The greatest objection that can be urged against the principles of higher criticism today is that they do violence to the wisdom and trustworthiness of the Lord Jesus. His unreserved acceptance of “all things” found “written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the Psalms” stands diametrically opposed to the theory that certain parts of the Bible (especially those comprising the early chapters of Genesis) are not the inspired word of God. If these words are too strong, then the most charitable comment that can be made is that this modern approach to the Scriptures so waters down the Word of God and so clouds vital issues as to fail in clearly defining first principle truths and moral responsibilities.
“From the Blood of Righteous Abel”
The simple, yet powerful way that Jesus often mentioned events found recorded in the Old Testament (viz, the book of Genesis) illustrates clearly that as far as the Son of God was concerned, they were to be taken literally. When confronted by the Pharisees with a question concerning divorce, the answer that Christ gave to them would have been inadequate and to the point of irrelevance if Moses account of the the creation of Adam and the formation of Eve were not a be taken literally. “Have Ye Not Read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh?” (Matt. 19:4,5). There was no question whatsoever in the mind of the Master as to the reliability of the Genesis account. Again, its very presence in the things recorded was sufficient cause for its acceptance. To question the assertion that Adam and Eve were the first human beings insofar as this creation is concerned, would be to take the force out of Christ’s reply to the Pharisees, and remove the factual basis for Paul’s lovely presentation of Christ and the Church as set forth in Ephesians.
In his scathing rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees recorded in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, Jesus declared that upon them would come “all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom “they slew between the temple and the altar.” (v 35) The warning of Jesus would have been empty and void of purpose had not the righteous blood of Abel actually been spilled upon the ground from whence it cried unto God for vengeance. (Gen. 4:10) In like manner would the words of John lack fervor and sincerity in his comments on the same event were the writings of Moses not to be taken literally: “For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” (1 Jo. 3:11, 13)
Lasting Monuments
One of the most doubted of all Old Testament events, and one that has suffered the most ridicule is that of Jonah and the great fish that swallowed him. Though this account, of course is far removed from Genesis, it does illustrate how truly foolish the wisdom of this world is in the eyes of Yahweh. In one of the most precise and exacting prophecies of His coming death, Jesus alluded to Jonah’s experience as typical of His own. To the Pharisees’ request that He should show them a sign that they might know for certain His Messiahship, Jesus replied, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas 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 hearts of the Earth.” (Matt. 12:39, 40) To doubt the truthfulness of Jonah’s unique experience of being swallowed by a whale (a great fish, prepared of God—– see Jonah 1:17) is to doubt the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Was there anything more unbelievable in the account of Jonah than there was in the record of the resurrection of the crucified Lord? Both events are quite outside the natural experience of mankind, and both necessitate a special act of God to happen. The Lord declared that “AS Jonah was three days and three nights etc. . . So Must the Son of man etc. . . . ” The resurrection of Jesus either stands or falls with the typical resurrection of Jonah, who “Out of the belly of hell cried” unto God. It would be absurdity in the greatest sense of the word to suppose that Christ would liken the reality of His painful experience on the cross and the glory that followed three days later, to a myth! How incredible would this announcement of Jesus sound to the higher critics were they to have lived in His day with their superior knowledge. How ludicrous would it have seemed to them for Christ to compare His sacrificial death with a fable! They would no doubt have taken the very position of the Jews of His day who refused to believe either Jesus or all that the prophets have spoken” concerning him when they “testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.” However, to those who “receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls,” both the experience of Jonah and the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ remain as lasting monuments to the benevolence and unfailing kindness of God, who “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Willful Disbelief
The Master, (almost, it seems, anticipating modern theology) seized upon another Old Testament event recorded in the writings of Moses to teach His followers of His second coming. The whole narrative of the flood is related in such detail in Genesis as to be either an actual historical account or a clever and intentional perpetration of a lie. To read the simple but complete record of the flood and the circumstances which led up to it, is to be impressed with the honesty and candor of the writer. It is not our purpose to bring forth evidence, both biblical and historical for believing the actuality of the deluge in this article, but rather to logically appraise it through the eyes of Jesus. There is not the slightest indication that the Lord considered the Noahic flood to be only a story or parable when he related it as typical of His own coming and judgment. “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating, and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man he.” (Matt. 24:37-39) To reduce the story of the flood and those circumstances which led up to it to a mere myth or parable is to cast serious doubt on the reality of that event of which the deluge was a type. If there were no historical foundation for believing the judgments of God as revealed in the days of Noah, then there is no basis for certainty regarding the “coming of the Son of man.” A proselyte of higher criticism, were he present when Jesus made this announcement, might have taken offence at the inference — accusing the Lord of fraudulence for daring to retell a story of such obvious incredulousness as if it were gospel truth!
It is wonderfully appropriate to the circumstances that Peter, when warning of the coming “in the last days (of) scoffers” should accuse them of willful disbelief of the Bible record of the flood! After foretelling the coming of these scoffers who question the coming of Jesus, Peter declares, “For this they Willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was Being Overflowed With Water Perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” (2 Peter 3:3-7) The implication is evident. Just as men have grown to doubt the actuality of certain historical events recorded in the Scriptures, so they would come to doubt the reality of the second coming of Jesus. Such blasphemy leads naturally to what Peter describes as “walking after their own lusts.” (v 3).
This is one of the many reasons why such an attitude towards the Word is so dangerous–and why there has been such a great reaction in the brotherhood in protest. The principles of higher criticism are in direct contradiction to the mind of Jesus and the apostles, who took the writings of Moses and the prophets as they stood, never for a moment suggesting that their records of events that come under fire in our day were only stories and myths, related merely to teach some moral truth. Well might we re-appraise our position today to be absolutely certain that we follow the advice of Jesus; “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them . . . If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” “For had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (Luke 16:29, 31; John.. 5:46,47).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One