THE above work,* which has been widely advertised in popular religious weeklies, such as The Christian Herald and Signs of Our Times, is also being canvassed assiduously from house to house on the “subscription” system, i.e., purchasers are merely required to remit two shillings and sixpence when ordering, the balance being payable by small instalments. According to the attractively worded prospectus, it “includes The Bible Reader’s Encyclopaedia and Concordance, based on that sound and favourite work, The Bible Reader’s Manual, by the Rev. C. H. Wright. This has been revised and brought up-to-date, as regards recent Biblical research and discoveries, by the Rev. W. M. Clow, D.D., late Principal Emeritus of the United Free Church College, Glasgow.” Professor Clow, in the preface which he has written to his own work, states: “To the devout reader of the Bible, to the members of that great company who give eager service in the teaching of the young, and to the preacher whose hours are filled
* The Holy Land Pictorial Edition of the Holy Bible. British Books, Ltd., London, Toronto, Sydney. Price, 25/-.
with the exacting duties of his ministry, it will be a guide and interpreter.” On examining the book, however, we found that it is brimful of German theology, and we therefore desire to issue a note of warning lest the unsuspecting should be inveigled into acquiring this product of Satanic ingenuity, whose circulation is likely to assist in the eternal ruin of never-dying souls.
Want of space and time precludes us from dealing in a more exhaustive manner with Professor Clow’s pernicious teaching than merely to select some of his statements at random, but we feel sure that the examples which we now proceed to give are sufficient to make one wonder that anyone could be bold enough to bind such practical and destructive blasphemy within the same covers as the Divinely Inspired Word of God. Surely, “an enemy hath done this.”
1.—Inspiration. Under this head, Professor Clow deliberately mis-states the doctrine of the Reformers as “mechanical” as well as “plenary,” and states: “The higher criticism and the lower have shown that it is the content of the Bible, not the actual condition of its expression that can be traced back to God. Men stress not so much the ideas and words as the moral character and religious disposition of the agents of revelation; and the witness is in our hearts.” Regarding this, we need but to say that the correct doctrine of Plenary Divine Inspiration is admirably stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and that II. Timothy iii., 16 is alone sufficient to rebut the foregoing, even if we had no further proof. However, every professing Christian or inquirer who does not possess a copy of Theopneustia, by the late Rev. Prof. L. Gaussen, D.D., of Geneva, will be well advised to procure one.
2.—The Old Testament. Regarding the Pentateuch, Dr. Clow informs us that “the authorship of Moses can no longer be entertained.” Genesis, he tells us, is the work of “J., E. and P.,” and in its present form dates only from the eighth century B.C. In the case of Deuteronomy, he states ” . . . though popularly attributed to Moses, the mass of evidence is against such a view of the authorship of this book.” Regarding the book of Daniel, Prof. Clow’s statement is as follows:—”Orthodox interpreters
for long attributed the book to Daniel, who was believed to have lived during the whole of the Babylonian exile, down to the third year of Cyrus. In the light of modern scholarship, however, this is regarded as untenable.” We need scarcely say in regard to Daniel that internally the book contains so much evidence of Babylonian influence as to prove the date to which the critics usually assign it highly improbable, whilst its veracity and historicity have been proved to the hilt by recent discoveries. In the case of the Pentateuch, those who accept Dr. Clow’s statements are faced with two terrible alternatives, i.e., they must teach that either (a) the Lord Jesus Christ did not know everything, or (b) He knew that Moses did not write it, and accommodated Himself in a dishonest way to the ignorance of His hearers. The followings words of the late Rev. Prof. R. Dick Wilson may fittingly be quoted in connection with Prof. Clow and all others of his type: “They cut up the books and doctor the documents, and change the text and wrest the meaning, to suit the perverted view of their own fancy. They seem to think that they know better what the Scriptures ought to have been than the Prophets and Apostles, and even the Lord Himself!”
3.—The New Testament. Regarding Matthew, Prof. Clow tells us: “The Gospel is later than Mark’s (on which it draws) and also than the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, a popular allusion to which is hidden in 22:7.” In the case of the Gospel according to Luke, the Professor states: “If A.D. 85 be taken as the date of Acts, then the Gospel must be assigned to the years around A.D. 80. This would explain certain linguistic differences between the two books, whilst it accounts for the intimate knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21: 20-24) and for the author’s knowledge of Mark’s chronology.” (Italics ours). Again, writing of II. Peter, Dr. Clow states: “The Petrine authorship must be surrendered.” All we need say in regard to II. Peter is that we are able to confute Prof. Clow’s brazen statement from the writings of abler and more scholarly men then ever the United Free Church produced,
whilst in the case of Matthew and Luke we have pleasure in giving the following apt quotation from a present-day Anglican divine (writing on Matthew) every word of which we heartily endorse:—”A favourite argument of modern sceptics is that it contains a reference (xxii., 7) to the burning of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, and must therefore, have been written after that event. The argument rests upon the assumption that our Lord could not have foreseen the event predicted—an assumption which no Christian can accept. Even the favoured servants of God in later ages have sometimes possessed the gift of prophecy. Savonarola certainly foretold the fall of Rome, which took place in the year 1527, and the prophecy was printed long before the event seemed creditable. Much more might the Son of God have foretold the fall of that city which had so signally neglected His summons. Such expressions as ‘the holy city,’ ‘the holy place,’ ‘the city of the great King,’ suggest that when the Gospel was written it had not yet become the home of the ‘abomination of desolation.’ And a far stronger proof is afforded by the caution of the writer in xxiv., 15, ‘let him that readeth understand.’ We learn from the early historians of the Church that the Jewish Christians took warning from this statement to flee from Judea to Peraea before the Romans invested the holy city in A.D. 70.” There are other proofs, such as the argument from the form in which the eschatological discourse is recorded in chapters xxiv.—xxv., but as this is not without complexities, we forbear.
The book is well bound and beautifully printed, but in view of the false and dangerous teaching advanced by Professor Clow within its covers we feel justified in applying to it the injunction: “Touch not, taste not, handle not,” and we conclude by asserting our conviction that although the Word of God may be assailed in the future as well as at the present and in the past, it shall never be shaken, and can never be overthrown. As one has well said—
“Hammer away, ye hostile bands—
Your hammers break; God’s anvil stands.”
F. BENTLEY.