THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE NEW.

CARCELY do we open the New Testament before the eye falls upon the words, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet," (Matt. i. 22, Revised Version). So in the next chapter, "Thus it is written through (dia) the prophet;" "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through (dia) the prophet;" "then was fulfilled that which was spoken through (dia) Jeremiah, the prophet;" "that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken through (dia) the prophets," not through the prophet, observe, but through the prophets, (Matt, ii. 5, 15, 17, 23). So in the next chapter it is said of John the Baptist, "this is he that was spoken of by [or according to the best authorities through] Esaias the prophet," (Matt. iii. 3). So in the next chapter Jesus repulsed the assault of the devil by saying, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." A second time the tempter came, and "Jesus said unto him. It is written again." A third time he came, and a third time he was met and defeated in the same way, "It is written." At the close of the conflict our Lord entered upon His public ministry, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through (dia) Esaias the prophet," (Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10, 14).

Here, then, ten times in the first four chapters of Matthew are certain words of the Old Testament writings quoted, and quoted as spoken by the Lord through the prophets. Is evidence like this worth nothing? Is it to be set aside because ignorant men discover differences of style and imaginary difficulties, that prevent their acceptance of the truth of verbal inspiration? Let the honest reader ask himself the question, Who spoke the words of the Old Testament, that are reproduced at the beginning of the New Testament? The answer, ten times repeated, leaves no room for doubt. It was the Lord who spoke them, and the prophets were His mouth-piece and medium for the utterance of His words. They were in His hand, as the clay is in the hand of the potter, and without any interference with their mental peculiarities or literary culture. He made them vessels for the transmission of His own messages in human speech. If this is not true there is no truth in the Bible, and all of the objections that may be urged against it by the higher criticism are but "profane and rain babblings and oppositions of science, falsely so-called," (1 Tim. vi. 20).

It is strange that every Christian does not learn a lesson from the example of our Lord in His treatment of the Sacred Scriptures. In the threefold temptation that assailed Him, three times He replied, "It is written," — three times He quoted the book of Deuteronomy, as if foreseeing the attacks upon it by professed friends who seem to be dazed by the glamour of modern scholarship; three times He rested upon the word of God as His sole defence and sufficient answer, refusing to move a step beyond that word, even to satisfy His bodily wants, to establish His claim upon the faith of the religious who gathered about the temple, or to take the kingdoms of earth before the time appointed by the Father. Not only so, but He spoke of the word which he quotes as of more value than the bread that is essential to our existence, as superior in its authority to all the demands of our physical necessities, as proceeding from the mouth of God, not from the mouth of man, exalting it thus infinitely above the wretched theory of inspired thoughts clothed in uninspired language, for He declares that the food of man's life, the new life, the true life, the everlasting life, is the word not of man but of God.

Hence, we are not surprised to find in the next chapter such testimony falling from his lips as the following: " Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For, verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," (Matt. V. 17, 18). Upon this striking testimony Dr. Joseph Addison Alexander remarks: "Jot or tittle are expressions borrowed from the art of writing, and peculiarly appropriate in speaking of a written law, not even the minutest point of which should fail of its effect or be abolished without answering its purpose. As we in such a case might say, not a word, syllable, or letter, so the ancients said not an iota, the smallest Greek letter, corresponding to the Hebrew yod, from which it also takes its name. The other word, translated tittle, denotes a little horn, but is applied to the minute points and projections by which similar letters are distinguished." The New Testament Commentary by Dean Plumtre, edited by Bishop Ellicott, says: "The 'jot' is the Greek iota, the Hebrew yod, the smallest of all the letters of the alphabet. The ' tittle ' was one of the smallest strokes or twists of other letters. Jewish Rabbis used to caution their scholars against so writing as to cause one letter to be mistaken for another, and to give examples of passages from the Law in which such a mistake would turn a divine truth into nonsense or blasphemy."

Can any Christian believe that our Lord would have so strongly emphasized the importance of every little vowel point, and every slight projection of the letters that form the Hebrew alphabet, unless He intended to teach that the very words of the law were given by inspiration of God? ^yhatever may be the boasted scholarshi23 of modern German rationalists, and of their admirers and disciples in this country, probably they will not claim equality with Him "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;" and His reverent treatment of the Pentateuch, containing the law, might suggest to them the propriety of a little more caution in some of their statements. Again and again He mentioned this entire section of the Sacred Scriptures as the Law of Moses, and He gave no intimation that Deuteronomy was written in the days of King Josiah, or that Leviticus was unknown until the time of Ezra. He at least discovered no internal evidence, in the difference of style, that a number of independent authors had assisted in the composition of the three remaining books, followed up by a still larger number of redactors and sub-redactors. He recognized in the five books, as the Jews had them and as we have them, the handiwork of God, and hence one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, nor from the prophets, till all be fulfilled.

It is evident that with Him, not what was thought, but what was written in the Old Testament scriptures was an end of all controversy, an unimpeachable witness to the truth of all His teachings, and a court of last resort in its decisions upon all questions of faith and practice. These scriptures touched him at every step of His journey through the world, and were honored by Him as emanating from a higher than human source in their words, as well as thoughts. "He healed the sick; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias, the prophet," literally, "that the word spoken through (dia) Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled or verified," (Matt. viii. 17). He "charged them that they should not make him known, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet," literally, "that the word spoken through (dia) Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled or verified," (Matt. xii. 17). "All these things spake Jesus to the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet," literally, " that the word spoken through (dia) the prophet might be fulfilled or verified," (Matt. xiii. 34, 35). "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your traditions? For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother," (Matt. xv. 3, 4).

It will be observed that our Lord declares it was the commandment of God, not of man, which He quotes, and that God commanded, saying. It was not man therefore that commanded, but it was God who both commanded and said. He drove the money-changers out of the temple in the power of the Old Testament scripture, "It is written, my house shall be called the house of prayer." He rebuked the chief priests and scribes, who were angry because the children were singing His praise, with the Old Testament scripture, " Have ye never read. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?" Again He rebuked them for their rejection of Him with the Old Testament scripture, "Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?" (Matt. xxi. 13, 16, 42). To the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. He said, " Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God . . . . Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living," (Matt. xxii. 29, 32).

The whole of the sublime argument turns upon the difference between the past and the present tense of the verb "to be." The Saviour distinctly affirms that the word was not spoken by man, but by God, who did not say, I was the God of Abraham, but I am the God of Abraham and the patriarchs, and therefore as the covenant with them included both soul and body, they are still living and their bodies must be raised. To the Pharisees, who confessed that the Messiah is the Son of David He said, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord," or as the Revised Version has it, "How then doth David in the Spirit," or as the Emphatic Diaglott renders it, "How then does David, by Inspiration, call him Lord?" (Matt. xxii. 43). "The Son of man goeth as it is written of Him." "All ye shall be offended because of me this night, for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the flock of the sheep shall be scattered abroad." "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" "But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophet might be fulfilled," (Matt. xxvi. 24, 31, 54, 56).

These are passages selected almost at random from a single gospel, and can anyone doubt in their presence that the Lord Jesus exhibited the most profound respect for the words, and for the very letters, of the Old Testament writings? "When death stared Him in the face. He had but to raise His hand, but to lift one pleading glance to heaven for help, and more than twelve legions of angels would have rushed on eager wing to avenge the insults and cruelties inflicted by sinful men upon One whom they adored; but how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? At whatever cost to Himself, and with certain deliverance at hand, the Scriptures must be fulfilled, and they were fulfilled in the minutest particulars, with exact literalness, the words of accomplishment answering precisely to the words of prediction, as when His murderers gave Him gall and vinegar to drink, and parted His garments and cast lots upon His vesture, and reviled Him and wagged their heads, and mocked Him with the taunt, "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now," and wrung from His broken heart the dreariest cry of anguish that ever burst from mortal lips, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt, xxvii. 34-46).

It is the special design of the Holy Ghost in the gospel of Matthew to present Christ as the promised King, in the gospel of Mark as the faithful servant of God, (Isa. xlii. 1), and in the gospel of Luke as the Son of man; and this accounts for some of the differences and difficulties that have caused the feet of the higher critics to stumble. But whatever the difference, each of the three synoptical gospels, as they are needlessly called, makes abundantly manifest the jealous regard of the Lord Jesus for every little statement of the Old Testament writings, showing that they held a place in His esteem infinitely above that of the learned Rabbis, or of any human writings whatever. It is to be regretted that want of space forbids a careful examination of Mark and Luke upon this point, but they are in entire agreement with the testimony of Matthew, and the objector is challenged to point out a single utterance of Christ that does not prove His acceptance of all the Old Testament writings as containing the very words of God, even in the most obscure and, as men would say, trivial passages.

The same fact is brought out still more fully, if it were possible, in the gospel of John that reveals Him as the Son of God. Thus we read, "His disciples remembered that it was written; the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up;" "and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said," (John ii. 17, 22). To the Jews He exclaimed, "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me." "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me;" not intimating that anybody else had written any of the five books, or any portion of the five books, which the Jews ascribed to Moses, (John v. 39, 46). "It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God," (John vi. 45). "He that believeth in me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," (John vii. 38). " It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true," (John viii. 17). "Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture can not be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?" (John x. 34-36).

There are several things about this language of our Lord worthy of notice. First, he appeals to the Scriptures as the sole judge of the controversy: "Is it not written?" Second, the argument turns upon the single word "gods" in a single verse of the 82nd Psalm. Third, it embraces the important difference between the singular and plural numbers, between "gods" and God. Fourth, it shows that it was God, and not the Psalmist, who called the princes and rulers "gods," as representatives of Himself. Fifth, it declares that it was the word of God, not the word of man, that came unto them. Sixth, it asserts that the Scripture can not be broken in the least link, in the smallest particle, in the number, gender, case, tense, or inflection of the original word. Seventh, it proves the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Bishop Ryle well adds, " The theories of those who say that the writers of the Bible were inspired, but not all their writings — or the ideas of the Bible inspired, but not all the language in which these ideas are conveyed, appear to be totally irreconcilable with our Lord's use of the sentence before us. There is no other standing ground, I believe, about inspiration, excepting the principle that it is plenary, and reaches to every syllable. Once leaving that ground, we are plunged in a sea of uncertainties. Like the carefully composed language of wills, settlements and conveyances, every word of the Bible must be held sacred, and not a single flaw or slip of the pen admitted." Perhaps it is well also to give a single extract from Hengstenberg whose scholarship, to say the least, was not inferior to that of the Scotch and American Professors of Higher Criticism: "It can not be doubted that the Scripture is broken by those who assert that the Psalms breathe a spirit of revenge — that Solomon's song is a common, oriental love song — that there are in the prophets predictions never to be fulfilled — or by those who deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch."

In another place we are told that " Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion; behold, thy King Cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him," (John xii. 14-16). " I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled. He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me," (John xiii. 18). " But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law. They hated me without cause," (John xv. 25). " While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled," (John xvii. 12). The soldiers about His cross cast lots for His seamless coat, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled." "After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith — I thirst." The executioners brake not His legs, but one of them with a spear pierced His side, "for these things were done, that the Scriptures should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another Scripture saith. They shall look on him whom they pierced," (John xix. 24, 28, 36, 37).

Is not this overwhelming testimony to the inspiration of the very words of the Old Testament? Hundreds of years before, predictions had been uttered that, on account of their brevity and apparent vagueness, would have utterly escaped human notice. They were left in the midst of historical narrations, or lodged in a short phrase of some Psalm, or embedded in a part of a prophetic verse, and yet after all of these centuries had passed, they were taken up and shown to demand a literal and precise fulfillment. The Lord Jesus had absolute control over the hour and moment of His departure, for He said, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father," (John x. 17, 18).

We behold Him, therefore, on the cross a voluntary victim of man's hatred of God's holiness, and a voluntary sacrifice to pay the penalty which God's righteous law demanded of the sinner. But why does He not die, and so end the fierce tortures that are racking His body, and the fiercer tortures that are rending His soul? We learn to our amazement that He is surveying, as it were, the vast field of ancient prophecy to see if there yet remained any little prediction that lacked fulfillment, before he would consent to bring the dreadful suffering to a close. Yes, there is one in the 69th Psalm, "In my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," and the Holy one, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar; and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said. It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

But why did not the soldiers break His legs? Nearly fifteen hundred years previous to the crucifixion, the blood of a lamb without blemish was sprinkled on the two side posts and on the upper doorposts of the houses, in which the Israelites were gathered on the night of the passover. Of this lamb God had said, "In one house shall it be eaten, thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof," (Ex. xii. 46). So the soldiers brake not His legs: "for these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken." But they pierced His side; for a thousand years after Israel's redemption from Egyptian bondage, God had said through his prophets, "I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplication; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced," (Zech. xii. 10); or as the same divine speaker exclaims in the 22nd Psalm, "they pierced my hands and my feet." Hence in John we read, "another Scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced."

In the light of all this, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that one of the two writers in the Old and New Testament, was not a credible witness, and did not narrate the facts as they occurred, or on the other hand that the very words of the Old Testament are inspired. A hasty reading of Dr. Bannerman's book fails to show that he touches the gospel of John, but he truly says upon certain passages in Matthew, far less striking than these, "No theory of inspiration short of a plenary one will satisfy the requirements of a system of prophecy whose fulfillments, down to their minutest letter, are secured by the divine ordinations carried out in the life of Christ, expressly in subserviency to their fulfillment . . . . It affords a most impressive proof of the supernatural inspiration which presided over the very language in which the prediction was uttered, and which, unknown to the prophet, expressed a wisdom which was not his." It only remains to state that the same reverence which our Lord exhibited for the Old Testament writings amid the agonies of death, He continued to manifest after His resurrection. Hence when He appeared to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." The same evening their eyes were opened to recognize Him, as He. sat at meat with them, and took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them; and when He vanished out of sight, " they said one to another. Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?" Still later on the same evening Jesus stood in the midst of the assembled and astonished disciples, "and he said unto them. These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then*opened he their miderstanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them. Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day," (Luke xxiv. 27, 32, 44, 46). What an example our Saviour has left of the manner in which He would have His followers treat every portion of the Old Testament! All through His ministry of unwearied love, then upon the cross pouring out His blood to make atonement for our sins, and when He arose from the dead, the first fruits of them that slept, always and everywhere He exalted the word of God with careful regard for its least statement. Surely if we would walk in His footsteps, and gain His approval, we must resist every attempt to lower the divine claims of that word, and every temptation, though clothed with plausible argument and pretentious scholarship, to view any chapter or verse as unworthy of an implicit faith and unquestioning obedience.

Turning now to the Acts of the Apostles, we find Peter at the very beginning of the history standing in the midst of the disciples, the number of the names together being about an hundred and twenty, and saying, "Men, brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spoke concerning Judas," (Acts i. 16). Here it is asserted that this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which in itself shows that it could not have been the Scripture of man, and then it is plainly declared that it was the Holy Ghost who spoke by the mouth of David. Unless, therefore, it can be shown that there is something peculiar in this Scripture, separating it from other ancient Scripture, the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Old Testament is established. But when we look at the Scripture thus quoted, and attributed directly to the Holy Ghost, we find nothing to distinguish it from any other Scripture: "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me," (Ps. xli. 9). This is all there is of it, and yet it was spoken by the Holy Ghost through the mouth of David, and therefore the other writings of David were spoken by the Holy Ghost, if no exception to the rule can be cited.

So in the next chapter Peter says, "This is that which was spoken through (dia) the prophet Joel," (Acts ii. 16). In the next chapter he says of Jesus Christ, " whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began," (Acts iii. 21). Here again it is explicitly affirmed that it was God who spoke through (dia) the mouth of all the holy prophets, ascribing therefore to Him as the author, the words, not only of some but of all the prophets. In the next chapter the Apostles " lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said. Lord thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said," (Acts iv. 24, 25). It was not David who said it, but the Lord God, the maker of heaven and earth, said it through (dia) the mouth of David.

It seems ahmost like an insult to the understanding to continue an argument like this, when the point is already fully proved to all who are willing to receive the testimony of the Bible upon any subject whatever. The same thought pervades the entire book under consideration, as when Stephen says, "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, . . . and said unto him;" "And God spake in this wise;" "the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying, I am the God of thy fathers;" "then said the Lord unto him," (Acts vii. 2, 3, 6, 31, 33). Paul speaking to the Jews of the death of Christ, tells them "that they had fulfilled all that was written of him;" that the promise God hath fulfilled, "in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He said in this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore He saith also in another Psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption," (Acts xiii. 29, 33-35). "And Paul as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures," (Acts xvii. 2).

It is a significant and suggestive fact that the Apostle found enough in. the Old Testament writings to occupy him fen- three Sabbath days, in opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead, and that this Jesus whom he preached is the Christ; and it is equally significant and suggestive to know that so far as his discourse is recorded in the 13th chapter, and the discourse of Stephen in the 7th chapter, and the discourse of Peter on the day of Pentecost in the 2nd chapter, the sermons of the first preachers of the gospel were made up almost wholly of quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures. This clearly shows that they regarded these Scriptures as divinely inspired, and the decisions of these Scriptures upon any point under discussion as authoritative and final, because they were the decisions of God Himself.

There is not a line in the Acts of the Apostles in conflict with the statement just made, but it is confirmed by every sermon and utterance of men, who claimed that they also were inspired. Hence when Paul stood as a prisoner before the high priest, who commanded him to be smitten, he indignantly replied, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall." "And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written. Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people," (Acts xxiii. 5). He instantly bowed to the authority of the Scripture, although he knew that he was wrongfully suffering a shameful indignity. Again he stood as a prisoner before Felix to whom he said, "I confess unto thee, that after the way they call heresy, so worship I the God of my Fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets," (Acts xxiv. 14). Such was his confession of faith; and would to God it were the confession of every one who is called to preach and to teach in these days — believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets. In the last appearance of the devoted apostle in the last chapter of the book, he is a prisoner in Rome, but not forbidden to receive any who' desired to see him. On an appointed day many of the Jews came to him, "to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word. Well spake the Holy Ghost through (dia) Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying," (Acts xxviii. 23-25). It was out of the law of Moses, observe, embracing the entire Pentateuch, lie sought to persuade them, and it was not Isaiah who spake, but it was the Holy Ghost who spake through Isaiah, and said. Whether we can understand how the Holy Ghost spake or not, it is distinctly affirmed by the apostle that he did speak and say certain words. So the book opens with the testimony of Peter that the Holy Ghost spake through the mouth of David, and it closes with the testimony of Paul that the Holy Ghost spake through Isaiah. If, therefore, the testimony of these two inspired apostles is to be received, then the verbal inspiration of the Old Testament is proved.