Methods Of Study (Iii)

by Doodson, A. T. | Category: For Young Believers | Dec 1952

Some months ago I wrote two articles on methods of study, by way of advice as to profitable methods, but I then gave a word of warning against the use of commentaries, saying that most of these give expression to opinions which are of a very dangerous character. I have been sent two books and have been asked to comment on them for the benefit of young believers. Much as one would prefer to set forth things of a positive nature, yet it is necessary from time to time to expose error.

The first book is called "A guidebook to the Bible", one of a series intended for people to teach themselves. On the cover is a commendation by a well-known clergyman, who says, "This really is the book I have been looking for", so that students of the Word might be tempted to take the book as a trustworthy guide. I shall not comment on the last two sections of the book, which deal with "The New Testament" and "The Bible through the centuries", but I shall say a little about the kind of teaching which is current among many expositors of the Scriptures in regard to the Old Testament.

The dominant idea is that the Bible contains a selection of material from ancient stories or legends which had passed down from one generation to another, including many which the Hebrews had taken over from Babylon. Among the latter is the story of creation and the story of the flood, and it is alleged that these have been adapted by the writers of the Old Testament. The Hebrews we read of in the Scriptures are descended from Abraham, but this book makes out there were many bands of Hebrews settling all over the lands referred to in the Bible, some of whom went to Egypt, and it is asserted that the real history of the Hebrews commences with Moses. That is, the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are legendary, with some element of historical background, but stories intended to paint a picture of the Hebrews being a chosen people. All these stories were written, it is alleged, very many hundreds of years afterwards. In fact, the whole of this "guide", so far as the Old Testament is concerned, is based upon the supposition that the writers lived after the year 1000 B.C. and that the whole was completed about the year 400 B.C.

According to this "guide" all that is said about what God said to Abraham and the rest of the patriarchs was made up by a man called "J", who "saw Yahweh's hand at work in the affairs of men shaping them according to a divine plan. History was to him the working out of Yahweh's will for Israel". It was this man "marvellous conception" and not God's revelation to Abraham and the rest. You and I will have the thought that God revealed himself

as Jehovah ("Yahweh") to Moses, but this "guide" says something quite different:

"From the time of Moses many of the Hebrews called their God Yahweh. This name seems to have been originally the name of the god of the Kenites .... (Moses) must have learned the name Yahweh from the Kenites, and when he returned to his people in Egypt he taught them that God's name was Yahweh."

That is, it was Moses and the Hebrews who chose God and not the reverse, and this kind of treatment of the divine record is characteristic of the book.

Quite early in the book it is laid down that it is incredible or even impossible that Moses could have written the first five books of the Bible, and it is alleged that these were put together long centuries afterwards. Let us suppose f6r a moment that the unknown writer wrote out the commandment, Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain, and then he proceeded to make up a lot of fictitious statements as to what God said to Moses, then he would be doing the very thing he was setting forth should not be done. A man who writes fiction about God and attributes sayings to God which He has not said, will not be held guiltless by God, and should in no wise be upheld by us. I cannot for one moment imagine that any godly Jew in the days of Ezra would be a party to foisting upon the people as an historical and veritable document any such concoction of fictitious stories and legends as this "guide" would teach. Moreover, and this point has been repeatedly made in Needed Truth, it is inconceivable that the Lord Jesus Christ would have countenanced in any degree whatever such a forgery. On more than one occasion He referred to the Book of Moses and attributed the writing thereof to Moses.

The student might ask, Why do people not accept Moses as the writer? There are two reasons, one being that the death of Moses is referred to at the end of Deuteronomy, and he could not have completed the book himself, and the other is that sometimes "Jehovah" is used and at other times "Elohim" is used, so that some critics have tried to make out that there were two writers whose writings have been merged. We need not pay any serious attention to the first reason. The second argument does not affect the matter of the authorship by Moses, but those who look for spiritual lessons find them in the different usages of the names for God and do not accept these theories of different authors whose writings have been merged.

The fact is that this "guide" has accepted without any kind of discernment the theories of critics whose main purpose is to discredit the Scriptures, to do away with any direct dealings between God and chosen men, to deny all divine revelation except by evolutionary processes in the minds of men, and to reduce everything to materialism. The men of old who claimed to speak in the name of God -are seen by these critics as deliberate forgers, and it is strange that they should profess to esteem the very writings which they regard as fictitious. Such men are agents of the Devil, whose purpose ever is to undermine the writings of the Old Testament.

The other book that was sent to me for review is entitled, "Religious education in the senior school". It is dealing with a very difficult subject, not so much because of the difficulties of young people but because the teachers themselves in many cases are unwilling to accept and teach things which are miraculous. So the writer says,

"It would seem that the stories about Elijah and Elisha might be legends of the kind that naturally spring up round the life of any remarkable character."

Then an "explanation" is given as to the miracle performed by the Lord Jesus Christ when He cast out the demons from the man possessed by Legion. This is to the effect that he had suffered a shock at the hands of the Roman Legion, noted for its cruelty, and that the Lord simply spoke to him and soothed him and treated him as some modern psychologists would do. What a whittling down of the sacred story! It is grieving that anyone knowing Christ and His power would lend himself to such devices. This book also adopts the theory of legends, saying, for instance, that "the story of the Patriarchs is probably legendary, but the writers were using legends well known to the people as a means of conveying religious lessons". Is the story of Abraham merely legendary, and on the same plane as the story of King Alfred and the cakes, as the book suggests? Were Noah and Isaac and others merely characters in stories ? -~ The witness Of the Lord Jesus Christ should bring the writers of such books to their knees in shame. Did He refer to Noah, and Abraham, as real characters? See Matthew 8.11, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are referred to by the Lord, and also see Luke 17.27 with regard to His reference to Noah. If we cannot give credence to the testimony of the Lord in these matters what credence can we give to any of His words? Again and again He referred to the Scriptures as they were accepted in that day, and will He, the very Personification of Truth, ever countenance a forgery or a lie or a fictitious history?

It would be impracticable to take up all the false statements made in books of the character revealed above, and sufficient has been said by way of warning as to the mischievous character of some of them. Not all that the writers say is blameworthy, for some appear to know the Lord as Saviour and no doubt they have desires to help others to accept the Bible and the Lord, but their methods will only increase the number of those who decry the Scriptures and who are prepared to accept only those parts with which they agree. When men begin to pick and choose in the Word of God they put their feet on a very slippery slope indeed.

We can only exhort young believers to regard all such teachings with abhorrence. The Lord said of the Scriptures that they spoke of Himself and of the eternal life in Him. The Apostles who companied with Him accepted the Scriptures as the very Word of God, and so did the Apostle Paul. The latter had far greater opportunities of studying these matters than any of the modern critics, he had a mind not in the least degree inferior to theirs, but a mind far superior, and he was not a credulous man who would swallow anything told to him, but one who delved deeply into the truth of God. He bore testimony to the patriarchs as real persons and not as legendary figures, and he accepted the Scriptures as verily the Word of God. Like him, I too would say:

"Sirs .... I believe God."

Doodson, A. T. | Dec 1952
For Young Believers