who did not see it, or who live many centuries afterward. The real test is upon those who were present and witnessed the event. The reaction to this feat was amazing. "When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world." This is a significant statement. They referred to the prediction of Moses, "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you from among the people like unto me!" Their statement the following day indicates that

[Page 5]

their minds reverted to Moses because "he gave them bread from heaven to eat." In view of the fact that they had seen another miraculous feeding they immediately concluded that this was the prophet like Moses.

     Even more important is the next statement, "Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the hills by himself." It is evident that if they could make him king they could live off of government handouts the rest of their lives. Human nature has not altered to any great extent down to our day. The very next day the multitude showed up again, after having diligently sought him, but he said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves."

     We should not leave this without mentioning a subsequent event related to it. The disciples embarked in a boat with little preparation. "Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf in the boat." Jesus cautioned them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod. "And they discussed it with one another, saying 'We have no bread.' And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, 'Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?....Do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?' They said to him, 'Twelve.' 'And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?' And they said to him, 'Seven.' And he said to them, 'Do you not yet understand?'" We leave this case with the wise men of this age facing the same questions. "Are your hearts hardened? Do you not yet understand?"

     There are two methods of attack. One is to reduce God's revelation to the purely human realm; the other to exalt the productions of men to an equality with that of God. It matters little, in the final analysis, whether God is reduced to the status of man, or man is elevated to the status of God. The effect is the same if one denies that what Paul wrote was inspired of God, or if he affirms that Milton and Shakespeare were equally inspired with Paul.

     The crux of the conflict in our day must always center around the prophecies of those who claimed to reveal in advance the things which would transpire. There are two kinds of power in the universe--intellectual and physical. Those who acknowledge the existence of God must recognize that there are two kinds of intellectual power, natural and supernatural; and two kinds of physical power, human and superhuman. The first of these in each instance belongs to man and grows out of his nature; the second belongs to God and is inherent in his nature. It follows then that there must be two kinds of miracles, or two forms of demonstration of the divine power.

     One type of miracle would relate purely to the physical realm and would operate in such a manner as to especially affect those who saw or heard the demonstration. It would be apprehended by sensory perception and thus would encourage immediate belief in the hearts of the observers. Such a miracle could affect future generations only through belief of. the testimony of those who saw it. But supernatural demonstrations in the intellectual

[Page 6]

realm are not limited to the earthly sojourn of him who manifests them. In view of the fact that the nature of man hides from him the future, to predict with utmost accuracy what will transpire a thousand years hence requires the same supernatural power of intellect as to feed a multitude by multiplication of loaves and fishes requires superhuman power over physical elements.

     Only those who were present at the time had actual knowledge of the miraculous works of Jesus. Future generations could only have faith in what these observers saw. By the same token, those who heard the prophetic words of Jesus could not have knowledge of their fulfillment as would future generations. Because of the two types of miracles, one to affect directly those who were present, the other to affect directly those who were remote from the scene in time and place, we can summarize by saying that we believe what they saw, and they believed what we see.

     We would expect the brunt of the attack to be made on that portion of sacred scripture which is alleged to be first in order of time. If doubt can be cast upon it a cloud will rest upon subsequent writings claiming the same origin. We are not at all surprised at the brilliant and incisive attack on the writings of Moses. Boiled down and simmered away, however, it all relates to a denial of the possibility of God knowing the future and preparing for it in advance. Since this calculated attempt is a good illustration of the tactics employed by "the wise and understanding" in every avenue of scripture let us briefly analyze some of the methods used.

     The unfolding of human history demonstrates how "God takes the wise in their own craftiness." One generation invests time seeking to discover what is wrong with the Bible, in time another generation reveals what is wrong with their discoveries. For a number of years "the wise" declared that Moses could not have been the author of the Pentateuch because the art of writing had not been invented and the laws enunciated were far in advance of the comparable culture of that day. But in December, 1901, a block of black diorite was found on the acropolis of Susa, by a French expedition under the direction of Director General M. de Morgan. This monument, almost eight feet long and broken in three pieces, proved to be the "Code of Hammurabi," a civil law produced by an early Mesopotamian king who antedated the time of Moses. The critics now took the position that Moses had copied his law from previous documents. A meticulous search was made for a likeness of the ten commandments in the earlier code with a view to casting doubt on the original authorship in the sacred scriptures.

     Men who labor on the assumption that there is no such thing as a divine revelation will grasp at straws to sustain their theory and when enough straws are found will imitate the first of "The Three Little Pigs" and build a straw house which is subjected to destruction as other discoveries are made. Strangely enough, one theory is always succeeded by another theory. There is seldom a return to the obvious fact of divine interposition in the affairs of men. It is amazing the extent to which the writings of Moses have been dissected and the grotesque creature which has been created when men try to fit the pieces together according to their own ideas.

     Currently, the bulk of so-called scholarship which is branded as relatively con-

[Page 7]

servative, regards the law as being a synthesis of at least four different codes. One of these was the Deuteronomic code, another a blending of two later scribes or schools, one of which used the term Elohim for God, the other the name Jehomih, or Yahweh. A third source was "the holiness code" purportedly written by the prophets of the exile and post-exilic period, and the last was the priestly code of ritualism which allegedly developed during the exile and upon the return to rebuild Jerusalem. Thus, William Barclay in his book "The Making of the Bible" writes, "To put it in very brief form, we might say that the Law, the Pentateuch, equals D+JE+H+P." One who still believes that God spoke to Moses and that Moses wrote the first five books is looked upon with some degree of pity and compassion as a credulous antiquarian or an immature babe. It is in that company we take our place, admittedly with more faith in God than the wisdom of this age.

     The Reformation sparked a revival of the opposition to the authorship of much of the sacred writings. As the scriptures were rescued from "dead languages" and translated into the living tongues of the people a great revival of Bible study was instituted. In the exchange of thought rivalry sprang up and out of this came opposition to long cherished positions. Following Celsus the next attack upon the authorship of the Pentateuch was by the fiery Carlstadt in 1520. He labeled it a forgery. Soon Roman Catholic writers took up the cudgel on the basis that to cast a reflection upon the authorship would weaken the Protestant contention for the Bible as "the only rule of faith and practice" and "the sole arbiter and court of appeal" in all questions involving religious or theological disputes.

     A foundation for this was laid by Ibn Ezra, the great medieval rabbi, poet and philosopher. Born in Toledo, Spain, in 1092, he became a master of numerous languages while excelling in Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic. Before his death in Rome in 1167 he had traveled over Europe and Africa for twenty-five years, leaving behind a voluminous mass of written materials among which were lengthy scriptural commentaries. He affirmed his view that the Pentateuch contained evidences of having been copied from earlier accounts and contained some post-Mosaic material. Although he was opposed in this conjecture by the Talmudical scholars, the slender thread he spun was picked up and woven into a strong cord by others.

     In 1653 the Catholic theologian Masius (Maes) suggested that the Pentateuch had been re-written by Ezra. Two years later, Peyrerius, influenced by Ibn Ezra, published his conclusion that the Pentateuch was not the work of Moses but an abridgement from a larger work by Moses. But it remained for another to give the greatest emphasis to this idea. Benedict Spinoza was of Portugese-Jewish descent. Born in Amsterdam in 1632, he lived but forty-five years, but made a profound impact on the thought of his day and that of succeeding generations. He was given a thorough education in orthodox Judaism but was weaned from it by his research in physical science and through reading after the French philosopher Ren Descartes. Spinoza withdrew from the synagogue and was excommunicated by the rabbis who used political influence to have him banished from the city. Living just outside

[Page 8]

the city limits he eked out a bare living grinding optical lenses while writing his treatises on philosophy.

     In 1670 Spinoza published his Tractatas Theologico-Politicus, in which he took some isolated and obscure statements made by Ibn Ezra and welded them into a set of systematic propositions. His conclusion was that not only did Moses not write the Pentateuch, but the whole body of historical writings in the old covenant scriptures constituted a mere winnowing out of materials from a much greater mass and at a later date, and the bulk of the matter has become lost. In 1696 Anton Van Dale took up the theory and contended that the winnowing was done in the age of Ezra and was properly the work of this Jewish scribe following the exile.

A half century later, in 1753, Jean Astruc published what was intended to be a complete reply to Spinoza. Rejecting the post-Mosaic theory he postulated that Moses had relied upon previously written materials. Referring to the divergent titles for God, Elohim and Jehovah, he suggested that there were two accounts of the creation and later events and that Moses had placed them parallel with each other. It was his view that a careless or ignorant copyist had mingled them in consecutive fashion. He went so far as to intimate that there were as many as a dozen original documents and even speculated as to their respective authors.

     Until this time the views of the various writers had been offered with no special attempt to label their efforts under a specific category. It remained for John Godfrey Eichorn to coin the term "Higher Criticism." Born in Dorrinzimmen, Germany, in 1752, he was appointed professor at Jena when he was twenty years old, and in 1788 was made professor at Gottingen, where he served until his death forty-three years later. He advanced the idea that the original documents of the Pentateuch were all written during the time of Moses, some of them by Moses himself, and these were later compiled by someone during the time of Samuel. Eichorn gave the name "higher criticism" to his effort and it came to be a designation for the efforts of those who seek to prove that the accredited books of the Bible are forgeries in part or in whole.

It is probably too late to protest the assumption of this title by those who seek only to discredit what is generally believed. Criticism has its place in the study of any historical document, divine or human, inspired or uninspired. It is a legitimate pursuit when, as Prof. J. W. McGarvey says, "it is the art of ascertaining the authorship, date, credibility and literary characteristics of written documents." There is a difference between honest attempts at ascertainment and investigation merely to sustain a theory. Under the latter circumstances higher criticism has a lower motive. Why should the word "higher" be applied to discreditation and not to accreditation? Is one inferior simply because he refuses to run off after every speculative idea advanced? The whole truth is that there has never been agreement among "higher critics" and all of them have spent as much time criticizing each other as they have in ostracizing Moses! The most effective means of assuring you will be subject to criticism in the next generation is to adopt the views of the higher critics in this one.

     The "document theory" with which we have been dealing was supplanted by the "fragment theory" advanced by Alexander Geddes, a Roman Catholic theologian in Scotland, and by J. S. Vater in Germany. In 1806 De Wette set forth the "supplement theory" which was modified by Ewald in 1837, out of which modification grew the "historical theory." Passing swiftly over these so as not to bore our readers we come to the theory most generally in vogue in our day. It received great impetus from an eminent scholar at Strasburg by the name of Reuss, but it was popularized by one of his students K. H. Graf. The latter insisted that Deuteronomy was prior to the ritual law which is now commonly designated the priest code. He credited Ezekiel with creating the ritual law with additions to it continuing to be made well after the days of Ezra.

     Abraham Kuenen, taking his cue from

[Page 9]

Graf, went a step beyond and theorized that the religion of Israel was merely a natural religion. He taught that it was originally polytheistic like the other religions of the world, but under the guidance of the prophets speaking from a moral standpoint, it developed into a monotheistic religion.

     Julius Wellbausen, building upon the foundation of Graf, constructed or fabricated the great speculative system so generally adopted by critics of our modern day. Briefly stated it involves a belief that the Pentateuch should be called "the Hexateuch" for it consists of eight volumes instead of five. This work is a composite one drawn from four specific stages as follows: (1) A Judean prophetic historian who was a Jehovist and who compiled a history of Israel about 800 B C.; (2) An Ephraimite prophetic historian who was an Elohist and who produced a similar account about 750 B. C., the two accounts being compiled together by a redactor (German term for "editor") at a later date; (3) A writer of a different character who wrote the main part of what is now designated Deuteronomy, producing his work during the reign of Josiah, or about 621 B. C.; (4) Beginning with Ezekiel the ritual or ceremonial law began to be placed in written form, to be codified by Ezra about 444 B. C.

     The first of these is designated J, the second E, the third D, and the fourth P, referring to the priestly code. Distinct from all of these is a special section on the holy life (Leviticus, chapters 17 - 22), allegedly written by an unknown priest and labeled H. All of this was supposed to have been collated and joined together by a redactor not later than 280 B. C. It is possible that the average reader of a journal such as this one may shrug his shoulders and say, "Who cares?" It must be remembered that it is not such a reader who formulates the religious thought and moulds it in our generation. Those who do are not only constantly exposed to the views we have outlined but also to the subtle pressure to adopt them or be scoffed at by "the intellectuals." And it is the indifference and unconcern of "the average reader" which makes possible the rapid growth of such theories.

     Why should "higher criticism" be so intent on destroying faith in inspiration? Of course one needs to be hesitant about judging motivations but the more I ponder upon the problem in the light of facts, the more do I wonder if these theories are not the result of an attempt to sustain another theory which leaves God out of creation. So long as there is design in revelation to govern the existence of man, it will be difficult to deny there was design in creation to govern his origin.

I am not alone in this conviction. Dr. B. D. Eerdmans, who succeeded to Kuenen's chair in the University at Leyden, and who also built up a reputation as a rationalistic critic said, "I definitely separate myself from the Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen school, and I contest the so-called newer documentary hypothesis generally." He further said, "Evidently the argument of the critical analysis is not merely analytical. A good deal of belief in evolution is involved in it." (See "Criticism in Troubled Waters" by Prof. James Orr, D.D., Glasgow, Scotland, in Homiletic Review, Nov.1909.)

     The truth is that there are some great gaps which the critics have not yet bridged and one does not need a lot of scholastic ability to see them. Indeed, some of them

[Page 10]

are so simple as to appeal only to babes. It is assumed that the ritual or sacrificial law began to be written by the priests of the exile and was codified by the priestly scribe, Ezra, after the return from Babylon. The purpose was to sanctify and reestablish Jerusalem as the center of the worship of Jehovah and to make this city the mecca of the exiles. Then how can we account for the following?

     1. The city of Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the entire Pentateuch. It is once referred to as Salem, but then it was the abode of Melchisedec to whom Abraham paid tithes. If Moses wrote the Pentateuch this is understandable, since it was not until the time of David that this city, a garrison of the Jebusites, was captured.

     2. How does it happen that the hen was omitted from the list of clean and unclean birds? It is fairly well established that this fowl was introduced from India, probably in the days of Solomon, who was an exporter of exotics. By the time of Jesus the fowl was so common that he compared his concern for Jerusalem to that of "a hen gathering her chicks under her wings." How did the later priestly writers overlook this domestic fowl from their code?

     3. Why is there no reference to the use of music in the liturgical worship if the Pentateuch was compiled long after the days of David? This king ordained the use of orchestra and choirs in the temple worship and their use became a regular part of the sacrificial observance, but there is no reference to such in the Pentateuch at all.

     4. In view of the fact that the synagogal system took its spontaneous rise from the needs created by the exile, why is there no intimation of it if "the redactors" who compiled the code lived after that time, even down to 280 B.C.?

     (1) The claim of authorship found within the written document must be granted prior right in any consideration related to such authorship, and has a strong presumption in its favor. Such presumption must be even stronger if the document was one of public notice or accessibility and the claim was not contested at its origin.

     (2) The validity of the claim of authorship may be established exclusively upon the basis of such claim as made within the body of a written document and must be granted unless such claim is proven to be false.

     (3) In any contest of the validity of such claim of authorship the burden of proof rests upon the contestant and not upon the defender of such claim.

     With reference to the first law of evidence there is no question about the affirmation that it is the word of Moses. Repeatedly the phrase, "And the Lord spoke unto Moses" is used. It occurs over and over again. That the writing was a matter of public knowledge is evident from Exodus 25. "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord" (verse 4). "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people" (verse 7). "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words" (verse 8).

     The claim to authorship went unchallenged for almost 1700 years and then was challenged by an infidel, Celsus. This challenger was so effectively silenced that not another dared to rise for hundreds of years. The currently accepted theory of the critics is only one of many advanced in recent centuries, all of them contradictory to each other. A theory relative to a proposition is neither self-sustaining nor a proof of the proposition. A theory cannot constitute proof because it first has to

[Page 11]

be proved, at which point it ceases to be a theory. A theory is not established fact or truth but speculation. The claim of authorship of the Pentateuch cannot be proven to be false by a theory and until proven to be false no one can be called either unscientific or injudicious who accepts it.

     Instead of the critics becoming more certain of the validity of their theory as time permits for additional study of its implications they are becoming more cautious in advancing it. Julius Wellhausen produced in his "Die Composition des Hexateuchs" in 1889 what was designated as "the assured results" of higher criticism. It was alleged that he had established his postulation "beyond recall." But William Barclay, in his "The Making of the Bible published last year says, "It is to be understood that what follows is a reconstruction of events, as we think that they happened, and, although in our narrative we state the events as facts, we are none the less well aware that it is reconstruction and not indubitable history which we are presenting."

     It is at this juncture the danger of higher criticism is apparent. We live in a time when intellectualism is worshiped as the beau ideal of human attainment. Men do obeisance before titles and degrees bestowed by other men. They frequently accept what brilliant men write, forgetting that such men are not always sure of what they write. When such men state the events "as facts" lesser minds accept what is stated as factual, not knowing that the critics are merely recounting these things as "we think that they happened." Placed on that basis one may disagree with what is stated without disagreeing with proven fact.

     Of course it is not true that one man has much right to his "think-so" in any given field as another, if the other has in that he has is to glorify the arrogance of ignorance. For one who is grossly ignorant of nuclear fission to blatantly run counter to the experts in this scientific area is ridiculous. One has a right to speak what he thinks, but that is not a prerogative to speak without thinking. Often the immature and superficial reasoner would be more respected and honored if seen and not heard. We make no charge of dishonesty or insincerity against those with whom we disagree in this article. In their research they have uncovered countless nuggets of great worth. We appreciate their efforts but simply refuse to accept as genuine what we believe to be "fool's gold" because we have seen no assay which convinces us it is the real thing.

     This passage affirms that there is a domain which "belongs to the Spirit of God." Those things which lie in that realm are not discoverable by human genius but must be revealed by divine power. The unspiritual man slams the door shut on these things by denying there is such a realm. He brands as sheer foolishness that which is said to be revealed. He can no more grasp these things through a closed mind than one can physically reach through a closed door. Regardless of his mental genius in other fields he staggers in darkness with regard to spiritual matters when he closes the door for he shuts out the only light that can illuminate in this area. "It needs to be judged in the light of the Spirit."

     One may be talented in the field of electronics, or skilled in any of the arts and sciences, and still be stumbling in a world of spiritual darkness. We are now prepared to understand the statement of Jesus with which we began this thesis, "I

[Page 12]

thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will." Note the manner in which God was addressed. He was designated as "Father" but also as "Lord of heaven and earth." This is important!

     A babe realizes above everything else his dependence upon a family relationship. True wisdom in the spiritual realm begins with the acknowledgment of the fatherhood of God. "Should we not submit even more readily to our spiritual Father, and so attain life?" (Heb. 12:9). In addition to this there must be a recognition of lordship over heaven and earth, that is, the created universe. The same one who is our Father by spiritual generation is the governor of the universe by right of creation. When one acknowledges that his individual wellbeing and that of the whole world is directly related to God's providence, he has fitted himself for a proper appreciation of revelation. It is inconceivable that a father would not wish to communicate with his babe, especially when that babe acknowledges his own helplessness and absolute dependency.

     A babe takes upon faith that which he cannot explain. His happiness is not conditioned upon having a rational solution to all of the problems of life but upon a complete and unwavering trust in the author of life. He is not committed to finding a way to explain everything so he need not explain away everything he cannot find by his senses. The Holy Spirit operates in a heart filled with faith, and not necessarily in a mind filled with knowledge. This is not to say the two are incompatible. Far from it. If such were the case not any of the wise men of earth would be called. It is only when the wisdom in the mind excludes the faith in the heart that the Holy Spirit cannot become operable in the person. The point is that there is no room for pride in knowledge or ignorance. Both present great temptations although the latter is the more contemptible as having the least justification.

     "And so there is no place for human pride in the presence of God. You are in Christ Jesus by God's act, for God has made him our wisdom; he is our righteousness; in him we are consecrated and set free" (1 Cor. 1:30).