VI. ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING THE BOOK OF ISAIAH.
"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is there anything too hard for me?" Jer. xxxii. 27.
"God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God." Psa. lxii. 11.
"Great is our Lord, and of great power; his understanding is infinite." Psa. cxlvii. 5.
"He revealeth the deep and secret things; he knoweth what is in the darkness, and that the light dwelleth with him." Dan. ii. 2.
"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" Acts xv. 18.
"The Lord looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men." Psa. xxxiii. 13.
"Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say." Ex. iv. 12.
"And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not." Isaiah vi. 9.
The critics claim to have discovered, on literary and other evidence, that the Church of Christ, in all its branches, has been mistaken in all the past concerning the author of the book known as the Prophecies of Isaiah. They assume that all the foremost scholars of the world, and the faith of God's people, have been misled. Our critical advisers profess to have discovered that there were at least two, and probably many more prophets, whose writings compose the book. They refuse to recognize Isaiah alone as the author; and for several reasons:
First—Because of the change of style of composition from the thirty-ninth chapter to the close of the book.
Second—On the ground that the theme is more exalted than in the first thirty-nine chapters. Hence, it is assumed that these last chapters could not have been written by Isaiah.
Third—On the ground that Cyrus is mentioned by name, in the forty-fourth and forty-fifth chapters of the book, as the restorer of Jerusalem. Hence, our critics conclude that this part of the book must have been written after the event, as the prophet (it is assumed) could not name Cyrus before his birth.
Fourth—The critics assume that the prophet must prophesy out of his immediate surroundings, whatever that may mean. They furnish their troubled disciples the comforting assurance that these discoveries do not diminish the value of the book, but render it more accurate and interesting as a literary work. The professor already quoted, a fair representative of the critical school, in his recent lectures, referred to on a preceding page, distinguished the authors of the book as "Isaiah and the Great Unknown Prophet." Other critics multiply, somewhat indefinitely, the number of "The Unknowns." Our critic regards the change in style and theme from the thirty-ninth chapter to the end of the book as valid proof of at least the dual authorship of the book.
This assumption instantly raises the question as to who is the author of prophetic themes. Is it the prophet himself or the Holy Spirit? Does the prophet himself bring forth the prophecy of his own foreknowledge? Or, is the Holy Spirit the inspirer of themes new and old? Happily God has settled the question for us. He declares by his Apostle Peter "that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation"; that is, of the prophet's own disclosure. "For prophecy came not of old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter i. 20, 21.) It is, therefore, bold assumption to affirm that God could not give to the same prophet new and more exalted themes in his progressive revelation of truth. It is a limitation of God himself to the critic's notion of what should, or should not be. This would eliminate the divine element of the book by a sweep of the critic's pen. It is an assumption too groundless to need a reply.
Further, as to the change of style. Nothing is more natural or reasonable than the fact that a change of theme should produce a change of style. A more exalted theme must quicken the imagination, set the emotions aflame, stimulate all the mental and moral powers of the author. A historical statement, a commonplace theme, can be dealt with in a commonplace style, while new and uplifting truth awakens new powers in the writer. Milton's Paradise Lost was entirely different from his ordinary prose composition. Dr. John Watson's sermons were on a higher level than his books of fiction. Writers who do much of their literary work on the level plain on which the people move, frequently rise to mountain peaks of sublime composition when the occasion and theme demand it.
The style in the later chapters of the book of Isaiah is just what we would expect from the prophet when the Holy Spirit opened to his enraptured mind the theme of redemption through a suffering Messiah, in the fifty-third and following chapters of the book.
The objection to conceding the authorship of the entire book to Isaiah, because the prophet mentions Cyrus by name before his birth, is made in the face of the fundamental fact already stated that God inspired the writer, and is therefore the author of prophecy, "declaring the end from the beginning." (Isa. xlvi. 10.) He knows all the future and whom he will choose to accomplish his glorious purposes. To deny this fact is to deny all prophecy. If God can not foretell future events and the instruments for their accomplishment, there can be no prophecy, and God's omniscience is impeached. Isaiah prophesied in the seventh chapter and fourteenth verse: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Matthew affirms that this prophecy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. (Matt. i. 22, 23.) He also declares in the same connection that the announcing angel foretold that the name "Jesus" was to be given to the Messiah at his birth. These preannouncements must be cast aside if the critic's dictum is accepted. Shall we discredit Isaiah, the announcing angel, and Matthew on the ground of the critic's literary acumen?
Further, the student of the Word will remember that when Jeroboam was bringing disaster upon Israel, God sent his prophet to declare: "Behold a son shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee (the altar at Bethel) shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee." More than three hundred years after this prophecy was given, according to Usher's Chronology, Josiah was born and did the precise things that were predicted concerning him. (See 1 Kings xiii. 2 and 2 Kings xxiii, 15, 16.) The omniscience of the Holy Spirit can predict the name of the instrument as readily as the event which is to be accomplished.
Again, undoubtedly the prophet must speak out of his own environment. He can speak only where he is. But who is to decide how many and what allusions he must make to custom or incident in order to satisfy the critic, as to his time and place in history?
The tailor who decides that he must have twenty yards of cloth to make a suit of clothes, when ten yards are sufficient, will shortly be wanting customers. The critic who has decided how many and what kind of synchronous events must be furnished by the prophet, in order to secure his credence as to authorship, will be left without a prophet or a Bible.
The erection of an arbitrary law, by which to interpret history or prophecy in the Bible, is contrary to all the treatment which secular literature receives from these same critics.
From these strained, forced and unphilosophical methods of dealing with prophecy, we turn to the testimony of the inspired book itself. The book of Isaiah is distinguished by a phraseology peculiar to this prophet. He speaks of God as "The Holy One of Israel." This title, as applied to God, is used only seven times in the entire Old Testament; once in 2 Kings, three times in the Psalms, twice in the prophecies of Jeremiah, and once in Ezekiel, but never in the minor prophets. But Isaiah uses this title as applied to God, twenty-two times, running through the entire book from the first to the sixtieth chapter.
The reader will be interested to note how the repeated use of the phrase—"The Holy One of Israel"—attests the unity of the authorship of the entire book. Hence the passages ("line upon line, line upon line") are here presented to give their unequivocal testimony to our Sabbath School teachers.
1: Isaiah I:4—"They have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel to anger."
2: Isaiah v:18, 19—"Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope: that say ... let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it."
3: Isaiah v:24—"Because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel."
4: Isaiah xii:6—"Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion; for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee."
5: Isaiah xvii:7—"At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel."
6: Isaiah xxix:19—"The poor among man shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel."
7: Isaiah xxx:11—"Cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us." (The language of a rebellious people.)
8: Isaiah xxx:12—"Wherefore, thus saith the Holy One of Israel, because ye despise this word ... therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall."
9: Isaiah xxx:15—"Thus saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved."
10: Isaiah xxxi:1—"They look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the Lord."
11: Isaiah xli:14—"Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, I will help thee saith the Lord, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel."
12: Isaiah xli:16—"Thou shalt rejoice in the Lord, and shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel."
13: Isaiah xli:20—"That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the Lord hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it."
14: Isaiah xliii:13—"I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior."
15: Isaiah xlv:11—"Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come, concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me."
16: Isaiah xlvii:4—"As for our Redeemer, the Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel."
17: Isaiah xlviii:17—"Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, I am the Lord thy God, which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go."
18: Isaiah xlix:7—"Thus saith the Lord ... Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee."
19: Isaiah liv:5—"For thy Maker is thine husband; The Lord of hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called."
20: Isaiah lv:5—"Nations that knew not thee, shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel."
21: Isaiah lx:9—"The Isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee."
22: Isaiah lx:14—"And they shall call thee the city of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel."
The reader will notice that this phrase, as applied to God is a characteristic of Isaiah. We have not found it in any of the minor prophets, and but twice in the prophecies of Jeremiah, and once in Ezekiel. But Isaiah uses it more than twenty times, running from the first to the sixtieth chapter. He uses it ten times before reaching the fortieth chapter, and twelve times in the chapters following, which the critics have assigned to some unknown author or authors. Shall we be asked to conclude that the unknown authors adopted Isaiah's style, his phraseology, from the fortieth chapter to the end of the book? For what motive? To conceal themselves? The assumption is too large. If the first thirty-nine chapters of this book are accepted, as the prophecies of Isaiah, by every law of fair criticism the whole book must claim this prophet as its author.
VII. GOD'S REPLY TO THESE ASSUMPTIONS.
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Rom. ix. 20.
"At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." Deut. xix. 15.
"Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Rom. xv. 4.
"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." 1 Cor. x. 11.
"My people shall know my name, therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak, Behold, it is I." Isaiah lii. 6.
In the New Testament we have in the Gospels and the Epistles God's teachings concerning the Old Testament. The writers of the New Testament had the promise of our Lord that "The Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John xiv. 26.)
In the fulfillment of this promise they have given us the testimony of God, the Holy Spirit, on all the subjects of which they have written. What, therefore, is their testimony concerning the author of the book of Isaiah? Did that prophet write the book, or is it a patched book from various authors?
Matthew, the inspired author of the book that bears his name, quotes from Isaiah xl. 3: "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." (See Matt. iii. 3.)
The critics inform us that this prophecy was not given by Isaiah, but by some unknown prophet, and was bound up with Isaiah's prophecies, and labeled as his. Matthew informs us that it was a prophecy concerning John the Baptist, and was given by Isaiah himself, and not by another. He says (iii. 3), referring to John the Baptist: "For this is he that was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying:
"The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight." (R.V.)
Again, in Matt. viii. 17, the author of this gospel quotes a passage from the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. The critics have handed this fifty-third chapter over to the Unknown prophet or prophets. They affirm again that the theme and literary style of this chapter are such that Isaiah could not have written it. They base their affirmation on their own literary discoveries, their ability to detect the footprints of some other prophet, though they do not inform us who that prophet is. They are sure that it was not Isaiah, for they have already placed him under such limitations that, according to their critical decision, he could not write the chapter. Of course, their conclusion is reached by practically denying the Holy Spirit's agency—logically denying that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter i. 21.)
The inspired author of the gospel of Matthew had a different conception of the Holy Spirit's agency in giving prophecy to the world. He had not discovered the limitations of the prophet, which the critics profess to have found. Hence, in giving the history of God's gracious and miraculous work of casting out demons and healing the sick, he declares (Matt. viii. 17), without a shadow of a mistake, that Christ wrought these miracles, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases." (See also Isaiah liii. 4.)
As Matthew is on the witness stand, the reader will be interested to hear his testimony further. In his gospel (xii. 17-21) he testifies that Isaiah wrote the forty-second chapter of the prophecy that bears his name. Matthew quotes the first four verses of the chapter, in explanation of the fact that Christ found it necessary during his ministry to retire from the public excitement which his teaching and miracles had produced. He says that Christ pursued that course "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, Behold my servant whom I have chosen; my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my Spirit upon him and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory, and in his name shall the Gentiles trust."
This quotation is from Isaiah, forty-second chapter, and first part of the chapter. The reader will remember that the critics deny this testimony of Matthew. This forty-second chapter which he (Matthew) assigns to Isaiah is a part of the book which they affirm has come to us from some unknown source.
It is worthy of repetition that three times Matthew, the inspired author of the first gospel, has affirmed without equivocation that the passages which he quotes were "spoken by Isaiah the prophet." The critics say "No." Which will the reader believe?
The author of the third gospel, describing our Lord's visit to Nazareth, says: "As his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah, and when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel; he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." Luke iv. 16-19.
Luke informs us that it was "the book of the prophet Isaiah" from which our Savior made this quotation. We turn to the prophecy and discover that the passage is found in the sixty-first chapter and first and second verses of the book. But the critics who are correcting our Bible for us (?) inform us that their same literary discovery holds good here—that this part of the book was not written by Isaiah. They assume to hand over this part of the book, knowingly, to the "Great Unknown" and unknowable prophets. The testimony of Luke contradicts the critics. He gives Isaiah full credit as the author of the statement. The reader will doubtless accept the fact that the inspired writer, the author of Luke's gospel, obtained his information at first hand, from God himself, who inspired the record.
Again Luke contradicts the critics when he puts on record Philip's interview with the eunuch, as we find it in Acts viii. 30-33. When Philip joined himself to the eunuch, by direction of the Spirit, he "heard him reading Isaiah the prophet (Isaiah liii. 7), and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?" ... Now, the passage of the Scriptures which he was reading was this: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter and as a lamb before his shearer, dumb, so he opened not his mouth. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: his generation who shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth," (R.V., Acts viii. 30-33.)
Our critics have robbed Isaiah of this passage. It was written, so their literary skill claims to have discovered, by some prophet who has successfully concealed himself, and finally disappeared from sight, leaving no hope that his name will ever be discovered.
Luke informs us that he knew who the prophet was that penned that touching description of the coming Messiah, and that his name was Isaiah. This question he has settled.
Turning to the gospel of John, we are furnished the testimony of one of whom our Lord said, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." This witness comes before us, therefore, indorsed by Jesus Christ himself, "The faithful Witness." We ask him, therefore, to speak for himself as to who is the author of that part of prophecy which the critics are attempting to wrest from Isaiah.
When the priests and Levites came to ask him, "Who art thou? That we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?" he replied, "I am the Voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet." (See John i. 22, 23, R.V.)
This was his testimony, first concerning himself. We believe him. And this was his testimony, secondly, concerning the author of the prophecy which he quoted: "Isaiah the prophet."
Again we believe him, and as confidently, concerning the second statement as the first. And the Apostle John was so confident of its truth that he put it on record.
The passage quoted (Isaiah xl. 3) belongs to that part of the book which our critic and his fellow critics have decided was predicted by some stray prophet, unknown to the world, to the Jewish people or the church. We prefer the statement of John the Baptist, and its indorsement by John the Apostle.
The reader will now recall that we have already heard Matthew's corroboration of the testimony of John the Baptist concerning Isaiah's claim to this prophecy. (See Matt iii. 3.)
In the gospel of the Apostle John he puts on record his personal testimony concerning the author of the book bearing Isaiah's name. Explaining the amazing unbelief of the Jews, he says (xii. 37, 38): "But though he (Jesus) did so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him: that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake:
"Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?" (R.V.)
The reader will see that this inspired writer of the fourth gospel is quoting from Isaiah liii. 1, thus testifying to Isaiah's authorship.
Our literary critics have decided that this chapter was forbidden ground to Isaiah, that, if we are to believe them, he had no connection with this prophecy.
We are asked to believe that the author of this fifty-third chapter, the most minute and tender prophecy concerning the Messiah's sufferings for his people, and rejection by them, has dropped out of sight! We are asked to believe that the name of the prophet who gave this dramatic picture of what was to take place on Calvary seven hundred years later, has been lost in the fog of the passing centuries! We are asked to believe that the name of the author of the first thirty-nine chapters, the less important part of the book, has been preserved, but oblivion has overtaken the author of the book from the fortieth chapter to the end.
The assumption is an affront to the intelligence of the ordinary reader of the Bible. It is an impeachment of the honesty of the authors of the gospels, which the unshaken faith of God's people can never concede.
The reader can now sum up the testimony of Matthew, Mark (see i. 3, R.V.), Luke, John, and John the Baptist, all of whom with one voice contradicts the critics. We also prefer, with these witnesses, to discredit the men who are picking out clauses, verses and chapters here and there, and guessing them off to authors of their own invention, who have never been known or heard of.
It is not sufficient for the critics to say that these New Testament authors knew better, but deferred to popular sentiment, based on tradition. That can not satisfy our estimate of them as God's divinely appointed teachers, chosen to make record of the momentous truth on which the salvation of a lost world hangs. Men, ready to lay down their lives for the truth, were not the men to play fast and loose with the Word of God, in deference to a supposed popular sentiment.
Further, our critical friends have assumed to decide for the prophets that they must prophesy out of their immediate surroundings in such a marked way, with such continued reference to the events of the period, that the prophecy must be located in that period. If the critic cannot find these particular local earmarks, he must push the prophecy to a point of time with which he can make it synchronize, and which will satisfy his literary judgment. By this law of determining dates, the critics claim that the book of Isaiah is a composite work, produced by different authors and at different times.
On this assumption the latter part of the book of Revelation was not a revelation to the Apostle John on the Isle of Patmos. The first part of the book may be adjudged as his. But presently the matter of the book passes into a realm beyond the time and circumstances that belong to that period, hence may not claim him as its author. An assumption that sets aside the claims of Scripture, as to authorship, in order to harmonize the book with one's literary and critical judgment, may be dismissed on its own lack of merit.
The proposed law above referred to, as a method of locating prophecy as to time, or determining the author, is arbitrary, and an absurd attempt to destroy all the testimony of inspired writers, who have settled the question of authorship and the date of prophecy.
VIII. THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF JONAH.
"According to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher." 2 Kings xiv. 25.
"The word of the Lord came unto Jonah, the son of Amittai, saying, Arise go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it: for their wickedness is come up before me." Jonah i. 1, 2.
"So Jonah arose and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord." Jonah iii.. 3.
"And he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Jonah iii. 4.
"So the people of Nineveh believed God." Jonah iii. 5.
"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them, and he did it not." Jonah iii. 10.
"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas." Matt. xii. 41.
The book of Jonah has been attacked by the destructive critics. Its historicity has been denied. The critics, though certain of almost all of their objections to the Bible, have not all decided whether it is "based on history, or is a nature myth." Keunen has discovered (?) that it is "a product of the opposition to the strict and exclusive policy of Ezra toward heathen nations." Objection is made to the historical statements of the book on various grounds. The objector interposes this difficulty: "Can we conceive of a heathen city being converted by an obscure foreign prophet?"
This objection is of kin to that which can not conceive that by a creative act of God the universe was brought into being, or the inspired statement that "the worlds were framed by the word of God." It is the presence of the supernatural everywhere that is beyond the conception of the critics.
Again, they interpose the difficulty: "How could the Ninevites give credence to a man who was not a servant of Ashur?"
Without presenting the multiplied difficulties that rationalism has supposedly discovered, they may be summed up in their statement substantially, that the book of Jonah is not historical. Whatever else it may be, whether legend, myth or allegory, it is not history.
We turn again from the fancies of "Expert Scholarship" to the testimony of the Bible concerning itself. We discover that the prophet Jonah is referred to several hundred years before the critics have permitted him to live. It is written in 2 Kings xiv. 25 that Jeroboam the Second secured the restoration of certain territory, "according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher."
The name of Jonah, of his family, and the place of residence of his family, are definitely stated. The work is accomplished "by the hand of his servant Jonah," and the date of its accomplishment, is so precisely recorded that these statements could have been disproved had they been false. Hence, there was a person named Jonah.
Our Lord has settled the questions of the personality and work of Jonah, if anything can be settled for unbelief. He has affirmed the historical certainty of the two important events which critical assumption declares impossible. The critical Jews were demanding a sign from our Lord. He had wrought many miracles, but they wanted something beyond what he had given, a miracle for their special benefit. He declined to gratify them. Of that generation he said: "There shall no sign be given it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matt. xii. 39-41.) As Jonah was miraculously preserved for three days and nights and was brought forth, as by a resurrection, so was the Son of man to be brought forth from the tomb. His resurrection was to be the crowning miracle, the sign forever confronting his nation, Jonah's deliverance from apparent death was such a miracle as convinced the Ninevites that he had a message from God for them, so Christ's resurrection was to become the keystone of the arch on which the whole structure of the redemptive system should rest. "He was raised for our justification." (Rom. iv. 25.)
The reader will mark that our Lord referred to the miraculous preservation of Jonah, and his deliverance, as a historical event, recorded in the first and second chapters of the book of Jonah, not as a myth or allegory, but as a historical fact. "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." As the one, so the other. As certainly and literally the one, so certainly and literally the other. If Jonah's preservation and coming forth from the fish that God had prepared was only a legend, then was Christ's death, burial, and resurrection a legend. And in consistency with their critical theory some of the rationalists have reduced them both to legend. For as one was, so was the other to be. The statement is plain, definite narrative, from which there is no escape.
Others of the critical school hold to the historical verity of Christ's burial and resurrection, but assert that he made use of the assumed legend concerning Jonah, as we might illustrate any fact in history by a familiar statement from fiction. To such an assumption we reply that our Lord was dealing with tremendous realities, such as could not be belittled by turning for support or illustration to a fictitious story. He quoted from Old Testament history to illustrate and enforce New Testament truth. On another occasion he said: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life." Shall we hand over to legendary literature the great historical fact of the twenty-first chapter of Numbers—God's deliverance of the people from the fiery serpents—by one look at the uplifted brazen serpent by the hand of Moses? We may as well reduce one passage to fiction as the other. "As Jonah ... three days and nights, so the Son of man. As the serpent was lifted up, so the Son of man shall be lifted up." This comparison has a definite meaning. The apostle uses it in his Epistle to the Romans, fifth chapter and twelfth verse. "As by one man sin entered into the world, ... so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned." As certainly as sin entered into the world by one man, so certainly it resulted that death passed upon all men. As Christ's remaining in the grave three days was not a fiction, so Jonah's three days and nights in the great fish that God had prepared was not a fiction.
Our Lord further certifies to the historicity of the book of Jonah by his reference to the great prophet's preaching. The critic's objection is thus stated: "Can we conceive of a heathen city being converted by an obscure foreign prophet?"
Of course, the objection to the record of that mighty moral movement comes from those who have counted God out of Jonah's preaching. If they can eliminate the divine power from that event, they can easily hand the whole record over to what they are pleased to call the "folk lore of the Bible." Here, as ever, the critic must rid the Scriptures of the supernatural.
But our Savior knew that "power belongeth unto God" (Psa. lxii. 11), and he put on record the repentance of the Ninevites, saying, "The men of Nineveh shall rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah." (Matt. xii. 41.) But if the book is not history, our Lord's statement is false, for he says the Ninevites did repent.
There is no rational possibility of denying our Lord's positive statement without impeaching his veracity.
His words authorize the following conclusions:
I. There was a prophet whose name was Jonah, as is stated in 2 Kings xiv. 25. He was not a myth or figment, but a prophet whose personality is authenticated by Christ himself.
2. There was a city of Nineveh. The skepticism of other days denied the existence of Nineveh. So completely was the prophecy concerning the destruction of Nineveh fulfilled that the enemies of God's Word refused to believe that the city had ever existed, until the excavations of the last century revealed the hidden ruins. But the word of God was true, and in God's time Nineveh was revealed.
3. God sent this same prophet Jonah to Nineveh to preach. Christ tells us what took place under "the preaching of Jonah." It terminated in a great awakening and reformation for:
4. "The men of Nineveh ... repented at the preaching of Jonah."
Did the Savior know what he was talking about? Did he know the truth of the statement he made? Or, knowing (as is assumed) that there were no such events, did he resort to fiction in order to assert the certainty of his own resurrection? If the latter, then we must correct his statement concerning Jonah, and read: "As Jonah has been fictitiously represented to have been three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so, fictitiously, shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Our Sunday-school teachers, with the words of Christ before them, will be able to give the critics important information. They can report the certainty of the historical facts.
IX. RADICAL EXPOSITION.
"Among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (R.V.) 2 Peter ii. 1.
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith." 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21.
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them." 1 Tim. iv. 16.
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." 2 Peter i. 19.
The destructive critics have pushed their work far into the field of both prophecy and exposition. They have relegated to the domain of mythology the clear and unequivocal historical statements of Scripture. Where the intrusion of their mythological theory was too large a demand to make on our credulity, they have attempted a radical exegesis in proof of their assumptions.
They claim to have discovered that the Church in all the past has misconceived the first prophetic promise given to man. That promise was given to our first parents immediately after the fall. God said to the serpent (Gen. iii. 15): "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel."
Our critics have two objections to the interpretation that has always been given and maintained by Christian scholars and by the Church as a whole. First, that "the seed of the woman" does not refer to the Messiah, but to the human race, which is to bruise the serpent's head. Second, that the serpent engaged in seducing Eve, and here placed under the curse, does not refer to Satan.
In replying to the objection that the Messiah is not referred to in the passage, let it be said that the pronoun is a pronoun referring to a person. It is so translated in the Revised Version. "He shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel." It is not the human race, but he, an individual person. This person was not to be the seed of the man, but of the woman.
The announcing angel said to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke i. 35.) The child to be born was to be literally and truly "the seed of the woman," and that was the Messiah, the only person of the entire human race of whom that could be said.
We are not left, however, to an exegetical statement alone, although that is absolutely unequivocal. The promise was repeated to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to David. The seed of the woman was to be the Messiah, the Christ, triumphing over the power of Satan. The race has not triumphed over Satan, but has been a failure.
The Holy Spirit has settled the question in Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, iii. 16: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many (or, the human race), but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ." On the human side, our Savior was of the line of Abraham, and David, but was singularly and literally "the seed of the woman," being the Son of God.
He called himself the Son of man only in the sense that he was born of her who was of the race of man. He ever claimed God as his Father, and in a different sense from that in which men can claim God as Father. His claim to be the Son of God was the claim to be equal with God, which no created being dare make.
The Holy Spirit further declares, in Hebrews ii. 14; "For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death (his death on the cross) he might destroy him (Satan) that had the power of death"—"bruise the serpent's head." It was Satan that inflicted death. He was the first higher critic who changed and denied the word of God, saying to the woman, "Ye shall not die." Through his denial of the word of God, he deceived the woman and brought spiritual death on the race. This was the work of Satan, according to the New Testament teaching. He is the same that God calls the serpent in the third chapter of Genesis. For the Holy Spirit informs us, in 2 Cor. xi. 3, that "the serpent beguiled Eve," and states definitely who the serpent is—"that old serpent called the devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world." (Rev. xii. 9.)
Having God's testimony that the serpent and the devil are one and the same, we are prepared for the mark which our Lord puts on him, "A murderer from the beginning ... and no truth in him." He had always sought to pervert and discredit the word of God. He suggested to Eve that she did not understand God's command; she had taken it too literally, which is a popular form of attacking the Bible today. "Yea, hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Are you not mistaken? And when he had injected the doubt into the mind of Eve, had gained an advantage, he seized it and boldly denied the word of God, "Ye shall not die." He is an artful critic and successfully did his deadly work.
Hence, the first great promise which God gave to the fallen pair, and through them to the race, set the seed of the woman, the Messiah, in conflict with "that old serpent called the devil and Satan." That promise is now in process of fulfillment, and must reach its final consummation when John's apocalyptic vision is fulfilled, "And the devil that deceived them (the nations) shall be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night, forever and ever."
X. GOD HIS OWN INTERPRETER.
"To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not accordingly to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah viii. 20.
"Thy law is the truth." Psa. cxix. 142.
"Thy testimonies that thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful." Psa. cxix. 138.
"Lead me in thy truth and teach me." Psa. xxv. 5.
"The word of our God shall stand forever." Isaiah xl. 8.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away." Mark xiii. 31.
The destructive critics have assaulted the most precious prophetic scriptures. It has been already stated that the final aim of skepticism is against the person of Christ. If the unbelieving world can be rid of both the prophecies concerning Christ, and the history of his life, his sacrificial death and resurrection, they will be rid of that stumbling stone which they have been pleased to call the "much-abused supernaturalism." Hence, the strenuous effort is made to destroy predictive prophecy concerning the person of the Son of God. The fact that there are more than thirty-five prophecies, containing one hundred and thirty distinct counts, concerning the birth, the life, the teaching, the death, and the resurrection of our Lord, greatly disturbs the critics.
The prophecy of Isaiah ix. 6 has been troublesome. The prophet foretold, in distinct and unimpeachable language, the coming of the Messiah: "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
A critic who claims to be loyal to the word of God says concerning this passage: "The prophet always paints upon the canvas the events of the near future. I can not believe that Isaiah ix. 6 refers to a far-off event, because it would not give comfort to his people at that time." As this prophecy was given more than seven hundred years before the coming of the Messiah, our critic concludes that it could be of no practical benefit to Israel, hence, must have referred to some person who must soon appear.
To affirm that this promise of the Messiah long before his coming "would not give comfort to his people" is mere assumption. The time of his coming was not announced, and the people were to live in expectation of the event, which expectation was to be their stay and comfort. This assumption would vitiate the promise of his coming made to our first parents. Gen. iii. 15, the promises made to Moses; Deut xviii. 15, the predictions made in Psa. xxii. 1, 8, 16, 18, in which his cry on the cross, the taunt of his enemies, the piercing of his hands and feet, and the parting of his raiment among the soldiers, were all predicted.
The prediction that "Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, he that is to be the Ruler of Israel; whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting" (Micah v. 2) was made seven hundred years before the coming of Christ, and, according to critical assumption, could not refer to our Savior, "because it would not give comfort to his people."
Indeed, no prophecy preceding the time of Isaiah ix. 6 could be allowed to refer to Christ, on the assumption of the critic. More than this, the prediction of Christ's second advent is vitiated by this assumption. It was more than eighteen hundred years ago that the angels said to the disciples who were steadfastly watching his ascension: "This same Jesus who is taken from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Was there no comfort to the disciples in the promise of his return, though they did not live to witness it? Paul, enlarging on the promises of Christ's return, said to the Thessalonians: "Wherefore comfort one another with these words."
Let us now consider the prophecy in its context. The prophecy of the seventh and eighth chapters is projected on through the ninth. The first verse of this chapter predicts some relief of the former sufferings of the people for their sins.
"The people that walked in darkness (verse 2) have seen great light." The prophet informs us who it was, to whom this light should come. The inhabitants of "the land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim," which embraced the region of Galilee, in which the larger portion of Christ's ministry was exercised. Matthew quotes this scripture as fulfilled by the coming of our Savior. (See Matt. iv. 12-16.) "Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison he departed into Galilee, and leaving Nazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, by way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw a great light, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, light is sprung up."
Undoubtedly the prophet looked into the future, when the coming of the Messiah should bring the light of the gospel into that region so particularly described by him. And the inspired writer of the gospel of Matthew positively applies the context of Isaiah ix. 6 to our Lord. Then, proceeding with the explanation as to how the light should break forth in "Galilee of the Gentiles," the prophet announces (verse 6) that, "for unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
The reader may well investigate the language of this prediction, "for unto us a Child is born." The "for" is given as an explanation, a reason for the coming light to "Galilee of the Gentiles," a region and a people that had been for generations "in the shadow of death." The light was to break forth because a child was to be born and a son given.
The announcement was made as if the event had taken place, though so far in the future. This is in accordance with the form of predictive prophecy, as in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, where the atoning work of Christ is spoken of as already accomplished, though it remained to be achieved in the future. The prophet said of that work: "He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.... He was wounded for our transgressions.... He was bruised for our iniquities.... The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all." So it is stated in this prophecy: "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given," for the promise of God is the same to him as the fulfillment. His word is equivalent to his deed. It cost him as much to purpose and pledge as to fulfill his pledge. Hence, the prophecy speaks of the thing as done, since God has promised to do it. Seven centuries before he came, the prophet said, "unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given."
Our critical friends can not inform us who was the "Son given." They can only say it must refer to some "near future event." Let our Book speak for itself. It gives no uncertain testimony.
1. "The government shall be upon his shoulder."
As already stated in the context, and affirmed by Matthew, it is he that should bring light to the Gentiles. There is only one who is himself "a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel." (Luke ii. 32.) He said of himself: "I am the light of the world." (John ix. 5.)
The government is his. He is the "Only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords." (1 Tim. vi. 15.)
There is only One Potentate, One Ruler, One who could say, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Matt. xxviii. 18.) There is only One who could say, "All things are delivered unto me of my father." (Matt. xi. 27.) There is only One of whom it could be said, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end," and that is said of the "Child born unto us and the Son given," and is a part of the prophecy concerning him. (Isaiah ix. 7.)
All earthly thrones have crumbled, all earthly kings and potentates have slept in the dust of death with the poorest of their subjects. But of this Son given, Daniel says: "There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel vii. 14.)
2. "His name shall be called Wonderful."
His name means his character, his person. He, himself, shall be called Wonderful, in a sense in which no other person can be entitled to that designation. Nicodemus accredited him as a wonderful instructor. "We know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." (John iii. 2). His enemies that were sent to arrest him quailed before him, and returned to the chief priests and Pharisees, saying, "Never man spake like this man."
A devout scholar has well said: "The manner of his birth was wonderful; his humility, self-denial, and sorrows were wonderful; his mighty works were wonderful; his dying agonies were wonderful; his resurrection and ascension were all fitted to excite admiration and wonder."
3. "His name shall be called ... Counsellor."
This term plainly indicated his exalted wisdom and dignity. The wisdom of men comes to naught; their counsel shall perish with them. But there is One, who understands, who declares the end from the beginning. Of him it is said: "The counsel of the Lord standeth forever; the thoughts of his heart to all generations." (Psa. xxxiii. 11.) He says of himself, "Counsel is mine and sound wisdom" (Prov. viii. 14), and it was by his "determinate counsel and foreknowledge" that the glorious scheme of redemption and complete salvation from sin was planned and executed. Hence, he takes to himself the title, "The Great and Mighty God, ... great in counsel, and mighty in work." (Jer. xxxii. 19.) Therefore, the Child that was to be born, the Son that was to be given, was to have a name, and "his name shall be called ... Counsellor."
4. "His name shall be called ... The Mighty God."
And now we are face to face with the Lord Jehovah, and the positive statement that this was the promised Son. By what guessing or critical legerdemain one who claims loyalty to the word of God and ordinary intelligence can attempt to sweep away these definite and determinate statements, and crowd some insignificant worm of the dust into the place given to him who was in the beginning, who was with God and who was God, we can not comprehend.
And still the prophet rises to the climax, to make sure that "wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err," and adds the prediction concerning the coming Son that,
5. "His name shall be called ... The Everlasting Father."
The Revised Version gives the same rendering as the accepted version, and adds the marginal reading, "Father of Eternity." The sense of the passage is the same. The name "Everlasting Father" was the name of the coming Son. He would be Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, not for a short time, but eternally, forever and ever—"the same yesterday, to-day, and forever." His care of his people would never cease.
The distinctions between the persons of the trinity were not made in the Old Testament, as in the New. Jehovah was God, the Lord was God, and was known as Jehovah God, the Everlasting Father. The incarnation of the second person in the trinity gave emphasis to his sonship, in order to put him in brotherly relation to us. "Wherefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren."
This prophecy of Isaiah, however, condescends to accommodate our weakness, and necessity, and gives to the promised child the name by which he is recognized in the New Testament, for
6. "His name shall be called ... The Prince of Peace."
At the birth of the Child the angel choir sang "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (Luke ii. 14.) "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." (Acts v. 31.)
Isaiah spoke as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. He gave to Israel this assuring promise for their comfort, that the Seed of the woman, the Messiah, was coming not as a fallible, impotent ruler, but as a Prince and Savior. Israel failed to comprehend the glorious things predicted, and even yet they are not fully unfolded. But the Messiah did not fail to come, and, as predicted, he came at Bethlehem. Every phase of his life, and the mighty work of redemption, all that was predicted of his earthly career, has been accomplished. And now, at the right hand of the Father, he is moving to the final consummation of his purposes of redeeming grace.
He will not be moved from his purposes by the uncritical attempts of rationalism to destroy the confidence of God's people in his revealed truth. We can move forward confidently in our work, knowing that nothing shall pass from his Word until all is fulfilled.
In this very brief study, in which God has spoken through the testimony of his word, we have only touched a few points in which the truth of Scripture has been assailed. But the testimony of the Book settles all questions. We can well rest on the assurance, "Forever O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven," and can not be unsettled on the earth. Our Sunday-school teachers and Christian young people can not fail to comprehend, and will rejoice in the fullness and power of God's testimony through prophet, apostle, and Christ the incarnate Word. To him be honor, glory, and dominion forever. Amen.