Old Testament studies: an outline of Old Testament theology

Front matter

Shelf.

UzL.

an « >r n ink ■•!

Preface

Tnz Bible is a many-sided book, and it should be read and studied from many points of view. The truths which were conveyed through the centuries to God's ancient people, and which through them were intended to be conveyed to us, must be thoroughly and rightly grasped before they can be safely applied. This book is the brief development of a plan of Old Testament study which I have pursued for several years, and with great profit to myself. If any Bible student who has not already done so, should develop for himself this or some similar topical plan, neither could he fail to find it very beneficial, especially if it should be done in that spirit which should always characterize our study of the Word of God.

The Old and New Testaments are to us revelations from God; but when we study them, as we should, among other ways, as the record of a long series of revelations which God made to his ancient people, the Old Testament, both logically and chronologically, comes first. It would not be in the least degree wise for the church, either in the Sunday School or elsewhere, to depreciate the value of the Old Testament. One of the strongest pillars of the New Testament Church is furnished in the evidential value of that relation which the Old bears to the New.

PREFACE.

The course of thought in these pages has not brought me into direct oontact with the literary problems of the Old Testament, which might necessarily make the larger part of some plans of study. The theories concerning the origin and composition of the various books I have not discussed, but when necessary have assumed such ground in regard to these matters as seemed to me best.

The Old Testament itself has of course been my chief source; and yet I have read all the foreign and American books and magazine articles on the subjects that were available to me. To them I have sought to give due credit at the proper places, in so far as I may have quoted them; and I cannot say that any one author has been more helpful than all the others.

The best wish that I can express in publishing this Outline is that the course of Old Testament study may prove to be as eDgaging and as profitable to the readers for whom it is chiefly intended as it has been to me, and that after a while we may find the similar study of the New Testament equally so.

R. V. F.

Introduction

1 . Biblical Theology 11

2. Revelation 27

3. Relation of the Old and New Testaments to each other. . 35

OLD TESTAMENT STUDY.

Its Scope 47

Division I.— TnE Pre-Mosaic Period.

ClIArTKK I.

Historical; or, The Principal Facts of this Period 51

gl. The Creation 52

$2. The Primal Abode and Fall of Man 59

£3. The Noachic Deluge C3

.^4. The Dispersion of the Nations 69

§5. Abraham Before his Call 79

Chapter II. THE PRE-MOSAIC THEOLOGY AND RELIGION

$1. Theology and Worship of the Antedeluvians 81

The Patriarchal Theology and Religion 88

I. Outside of the Sphere of Revelation 88

II. Within the Sphere of Revelation 91

Division II.— The Mosaic Period.

Definition of Mosaism 104

Chapter I.

HISTORICAL AND DOCTRINAL BASIS OP MOSAISM.

HI Historical Basis 104

§2. Historical Basis Continued -Moses 108

Doctrinal Basis 113

8 CONTENTS.

Chapter II.

THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OP GOD.

§1. The Name "Jehovah" 123

§2. God as the Only One 128

§3. God as Invisible and Spiritual 133

§4. God as the Holy One 135

§5. Attributes implied in Holiness 138

§6. God as Creator and Sovereign 141

§7. God's Revelation of Himself to Man 146

Chapter III. THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OP MAN

A. Man as Originally Created:

§1. His Origin 154

§2. Man in his Sexual Aspects 156

§3. In his Racial Aspects 159

§4. "In the Image of God"

§5. The Names Adam and Ish 166

§6. Body, Soul, Spirit , 170

B. Man as Affected by Sin:

§1. The Probation and Fall 175

§4. After Death 189

Chapter IV. THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OP THE KINGDOM OP GOD

A. The Kingdom in its Central Idea:

§2. Initial Promises 198

1. The Protevangelium, Gen. iii, 15.

2. The Blessing of Shem, Gen. ix.

3. The Blessing of Abraham, Gen. xii, 1-3, etc.

4. The Blessing on the Twelve Patriarchs, Gen. xlix.

§3. The Redemptive Calling of Israel 207

§4. The Obligations and Penalties Implied 211

B. The Kingdom of God as Organized Israel-

§1. The Theocratic Character of the Government 214

82. The Mosaic Constitutional Law 218

('(LXTKXTS.

The Mosaic Civil Law

1. Concerning Parent and Child. '2. Concerning Marriages.

3. Concerning Master and Slave.

4. Concerning Foreigners.

5. Land and other Property.

6. Debts, Loans, Interest.

7. Tax Laws.

£4 The Criminal Code 888

g6. The Ecclesiastical and Ceremonial Code 288

1. The Tabernacle.

2. The Priests and Levites.

3. Concerning Offerings.

4. Laws intended to implant the idea of holiness. C. The Typical and Prophetical Aspects of the Kingdom.

gl. The Mosaic "Types" 241

$3. The Star of Balaam 860

£3. The Prophet Promised 255

Division III.

PERIOD OK THE PROPHETS.

Chapter I. I'ROPHETISM HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED

£1. Civil and Religious Characteristics of this Period 261

g& The Rise of the Prophetical Order 988

S3. Periods of Biblical Prophecy 272

Chapter II. NATURES AND CHARACTERISTICS OP PROPni

gl. The Prophetic Gift 875

£2. Hebrew Prophets and Heathen Mantism . 878

$3. Prophecy and the Natural Shemitic Genius 888

£4. The Predictive Element in Prophecy

j§5. Characteristics of Prophecy

§8. Forms of Prophecy 296

10 CONTENTS.

Chapter III. DOCTRINAL CONTENTS OP DAVIDIC PROPHECY

A.

THE PREDICTIVE, OR OBJECTIVE, ELEMENT.

The Central Thought 299

§1. The Covenant with David 301

§2. The Messiah in the Typical and Typico-Prophetic

Psalms 305

B.

THE MEDITATIVE, OR SUBJECTIVE, ELEMENT.

Characteristics:

§1. The Davidic Theology (Doctrine of God) 313

§2. The Davidic Doctrine Concerning the Moral and

Ceremonial Law 318

§3. Retribution 322

§4. The Future Life 324

§5. The Inequalities of Human Life 328

Chapter IV. THE DOCTRINAL CONTENTS OP POST-DA VIDIC PROPHECY

General Remark , . . . .342

§1. The Idea of God in the Prophets 344

§2. Man's Relation to God 348

§3. The Messiah in the Prophets '. 352

§4. The Future 356

§5. Individual Resurrection 361

§6. Old Testament Doctrine of Angels 363

Index 367

INTRODUCTION.

I.— BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.

1. General Remark.

There is a vast amount of popular ignorance in regard to the Bible, and yet it is also t rue that no book is more universally read or studied than it is.

There are many right ways of studying the Bible, and no way is the best to the exclusion of all other method-. The Bible is a many-sided book, and he who restricts his gaze to one side can never see it all. It tells us a great many things, and he who reads it simply in general can not know much about it. The jurist, for example, does not read the constitution of the State merely in a general way; he reads it much and carefully, in order that lie may ascertain its bearings on the particular statute or other matter which he may have in hand from time to time.

Nor do we like to read or study a book without knowing its title. We like to know in advance what it is about, and so natural and proper is this de-ire that we could scarcely be induced, ordinarily, to buy a book whose title-page is gone. The title of the Bible is not "The Bible," for that expression mean- simply "the book.'' If the Bible had a title-page, what would it bel for the Bible is evidently one book, and it evidently has one paramount object in view. I should think if the reader would ascertain what this paramount object is he would then have discovered what to many is the lost title-page of the Bible. Some books have two titles, a short one and a longer one. Now, it would seem that the title of the Bible might be correctly stated thus: " The History of Human Redemption; or, The History of God's Purpose to Redeem Man, and of His Dealings with the Race to that End." And I think that if we were to study every part of the Bible with this fundamental idea of redemption in our minds it would seem to us to be a more interesting and intelligible book than it could otherwise be. Nor is it a difficult matter to so express the titles or central thoughts of the several books of the Bible as to readily see the natural relation in which they stand to the title of the whole. Thus, in its relation to this redemptive idea which gives as the title for the whole Bible, the title of the book of Genesis may be regarded as ' ' The Seed of the Woman Bruising the Serpent's Head," for it is a great mistake to suppose that the serpent's head did not begin to be bruised until Christ came in the flesh. The bruising began at once, and was kept up through the centuries, and will be kept up until he and his seed are overthrown. The object, then, of the inspired writer of Genesis in recording the account of the creation and the fall was that he might make an intelligible and orderly approach to his subject, which appears in hi: 15. The chapters and books which follow on to the end are the history of the development and fulfillment of this promise, moving in line with the development of the human race, and chiefly the Israelitish branch of it.

INTRODUCTION. 18

From this point of view it is easily seen also that the title of the book of Exodus is "The Messianic, or Redemptive, Calling of Israel" to thai special work of receiving and taking care of that truth whereby God

would redeem man. In like manner the title of Leviticus is "The Outward Means, Conditions, Agencies, and Occasions of Reconciliation with Him." And in general, if we wish, from this point of view, to know what the title of any book in the Bible is, we have only to ascertain in what relation it stands to the above-mentioned title of the whole, and in no case will this be difficult to do.

It is not my purpose, however, to discuss here the various methods of Bible study, some of which are excellent, while others are more or less faulty; some superficial and easy , others more difficult, but also more fruitful of good results. It i^ my purpose to discuss briefly one of the methods or sciences — for it may also be called a science — known as biblical theology, a name which ought not to be offensive even to the common reader, for what is biblical theology but, to state it in general terms, the orderly presentation of the teachings of the Bible concerning God and his purpose and plan of redemption \

.'. Definition and Scope.

The term ''biblical" is in this connection used in a kind of technical sense, whereby it is not meant to be implied, of course, that the ordinarily so-called systematic theology is not in another sense quite biblical. Systematic theology, however, is constructed in reference to the state of Christian thought and affairs at the time of the writer, and i- bound to take more or less formal heed to the voice of the Church a- expressed in creeds and rulings of ecclesiastical councils. But biblical theology as such has nothing to do with creeds as such, nor with the present, only in so far as its forni may to a greater or less extent be determined thereby. It seeks the truth of revelation, not so much in its adaptation to the wants and phases of the Church at the present time, as in its adaptation to the ancient people of God, to whom it was revealed in the first place.

A systematic theology or Christian dogmatics there must be, of course, but it is only a systematic exposition of the creed and the voice of the Church, founded, in the view of the writer, on the sacred Scriptures. But, whatever may be the prepossessions of the writer of a biblical theology, this branch of theological science itself is supposed to deal only with the Bible, unhampered by allegiance to any other confession It builds on the postulate of a central thought in the whole Old and New Testament revelation, viz. : the divine purpose of redemption, and it seeks to trace within the period of the biblical history the movement of that purpose toward its consummation. God spake unto the fathers "by divers portions and in divers manners" (Heb. i:l), and the object of biblical theology is to systematically exhibit and discuss this revelation of God as it was actually made from time to time.

But God revealed his will and purpose not only by means of the words which he spake through prophets and apostles, but also by means of the facts or historical occurrences recorded in the Bible. Biblical theology, then, is the historical exhibition of the religion in its entirety, including doctrines, worship, and events, as set forth in the canonical books of the sacred Scrip-

XN1R0DUCT10& 18 tine-. It conducts it- discussion apart from an j con

ional standpoint, though the results of it- inquii may, of course, be quite in harmony with the creed in w as the latter may express itself . It abides mainly in tlir Bible times, seeking to kn<>w the course, and the contents, and the significance of God's revelation to his ancient people primarily in its relation to that people themselves. This must be first known before it- rela tion to the subsequent Church can befullj apprehended and appreciated. Onlj thus can the fundamental importance of the OW Testament in its relation to the \ v, and hence to ourselves, be made clearlj visible.

Biblical theology, then, would seem to be easily distinguishable from what is commonly called Syste matic theology or Christian dogmatics. The latter has a by do means unimportant place in theological science and literature, but it can uot, and it should not, lose sight wholly of the Confession and of the aspects and

demands of tl rganized Church and the times. Bib

lical theology is systematic, but it is not "Systematic;" and, on the other hand, Systematic theology ought to !><• in harmony with the teachings of the Bible, l>nt it is not ■* Biblical " in the proper technical sense in which the word is used. .7 ' '>>></.

That is, upon what principle or plan ia biblical the ology constructed 1 It- method i- historical. It 34 to reproduce or exhibit the process whereby religious knowledge attained it- growth, as found in the Bible, using the books of the Bible for this purj cording

to their presumed chronological order. It shows how religious knowledge was added from time to time to what was already in the possession of G pi ople ox had been previously revealed. It shows the laws of the development of the biblical religion from the germinal principles in the beginning to the completion of the revalation in the Christ of the New Testament. But the growth or development which biblical theology traces is a supernatural growth. It is not possible to explain it on merely natural grounds, and hence it can by no means be regarded as the mere outcome of the striving of the so-called religious genius of the Hebrew people.

But biblical theology is also inductive in its method, because it is based on biblical facts, and ever seeks the unity which exists in the abundant diversity of biblical times, authors, types of doctrine, etc., and, by comparing one with another, reaches its conclusions. It examines the statements or passages severally and together, treating the biblical revelation as embodied in divine deeds and institutions, as well as in words or verbal statements of doctrine and precept. In short, it embraces all the essential factors of the history of the kingdom of God as set forth in the Old and New Testaments.

4-. Sources.

The primary sources of biblical theology are, of course, the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Protestantism rejects both the Jewish and Christian apocryphal writings, while the Roman Catholic Chnrch retains the former, attaching to them a secondary authority. Other sources of information, such as contemporaneous secular nistory and the religious records of peoples lying outside of the sphere of revelation, are to be consulted by way of collateral illustration. The biblical religion is one among a great lNTlluin CTWN. 17 variety of religions, all of which possess a greater or Less Dumber of features in common, as, for example, the recognition of the existence of a Divine Being to

whom man is in some way responsible. Bui a true biblical theology recognizes the religion of the Bible as a Bupernaturally revealed religion, and as being the

only one that is SO revealed. And it is its province not only to ascertain, systematize, and discuss the con tents of this religion, out also to distinguish what is peculiar to it from what it has in common with other religions.

I > 1 1 1 while the Old Testament is the chief source of the data and subject matter of Old Testament theology, it is necessary for us to have a right view of the Old Testament itself. It is not to be regarded merely as the record left to us of the religious views and practices of the ancient Hebrews, in the same sense as the Zendavesta may be regarded as the record of the religion of the ancient Persians. The ancient Hebrews did and believed many things which the Old Testament did not allow, and it required from the very outset more than one belief and practice which they were extremely slow

to accept which was, indeed, directly opposed to the persistent national tendency. This is an obvious fact, and it helps to prove that the Old Testament religion was by no means the mere outcome, as some rationalists have affirmed, of the Bimplegift and fondness of the Shemitic people for religious matters.

It is the province, therefore, of a true biblical theol ogy to distinguish not only between the religion of the Old Testament and that of heathen nation-, but also between the natural religion of the masses of the Hebrew people and that which was furnished to them, and through them to us, from above and in a supernatural manner. #

So, also, the revelation of the New Testament is to' be distinguished from the contemporary uninspired Jewish theology in the midst of which the New Testament form of religion was developed. But a thorough understanding, in so far as this maybe possible, of that which lies immediately on the outside of the sphere of revelation will enable us only the more clearly to perceive and appreciate the peculiar excellency of that which is within. Such works, therefore, as throw light on these outside but immediately adjacent matters are to be regarded as useful collateral sources of information, as, for example, Rawlinson's " The Religions of the Ancient World," Lenormant's "Occult Sciences of Asia," Krekl's "Religion of the Pre Islam Arabs," Mover's "The Phenicians," Renoufs " History of the Egyptian Religion," Weber's "System of the Old Synagogue Palestinian Theology," Shuerer's "Jewish People in the Time of Christ, such parts of the Talmuds and Targums as have been made accessible, the "Sacred Books of the East," edited by Professor Max Mueller; in short, the whole of contemporary history, whether within or immediately without the sphere of revelation.

5. History.

Biblical theology, as do all other branches of study, has a history; and neither as a science nor as a method of biblical study can its present state and its present claims be known unless its history is also known. As an independent branch of the theological discipline biblical theology is a modern science, and its growth, like that of the physical sciences, has been gradual, and like

IA raODUOTlON id them it has not yet reached perfection. No works were written on this Bubject, strictly bo called, by the early Christian fathers, nor does the Bible seem to have b studied by them according to any method which biblical theology employs. The early fathers resorted largely to the inspired writings both for their opinions and for

the proofs of them. By the later fathers, however, the writ in-- of the earlier fathers and philosophers began to he much quoted, a tendency which becomes apparent in the sixth century, until finally Christian theology became almosl exclusively speculative and mystical, tin rulings of popes and councils becoming in all cases the rule of faith, and the Bible virtually a dead letter. It being universally taken for granted

that t\\r voice Of the Church Was in all things the Voice

of God, or, in other word-, in harmony with the Bible, of course there could he no such thing as biblical theology in the strict Bense, much less in the scientific sense which recognizes it as a distincl organism. The theologians for the most part spent their time either in dreaming mystic dreams or in seeking rational explanations and proofs of certain doctrines which in the very nature of the case admitted of no rational explanation, hilt were purely and solely matter.- of revelation.

But the revival of learning, particularly the study of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, which began in Germany

about the mid. lie of the fifteenth century. BOOH prepared the way for the close exegetical study of the Scriptures without which the great Reformation of the sixteenth century would have been impossible. Bog Bacon, indeed, long before this revival of learning (1291), was well acquainted with the Hebrew and

Greek, and exercised a lasting influence in favor of the study of the original lauguages of the Bible. But he was not distinctly a Scriptural interpreter, and still less a writer of theology from the strictly biblical point of view.

To Nicholas Lyra, however, who died in 1340, belongs the honor of being the first Scriptural exegete who employed in his studies the original languages. He wrote a commentary on the whole Bible, in which he sought, first of all, the literal sense — a fact the more worthy of mention because, first, it was by no means the custom in those days for those who wrote on the Scriptures to seek after the literal sense; second, because it was plainly impossible to have a biblical theology without first having a biblical exegesis based upon a thorough study of the literal sense, for biblical theology is to a great extent simply an orderly arrangement and discussion of the results of biblical exegesis; and third, because Luther, who may be called the father of the Reformation — theological exegesis, made such use of the hints which Lyra's work offered him that the Roman Catholic pun, "If Lyra had not lyred, Luther had not danced," has become an oft-quoted saying. In a certain important sense it is true that if there had been no Lyra there could have been no Luther. The close exegetical study of our English Scriptures may be regarded by some as dry and impractical, and the similar study of the original Scriptures may be regarded by some as even more so, but it has been a very blessed thing for the Church and the world that Luther and many others did not think so.

But while Luther contributed much to the super-

INTRODUCTION. 91 structure, rather to John E&uchlin and Erasmus belongs the honor of laying the exegetical foundation of biblical theology. They were the - v\ es of ( rermany," the former contributing more to facilitate the Btudy of the Old Testament in the Hebrew than any man of his day, while the latter was not less influential in the department of New Testament Greek Btudy, thus contributing largely, and perhaps unwittingly, to the release of the scholarship and religion of the day from the shackles of scholasticism and the spirit of speculation. The birth, not only of a more biblical theoL but of biblical theology as a distinct branch of theological science, could be only a matter of time. Bui it could develop nowhere but on the soil of Protestantism, nnd it could scarcely have failed to develop there.

Bul the new found freedom and facility of Bible Btudy, secured by the Reformation, was abused; it being hardly less diflicult in the Church than in the State to preserve the true mean between license and tyranny. This very abuse, however, became the third Me]) in the growth of biblical theology. The'Bible was studied more diligently during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than it had been for a thousand years; but in the estimation of many it came during these two centuries to be Btudied as a mere store-house of proof-texts, ministering mainly to the polemic- of ecclesiastical creed-.

The Bible was the book in which each his dogma Bought, The Bible was the book in which each his dogma found

The unity of the Scriptures was to a great extent lost sight of. The Bible was Btudied, not a- a whole, but hereand there in those places where it was supposed to teach the preconceived opinion. The Bible 1- the

OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES.

only rule of faith, the only authority above conscience. As rules of doctrine held in due subordination to the Bible, creeds are of great value and use; and the theologians who gave to the world the great creeds of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries rendered a service which no one can despise. But men were no longer as loyal to the voice of the Church as they had been, and hence the polemical dogmatism of the times naturally resulted in a two-fold reaction, Pietism on the one hand, Rationalism on the other. The influence of the one, at first especially, was wholesome; that of the other, never so, except indirectly. The originators of Pietism were John Coccejus, a Dutch theologian who died in 1669, and Philip James Spener, who established what he called a school of Biblical Theology in Halle in 1694. The former was professor at Ley den, and did much to free the Reformed Church from the tyranny of scholasticism, and taught her to give heed to her true character and work as emphatically a Bible church. His system of the covenants, as set forth in one of his principal books (1648) was the first attempt at constructing a system of biblical theology. Nor was it a mere accidental and unintelligent attempt. He purposely arranged his system under the biblical categories, or heads, and purposely built it on an orderly study of the Bible as a whole. In all these respects he occupied substantially the same ground as the Pietists. He was, however, a firm supporter of the mechanical theory of inspiration, and represented the whole Old Testament as a mirror in which we may have an accu rate view of the events which were to happen under the New Testament dispensation to the end of the world — a theory which would not now be regarded as satisfactory even by the most conservative thinkers.

INTRODUCTION.

Spener wa> also penetrated with a conviction that the theological method of that age did not meet the demands or wants of the Church, and that it was not suited to form good preachers and teachers of religion.

ile therefore recommended banishing the various subtle inquiries, and the polemical mode of treating theological questions, and urged in place of these a purely biblical and practical statement of the doctrine- of faith. lie was a devoted Lutheran, and duly appreciated the value of the creed, hut he labored Btrenuously, and not without effect, to vindicate the importance and authority of the Bible as our rule of faith over the Creed and the outcome of a mere philosophical course of reasoning. lie recognized, as every student of the Bible musl do, that that which is logical is not always that which is biblical or theological.

A. II. Prancke was the contemporary and fellowlaborer of Spener. He urged the yoUDg men of his day to acquire a thorough mastery of the fundamental helps in Bible study, particularly the languages, and he illustrated the value of such knowledge in his own evangelical and biblical work, for he was himself a master. But he also insisted that the knowledge of such helps was only a means to a higher end. which is the right understanding of the subject-matter of God's word, and that to this end we should Industriously Bupplicate God for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. Could Pietism have remained thus, it would have been well for biblical theology: and I know of the biographies of no German evangelical worker- and scholars winch might be read with more edification by the student of today, than the biographies of Spener and Francke. But their method of dealing with the

Bible degenerated in the hands of their followers, becoming to too great an extent allegorical and mystical, confounding the true explication and use of the Scriptures with mere application and suggestion. It should be borne in mind that we cannot know what the Scriptures as a whole, or any given passage, means for us, unless we know in advance what it meant or was intended to mean for those for whom it was written in the first place.

The other reaction was Rationalism; and so radical and permanent has its influence been upon biblical theology that it can not pass unmentioned even in brief sketch of the history of Bible study. As the tyranny of Roman Catholicism has produced its sons of evil, so Rationalism is the wayward offspring of the freedom of Protestantism. It originated largely with J. S. Sender, who died an old man at Halle in 1791. He says of himself: " I certainly would not make our poor little reason the mistress of our faith" — that is to say, there are certain revealed facts which I surely would not reject merely because my reason can not understand or explain them. But he sowed baleful seeds which grew only too rapidly and luxuriantly. Van Oosterzee calls him the leader of the German Neological school, and a representative rationalist. He had many followers in his own land, and the winds have blown the seeds over the seas.