BY:  David L. Cooper

CHAPTER I                         


At the outset of this work I wish to state that I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Hence for me they are infallible. This conviction is not based upon a blind acceptance of traditions handed down from my fore-parents without personal investigation; on the contrary, it is founded upon the unshakable facts of scientific investigation. From childhood I have always demanded the reason for the acceptance of any position. This attitude, being a dominant characteristic of my very make-up, has caused me to examine thoroughly a matter before accepting it.
We are living in an age which is permeated by the scientific spirit. Men are toiling in the laboratories of the world in an effort to explore the regions beyond our present knowledge. As a result many great and useful inventions have been made which have alleviated the sufferings of humanity and made living conditions more tolerable and pleasont than ever in the history of the world. The correct use of anything within the bounds of moderation proves a blessing. On the other hand, the abuse of that which normally is a boon to humanity is a positive curse.
What constitutes the scientific spirit? Several things: first of all, an open mind; secondly, readiness to gather all the facts whatever the cost; thirdly, an impartial examination of all evidence and data with a view of ascertaining the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and finally, courage to discard whatever is found to be untrue, to accept the newly discovered facts, and to act accordingly. To be otherwise minded is to be unscientific. A refusal to examine something because it is contrary to one's present views or allowing one's prejudices to overrule one's better judgment is proof of an unscientific mind.
Since the subject matter of this volume is doubtless new to many of my readers, both Jewish and Gentile, all that I am asking of them is an unbiased and careful study of the facts presented herein. The message is of vital importance to every student who wishes to understand the past, present, and future. There is no subject that is more fascinating than that of chronology.

page 2

Biblical chronology may be compared to a suspension bridge which is held aloft by two large pillars over which the supporting cables are hung. The weight of the structure is borne by these two columns. In the same manner our chronological data from the eternity of the past ("In the beginning") to the eternity of the future ("the ages of the ages") are suspended upon two mighty piers of Scripture, Genesis and Daniel. The other books furnishing chronological data constitute sections of the main portions of the bridge. If the pillars, can be undermined in the minds of men by human reasoning, then, for those accepting such positions the entire superimposed structure collapses. On the other hand, if they are proved to be founded upon bedrock historical and scientific facts, our bridge remains intact regardless of the storms of criticism which blow against it.
No two portions of the Word of God have been assailed by the rationalistic (irrational) destructive critics more than these. Evidently Satan-the great adversary of man's soul-realizes the strategic place in the revelation of God occupied by these two books. In view of the attacks of unbelievers made upon them, it becomes necessary in a work of this nature to demonstrate beyond a peradventure the unassailable character of these records. It must be shown that these two piers rest upon the solid rock foundations of concrete, historical facts. Of course, it is to be understood that there are chronological data in most of the books of Scripture, but, since these two occupy unique places in the calculation of time, they may properly be considered as the piers of this great chronological bridge.

Prior to the World War little was known, comparatively speaking, concerning archaeology in certain portions of the ancient Biblical world. Since then faithful scientific explorers have been busily engaged in bringing to light the civilization of 5,000 years ago in the Tigris-Euphrates valley and also in that of the Nile. The result of the newly discovered knowledge is that practically most of the theories which were advanced by modern rationalistic scholars and held as "the assured results of scientific criticism" have been discredited. Those still advocating such antiquated positions are, in fact, the traditionalists and are far behind in the procession of the march of time. To be scientific one must accept any and all facts which can be demonstrated to be true. The discoveries, especially those in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that civilization of a very high order was hoary with

page 3

age in the days of Abraham, who was a citizen of no mean city, Ur of the Chaldees. Centuries prior to his day, civilization had reached an amazingly high state.

P. J. Wiseman in New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis gives us a survey of the work that has been conducted during recent years in Mesopotamia. Following it is his summary of the situation:

"Most of these sites go back to the days of Genesis; in fact, it is with the earliest civilizations that archaeologists are now concerned. Their investigations have brought to light the culture and writing of men who lived 5000 years ago, even in pre-Flood days. These researches have revolutionized thought, for concerning the civilizations of this early period we previously knew next to nothing. It has done more, for it has painted in the background on a canvas which previously was almost blank. We now understand much concerning the environment of the Patriarchs and methods of writing prevalent in the times of Genesis. Before the excavations of the last few years this early period was considered legendary even by archaeologists, but almost beyond their highest hopes they have been able to dig and plan settlements which were previously in the realm of pre-history, but now, in the opinion of these able men, Sumerian civilization had reached its zenith centuries before Abraham.

"It is important to remember that these archaeologists are by no means engaged in an attempt to find evidences which agree with the Bible. I know from personal contact and repeated discussions, that this is far from being their aim; they sift their evidence in a most critical spirit and if there is any bias it was in favor of the critical standpoint rather than that of the Bible. Yet in the words of more than one, they express the truth of the matter when they affirm that they have been compelled by the evidences they have unearthed to believe that Genesis in this or that respect is accurate. It has been my privilege to be present with these excavators when some of these finds have been unearthed, and on the spot to listen to their statements regarding the things mentioned in the earliest chapters of the Bible. I have been impressed with the tremendous change which has taken place in recent years among archaeologists in their outlook on these early Biblical records. Nothing is more noticeable or more remarked in Iraq than the assurance with which archaeologists speak of events recorded in Genesis."

In a short chapter following this quotation he gives us a resume of the amazingly high state to which civilization had attained in those early years. In the next chapter he presents an interesting discussion on writing in those early centuries and begins with these words:

"One of the most remarkable facts which has emerged from the archaeological research is that the art of writing began in the earliest historical times known to man.
"It is now generally admitted that history first dawned in the land known as Babylonia, and that the civilization there is older than that of Egypt; yet, however far the excavator in Babylonia digs down into the past, he finds written records to illuminate his discoveries. Until recent times it was the general tendency to insist on the late appearance of writing, now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, and the present tendency is to thrust back the period for which written records are claimed to dates before 3500 B.C.

page 4

Egyptologists have discovered documents written on papyrus which they claim may be dated as early as 3000 B.C."

From all indications the first writing took the form of pictures and gradually developed into the cuneiform script, as is seen on the oldest tablets which have been discovered. "A conservative estimate is that the pictographic forms of writing which have been found may be dated from 3300 to 2800 B.C.; thereafter cuneiform writing came into view."

Ordinary cuneiform writing came into vogue at an early date. At present it is estimated that at least a quarter of a million of clay tablets are stored away in the museums of the world. This type of writing was so very common that Friedrich Delitzsch wrote:

"In truth, when we find among the letters which have survived from those ancient times in great abundance, the letter of a woman to her husband on his travels, wherein after telling him that the little ones are well, she asks advice on some trivial matter; or the missive of a son to his father, in which he informs him that so-and-so has mortally offended him, that he would thrash the knave, but would like to ask his father's advice first; or another letter in which a son urges his father to send at last the long-promised money, offering the insolent inducement that then he will pray for his father again-all this points to a well organized system of communication by letter and of postal arrangements."

According to Delaporte, writing was prevalent at an early age.
"Schools existed where lessons were given in reading, and in tracing on clay the elements of the script's signs. That of Nippur, was, in the first millennium, the most famous for the antiquity of the texts preserved in its archives. A number of tablets from the century of Hammurabi, as well as models and copies, illustrate the methods of instruction-first reading and writing simple signs with a study of their various phonetic values; then the pupils' initiation into the use consecutively of groups of signs and ideograms, and then of current formula. He was next given instruction in grammar in the guise of paradigms-declensions and conjugations. Finally, he finished his education with mathematics."

One of my professors in the University of Chicago, the late Dr. Luckenbill, in his preface to Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia states: "This writing material was cheap, which may account in part for the fact that the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians seemed unwilling to transact even the smallest items of business without recourse to a written document." Sir Leonard Woolley in the introduction to his volume Abraham, says: "We have, it is true, found thousonds of inscribed tablets, and the greater number of them date from about the time of Abraham, but we have excavated the merest fraction of the city's area, and within that area the tablets which survive are not the hundredth part of what were written there during the quarter of a century or so that Abraham may have passed at Ur. The chances that there should

page 5

have been tablets bearing the name of Abraham, that anyone of them should have been preserved, and finally that this one should have happened to be within the limits of our narrow field were indeed infinitesimal."

In Egypt writing was in vogue in the earliest time. One of the earliest papyrus manuscripts now in existence dates back to a time approximately 3000 B.C.E. Of course the inscriptions on the walls of the earliest temples and tombs go back to the early centuries of the country's history.

In the present state of our knowledge we know that writing goes back as far as human history takes us. Of one of the kings of the Tigris-Euphrates valley it was said that he delighted to read the accounts of the happenings before the Flood. In the light of the discoveries of recent years no informed person will question for a moment the existence of writing even from the very dawn of history.

Since Genesis is the first book of the Torah (Pentateuch), it is well for us to take a general glance at it before investigating it in detail. The Torah as a revelation from God is accepted, with more or less confidence, by four religious faiths: Moslem, Samaritan, Jewish and Christian. But there are differences of opinion in each of these groups, unless it be that of the Samaritans, who are so very small in number and clannish in character that there is unanimity of opinion. In regard to the Moslems, let me say that, since this work is not primarily intended for them, I shall say nothing.
The great Jewish nation falls normally into four divisions: the karaite, the orthodox, the conservative, and the reformed. The position held by the karaite and the orthodox Jews is practically the same; namely, that the Torah is an infallibly inspired revelation of God. As to the conservative element, there is quite a scope of opinion, ranging from the extreme orthodox position to that of the reformed. This latter group, however, rejecting the absolute inspiration of the Mosaic writings, hold to the modernistic position; namely, that the Torah, as we now have it, is a composite document, the result of editing and combining certain original works of uninspired men. In other words, we have not the revelation of God to man but, on the contrary, the discoveries which men have made in their search for God.

I wish to concede in the very start that I consider all of these groups as honest and conscientious, living up to the light that each

page 6

has, but let us remember that honesty and sincerity, though indispensable, are no substitutes for correctness and truth.

Many scientific men whose conclusions give positive proof of superficial thinking and of passing on only what others before them have said, assail, from time to time, the historical character of the first chapters of Genesis. All too frequently scholars whose training has been in a given field forsake their realm, enter that of the theologian, and make pronouncements on Biblical questions about which they know little or nothing. Prudence, however, would dictate to them, that they should know their places and confine their remarks to things with which they are familiar. For instance, the specialist in biology who has devoted his entire time and thought to some one phase of his chosen subject is not in a position to pass judgment upon some difficult theological question on which sincere Biblical scholars are not agreed. As a concrete example of a man's leaving his field, entering that of another, becoming a professorial parrot, and voicing the unbelief and unproven hypotheses of rationalistic critics, I well remember some lectures by my English professor in the university who glibly presented to the students the Wellhausen hypothesis of the literary composition of the Old Testament. Being familiar with the theory and even the popular phraseology of its exponents, I instantly recognized that there was no original thinking or knowledge of the facts discussed, but simply a dishing out to unsuspecting and immature minds the long exploded theories of the radical Biblical critics.

If one wishes to discourse upon things outside his chosen realm, he should at least investigate the findings of masters in that particular field and present the material as coming from them. When there is a difference of opinion on some vital question, the inquiring student will consult the pronouncements of the scholars on both sides of the controversy, try to weigh all the evidence, and arrive at his own conclusion. Caution and wisdom dictate such a policy. Since, however, history teaches that scientific men are constantly forced by new discoveries of facts to repudiate former positions to which they have held tenaciously, it would be best for all to hold themselves by a modest reserve while seeking for additional light. With these facts before us as a warning, let us address ourselves to the subject in hand.

The proper method of procedure in this case is first to analyze the problem; secondly, to make a thorough examination of all relevant material and to evaluate scientifically all the data; and, finally, to

page 7

demonstrate the fallacy of the popularly-held and dominant theory regarding the literary composition of Genesis. With this outline in mind we shall approach our task.

A. Some Literary Phenomena Characteristic of Genesis What does one see when he conscientiously examines the book of Genesis? Among the many things which force themselves upon his attention, there are five which demand an answer, a straightforward explanation devoid of special pleading in favor of a given theory, or of an effort to force upon the facts a meaning which is foreign to the context. In other words, the interpretation advanced must accept and evaluate all the data, must allow the facts to speak for themselves in a natural and normal manner, and must not contradict any known evidence. Guided by these principles, we shall notice, as briefly as possible, these five items and attempt to set forth their true significance.

One will look in vain in an attempt to find the name of Moses in Genesis. In contrast with this literary phenomenon, we are impressed with the numerous occurrences of it in the rest of the Torah (Pentateuch). In the first chapter of Exodus we have a brief statement of the cause which led up to the persecution of the Hebrews in Egypt and the bondage itself. According to the second chapter Moses was born into this hostile environment. Providentially he was reared at the court of Pharaoh. At the age of forty he fled from Egypt, going to Midian where he remained until he was eighty. In chapter 3 are recorded his call and commission by the God of Israel. From this point onward we see that his name occurs constantly. Throughout the remaining books of the Torah we read that the Lord spoke to him. In Exodus 17:14 we see that God commanded him, saying, "Write this for a memorial in a book and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua," etc. Of course, Moses did as he was commanded. In Exodus 24:4 we learn that "Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah." Again he is commanded to write: "And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write thou these words" (Ex. 34:27). Throughout the rest of the books of the Torah we read of the Lord's speaking to him and of his writing what God commanded. But in the book of Genesis not one word is said about God's speaking to him or of his writing any of its contents. This fact is significant and demands an explanation. It stands to reason that, if he sustained the same relation to the revelation in Genesis

page 8

that he did to the other four books, he would have spoken of it as he did in regard to them. If not, why not?

2. THE DIVINE NAMES If one will but casually read Genesis, he will be impressed with the fact that different names for God appear in various sections. For instance, in chapter one elohiym is the name given to the Almighty. It occurs thirty-four times. In striking contrast with this fact is the further one that in chapters 2-4 we have the appellation yahweh elohiym, with the single exception of the conversation between Eve and Satan (Gen. 3:2-5). In this instance, both of them used elohiym the form seen in chapter 1. The situation is different in the third natural division. Here this compound name does not occur. A glance at 5:1-6: 8 shows that the writer employed booth terms separately. In one verse he used one, and in another, the other. The same situation is found in the next section (6: 9b-9:29). In this division elohiym is used in the majority of instances, though yahweh occurs several times. In the fifth section (10:1b-11:9) yahweh alone is used. But in the next division (11:10b-26) no name for the Deity occurs, since this portion deals only with the genealogy of Terah. In the seventh section (11:27b-25:18) both names occur. But in 17:1 we learn a new name for the Divine Being, which is al shadday. A situation similar to that which we have observed also appears here. Why these different names? And why this peculiar combination of the divine appellation? What is the meaning of each? These and other important questions arise, which demand an answer. They cannot be dismissed by the thoughtful student.

A cursory survey of Genesis reveals the fact that there are different styles appearing in certain sections of this most interesting and important book. For instance, if one will only read the first chapter and then peruse the second, third, and fourth, he will see immediately the style in the first chapter differs greatly from that in chapters 2-4. What is true of these two po1"tions is also true of other sections. This fact must not be ignored but must be fairly met and an answer, which is faithful to all the facts, must be given. Why these different styles? There evidently is a reason.

page 9

In Genesis 1 we have a majestic account of the creation of the universe, a brief statement of the catastrophe which wrecked the earth, the six days of reconstruction during which the Lord repaired, to a certain extent, the damage done and remodeled it to make it habitable for man and beast, and the creation of man by a direct act of God. In the second chapter we have a duplicate record especially of the creation of man, which is much fuller and more explicit than the first account. As noted in the last section, this second narrative is written in a style different from that of the former. No one who will face the facts can deny the truthfulness of these assertions.
A second duplication, which has been noted by scholars and which is given more in detail than the first (Gen. 6:1-8) and with additional material, is found in chapter 6:9-22. Another one is in 11:27, which is simply a repetition of verse 26. There are other examples* which must be acknowledged.

Upon a close investigation of the literary and linguistic data of the book, one soon discovers that, figuratively speaking, it was laid down in successive deposits. What is meant by this statement is that there are evidences of different racial and social as well as religious contacts. It is admitted by Assyrio-Babylonian experts

* Often attention is called to the similarity of certain experiences and actions which are common to chapters 12:10-20 and 20:1-18. Those pointing these things out and seeing in them only duplications seem to ignore the many dissimilarities in the two accounts and to forget the further facts that human nature is the same the world over, and that people who have developed certain traits will, under like conditions, respond similarly. To be more specific, let me note the fact that oriental monarchs in the ancient world, un-regenerated and without a knowledge of God, did not hesitate upon seeing a beautiful woman to take her to his harem. The person who will tell one lie will tell another, unless there has come a radical change in his heart. The same thing is true of deception. These facts of human nature and experience account adequately for the similarities in the actions of the participants. On the other hand, God always deals righteously with everyone. He has certain fixed principles upon which He acts. Since the circumstances in these cases are similar, naturally He handled both alike. But the dissimilarities must also be reckoned with. The only scientific way to account for these is to admit that the two chapters are giving truthful records of what actually occurred on two different occasions. These same scholars claim that the events recorded in 26:12-33 are but another and a distorted version of that narrated in 21:22-34. An examination of these passages shows that the same situation faced both Abraham and Isaac and that they acted in the same manner. Often a son adopts the tactics used by a parent. This case is to he explained upon the same general principles as the one discussed in the preceding paragraph.

page 10

that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are permeated with Babylonian concepts and words. To be more specific, it is evident that the writers of this section of the Word of God lived in that environment and spoke in terms of that civilization. This position is disputed, I must admit, by certain Egyptologists. Nevertheless, when all the facts are known, the evidence seems to be in favor of a Babylonian background for this portion of the Word.

When one reads chapters 12-36, he passes into a different world of ideas and civilization. Here one does not meet with the Babylonian influence which is so very apparent in the first section, but rather with a Palestinian culture. The customs, habits and civilization of the time of the events recorded in this section are reflected therein. A vividness of the Palestinian background is apparent throughout this section. The only scientific conclusion to which one can come is that it was written by those who lived in that part of the world.

In passing out of this section into the third and last one into which the book naturally divides, one enters an Egyptian atmosphere. Everything in the last fourteen chapters, except chapter 38 which deals with Palestine, reflects the culture and the civilization of the Valley of the Nile. This position has been proved conclusively by Egyptologists. Concerning this fact there can be no question.
At the same time scholars have detected a touch of Egyptian influences in all three sections of the book. Upon what hypothesis can these unusual phenomena be accounted? Obviously there is a reason for it. On this point experts are not agreed, but we shall see to what conclusion the evidence points when we come to that phase of the discussion.

B. A Scientific Analysis of the Data and the Logical Explanation of the Facts The key which is to unlock the door into the proper understanding of this entire question is the _expression,
"These are the generations of . . . “


The thinking student who delves into the book of Genesis is impressed by the recurrence of the phrase, "These are the generations of . . ." Writers call our attention to the fact that around this statement cluster the contents of the book. A careful examination of all the data confirms this conclusion. This statement is found

page 11

in the following passages: 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2. What is the meaning of this formula? Many scholars reply that it is an introduction to a genealogical list, because it occurs frequently in more or less close connection with such tables. But the only scientific approach to this question is to investigate each passage and its context, accepting every statement at its face value without forcing an unnatural meaning upon it. With this thought in mind let us address ourselves to the task.

The first occurrence is in 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth." When we examine that which has preceded it, we are immediately convinced that the account of the heavens and the earth is given in 1:1-2:3. In the passage following it we simply have the account of the garden eastward in Eden, of the creation of woman, and of the beginning of the race. In view of these facts one would logically say that this sentence is a summary of that which has preceded it.

The meaning of the word rendered generations is from the root which indicates "to beget or to bring forth." The noun form, therefore, contains the fundamental root idea as well as that which was derived from current usage. Lexicons define its primary meanings as "birth," "generation," "family register," "origin," "historical origin," and "historical account." In the light of these facts one is led to the conclusion that our _expression here is retrospective and is a summary of the historical account of the heavens and the earth and of things therein, as set forth in 1:1-2:3.

The second occurrence of the phrase appears in 5:1 and reads as follows: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The word book inserted in our formula is of special importance. Some Hebrew scholars claim that its significance is "historical narrative," or "historical writings."* Delitzsch renders it, "finished writing."

* The most recent discoveries of archaeology in the ancient orient prove beyond a doubt that writing is as old as man. The clay tablets which have been unearthed in old Babylonia show that there was an ancient script which even antedated the old Sumerian. The discoveries at Kish and Ur of the Chaldees have revealed the fact that, in the strata below the one laid down by the Noahic Flood, there is found positive proof of the existence of civilization before the Deluge which was equal in every respect to that which followed it. In truth, the findings of the most recent diggings have unearthed pottery, instruments, artifacts, the majority of which, by chemical analysis, reveals a very extensive knowledge of science. All well-informed persons, abreast of the times, acknowledge the high state of culture of the men from the dawn of time, as is evidenced by the relics found in the lowest strata of Babylonia, the cradle of the human race.

page 12

With this understanding we see in our statement the claim that there was a book which gave the historical account of Adam and which was incorporated by Moses into Genesis, the Book of Beginnings. Assuming for the moment that our formula has the same significance as in 2:4, we would say that it is here retrospective. With this interpretation of the phenomena we see that Moses by his declaration labels the material from 2:4-4:26 as that which was found in a book either written by Adam or in his possession.

The account which occurs in 2:4-4:26 records events which occurred in the lifetime of Adam because the history of the line of Cain is traced to the eighth generation. From chapter 4 we cannot tell how many years are covered by this history, but when we look in the fifth chapter and total the number of years that had passed at the birth of Methuselah, the eighth in the line of Seth, we learn that his birth year was 687 A.H. Since Adam lived 930 years, we see that the eighth generation had appeared on the scene in his lifetime. We may logically conclude, therefore, that the eighth generation of the line of Cain likewise was in the lifetime of Adam. Hence we conclude that everything that is found in 2:4-4:26 (occurred in the lifetime of Adam.

Since Moses concluded this section with the statement, "This is the book of the generations (or historical account) of Adam," we logically maintain that this utterance is a summary of the section under discussion and that Adam by inspiration wrote this book or that it was written by some other and was in his possession. Hence Moses gives us the source of this material.

The next occurrence of our formula is found in 6:9 and appears as, "These are the generations of Noah." This third section of the book of Genesis begins with this statement, "In the day that God created man," (5:1) and extends through 6:8. This material consists of the genealogical table of Seth's line down to the five hundredth year of Noah. This statement is followed by one which speaks of the birth of his three sons-Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gen. 5:32). In 6:1-8 we have a description of the corrupt condition of the world in the days of Noah and God's decision to destroy man from the face of the ground. Therefore all the material in this section occurred in the lifetime of Noah. After giving us all this data (5:1-6:8), Moses informed us that what he presented in this section is that which was the historical account of

page 13

Noah; i.e., that either Noah wrote this record or that it was in his possession.
The fourth section begins with 6:9b and extends to 9:29. This portion of the historical record is called "the generations of the sons of Noah, namely, of Shem, Ham, and Japheth" (Gen. 10:1). In this portion of Scripture we have the account of the Flood, which was written by the sons of Noah or was in their possession. Everything in this section occurred in the lifetime of these men, as a reading of the account shows.
The fifth normal division consists of 10:1b-11:9. Here we have an account of the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth after the Flood and of their multiplying and spreading over the whole earth. Genesis 10 has correctly been called "The Table of Nations." This portion of the Word is the chart and compass for the one who wishes to investigate the earliest civilization of the human race. Competent scholars who have followed archaeological discoveries in Bible lands have pronounced this chapter as being the key to the proper understanding of earth's earliest tribes and peoples. Two most important historical facts of the first magnitude are in this chapter simply alluded to or briefly mentioned: the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah* and the division of the original continent. *2

* Before leaving this section I wish to note a very significant statement which has bearing on our present discussion. It occurs in 10:19. Here we find an account of the border of the Canaanites, which is traced from city to city. "And the border of the Canaanite was from Sidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, unto Lasha." When this section of Genesis was written, these cities were in existence, because they are pointed out as landmarks, indicating the boundaries of the Canaanites. According to the Scriptural records, they were not destroyed until the year the promise regarding Isaac was made. This was given when Abraham was ninety-nine, the year 2107 A.H.; therefore, this year is the date of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The reader is urged to study Genesis 17-21 on this point. If the earth was divided the year Peleg was born, 1757 A.H., then Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed until 350 years later, in 2107. From Genesis 10: 19 and its context we are driven to the irresistible conclusion that the fifth section of Genesis, namely, 10:1b-11:9, was written while Sodom and Gomorrah were still standing. From this conclusion there can be no escape.
*2In 10:25 we are informed that in the days of Peleg the earth was divided. What is the significance of this statement? According to 1:9, the waters which were left upon the earth after some of those of the mighty deluge, mentioned in 1:2, had been removed and placed above the firmament were gathered together into one place. Then the dry land appeared. When we take these statements at their face value, we see that originally there was but one continent and one sea. In the days of Peleg, who was of the fifth generation in the line of Shem, this one original continent was divided, as we see today. Much evidence has been discovered in recent years, which shows that the territory now forming the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean was at one time part of this original continent. Abundant is the evidence which proves the correctness of this Scriptural statement; Peter's affirmation in II Peter 3:5 also confirms this contention.
The division of the earth into continents occurred in the days of Peleg, as his name indicates. In the Biblical system of chronology the Flood occurred in the year 1656 A.H. Peleg was born in 1757 A.H., or 101 years after the Flood, and yet he is fifth in the line of Shem. He was given a name which commemorates the disaster befalling the earth. One would naturally suppose that this catastrophe occurred immediately prior to the birth of Peleg. With this inference, which is logical, we would place this world-cataclysm one hundred years after the Flood.

page 14
The building of the tower of Babel, the design of which was to maintain the unity of the human race and to centralize its interest in one locality, evidently was prior to the division of the earth. Such is the logical necessity of the data which we have. This attempt at Babel seems to have been an effort to centralize human power in defiance toward the Almighty. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that the Lord frustrated the design of the promoters by confounding the speech of the race and by scattering it abroad throughout the earth. Therefore this confusion of tongues was prior to the division of the earth into continents. When one realizes these facts, he can understand how people originally reached the various continents and islands of the sea. They were on those portions of the original continent when the disaster which split it asunder occurred; hence they were marooned in their special sphere and continued to live there and propagate their species. What was true of the human race was also true of the animal kingdom.
In this connection we might notice another unusual phenomenon and find a reasonable, rational explanation for it. Everyone is acquainted with the fact that there are racial characteristics stamped indelibly upon the various ethnological groups. These cannot be predicated solely upon climatic conditions or upon the operation of the Mendelian ratio. How, then, account for them? My suggestion is that they are distinguishing marks which give evidence of the judgment from God the same as that which produced the various languages. The Biblical account states that God confounded the speech of the peoples at that time so that one could not understand the other; hence the work was frustrated. This was indeed a judgment of God upon them. Since He differentiated them by language, He could likewise and as easily distinguish them by these racial characteristics.
This portion of Genesis is attributed, according to 11:10, to Shem: "These are the generations of Shem." Shem was born in

page 15

1558 and lived for six hundred years; hence he died in 2158. The tenth chapter of Genesis brings us through the history of Shem to the sixth generation; namely, to the descendants of Joktan, the brother of Peleg, who was fifth in the line of Shem. Since after the Flood a new generation arose every thirty or thirty-five years, as we see from the genealogical tables in chapter 11, and since Peleg, the fifth in Seth's line was born in 1757, we see that the sixth generation, the last mentioned in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, arose during that eighteenth century; but Shem did not die until the twenty-second century. Everything in Genesis 10:1b-ll:9 occurred within the lifetime of Shem; therefore, the expression, "These are the generations of Shem," means either that Shem was the author of this section or that it was written by some other and was in his possession.
The sixth division of the book consists of 11:10b-26. This is purely a genealogical table, without any narration whatsoever. It begins with the birth of Arpachshad in 1658 A.H. and runs to the birth of Abraham which we shall see occurred in the year 2008 A.H. In other words, it covers exactly 350 years. Without question Terah had access to genealogical records and facts. He also had the advantage of association, doubtless, with Shem whose life overlapped his by 150 years. Thus, humanly speaking, he had every opportunity possible to gain the exact information concerning this genealogical table which is attributed to him. It stops 75 years short of his death. In view of these facts there is no room for the gathering of floating legends or saga, as we are told by destructive critics.
The formula, "Now these are the generations of Terah," in this case, as in all others, simply means that Terah either was the writer or that it was composed by another and was in his possession.

The seventh section begins with 11:27b and extends to 25:12 and 19. In this portion Abraham occupies the prominent position on the stage and every thing revolves around him as its center. It ends with his death and burial by his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. In 25:12 we have this statement, "Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham." In verse 19 this sentence appears, "And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son." Here we have a situation somewhat different from that with which we have met heretofore. The history of the great patriarch and father of the Hebrew race is here terminated by the two statements just

page 16

quoted. Though Abraham, throughout this section which we have under consideration, is the central figure, Ishmael and Isaac are indeed playing important roles. This passage begins with the record of the promise which God made to Abraham when he was 75 years of age (Gen. 12). Ishmael was born when his father was 86 (Gen. 16). Hence 11 years elapsed between the call of Abraham and the birth of Ishmael and 25 years before Isaac was born. Abraham lived to be 175 years of age (Gen. 25:7). The lives of Abraham and Ishmael coincided for 89 years. Since Ishmael lived to be 137 (Gen. 25:17), he outlived his father by 48 years. Isaac lived 180 years (Gen. 35:28). Since he was born when his father was 100, and the latter lived to be 175, their lives coincided for 75 years; hence Isaac outlived his father 105 years. Therefore, with the exception of the 11 years of the history prior to the birth of Ishmael, everything in this section of the book occurred in the lifetime of Ishmael and Isaac.

Since these two brothers buried their father, and since their names are given in the order in which they appear in chapter 25, it seems quite plausible that Moses in using the regular formula desired to indicate that this portion of his composition was derived from the book that was in the possession of both Ishmael and Isaac. As to who was chosen by the Lord to write this section, no one can say. It is altogether possible that Isaac was the honored author.

The next two occurrences of our formula are found in 36:1, 9 and appear as, "Now these are the generations of Esau (the same is Edom)," and "And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir." This eighth section of the book, which begins with 25:19b and extends to 37:1, gives us an account of the historical events which occurred in the lifetime of Jacob and Esau, for it begins with an account of their birth, continuing the history to the time that Joseph, the son of Jacob, was 17 years of age.

In the second year of the famine Joseph was 39, and Jacob was 130. The latter, therefore, was 108 at the time Joseph was sold into Egypt. Since Jacob lived to be 147 (Gen. 47:28), and since our present section ends with the year when he was 108, we see that everything recorded in this portion of the book occurred in his lifetime. The expression, "These are the Generations of Jacob," (Gen. 37:2) means either that Jacob was the author of this section or that it, having been written by some other, was in his possession.

page 17

This survey proves that the first thirty-six chapters of Genesis cluster around our formula, "These are the generations of. . . ." It has also shown that the one whose name appears in this sentence lived throughout the period, the history of which is recorded therein, the only exceptions being the cases of Terah and of Ishmael. But as we have seen, the Terah section consists simply of genealogical data which he could have gathered either from historical records of the family or from Shem whose life covered the entire period. As seen before, Ishmael's life extended throughout the time covered by his section of the book with the exception of the first eleven years. He was, however, in close touch with his father who could have given him all the information needed. Therefore we conclude that the first thirty-six chapters of Genesis were written by historical characters contemporaneous with the events which they narrated. These statements being true to facts, it is absolutely arbitrary and unscientific for one to claim that Genesis consists of folklore and legends gathered and collated at a much later date by those interested in antiquities.

In this connection let us also bear in mind that the histories do not go beyond the life of the man whose name appears in the formula. Therefore we may conclude that we have an accurate, firsthand account from eyewitnesses of the things to which the testimony is borne.
In view of all the facts which have been discussed in this section, it is perfectly obvious that the statement, "These are the generations of . . . ," is a summary which gives the source from which the material was obtained. Positive evidence proves this point, but, since it has been maintained by many scholars that our expression is the preamble to a genealogical table, it becomes necessary for us to investigate thoroughly this position.
As has already been shown, the first occurrence of our expression has no connection whatsoever with a genealogical list; therefore it is gratuitous for one to claim that it is an introduction to a genealogy. A casual survey of chapters one and two shows conclusively that it is a summary of the contents of 1:1-2: 3. Since the first mention of a doctrine or a symbol usually gives the general outline of its significance, scholars would do well to take heed to this intimation found in the first appearance of this word and be guided by it and by the facts of each context.

Let us now examine the second example to determine whether or not it has any connection with a genealogical table as its preamble

page 18

or introductory statement. In Genesis 4:25, 26 we have the brief genealogical data concerning Adam, Seth, and Enosh. During the lifetime of the latter, men began to call upon the name of the Almighty. These statements are followed by, "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The genealogical table found in chapter 5 begins normally with verse 3; thus between this and our expression occurs a rather long statement relative to the creation of man and woman in the image of God. This sentence puts a chasm between our expression and the genealogy which follows in verse 3.

The third instance of our expression is in 6:9. In the first eight verses there is no genealogical material. Separating our statement from the genealogical data beginning in the next verse is this declaration, "Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his generations: Noah walked with God." This sentence makes a gap between our formula and the following genealogy and disassociates it from this material altogether.

The next occurrence is in 10:1. In our regular version the translators have supplied namely after Noah in order to make the names Shem, Ham, and Japheth in apposition with the expression, "the sons of Noah." The insertion of this italicized word was made by those who evidently held the position that our formula was the introduction to a genealogical table. This is not the only possible, grammatical rendering. May I suggest another? "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah. As to Shem, Ham, and Japheth, unto them were sons born after the flood." With this reading it becomes immediately apparent that our formula is not very closely connected with the genealogical table which follows. In this case, however, there is nothing that separates our formula from the following genealogy. The same thing is true with the next appearance of our sentence in 11:10. The same situation exists in 11:27.

The connection between our formula in 25:12, 19 and the material which follows is indeed very loose and, strictly speaking, does not necessarily connect therewith. The same situation exists in 36:1, 9.

In this connection it might be well to note the fact that in the cases of the section attributed to Ishmael and Isaac together with the one ascribed to Esau and Jacob, Ishmael and Esau, who were rejected from the ancestral lineage of Messiah, are mentioned in the record. This is, to Occidentals, rather strange. The probable answer to why they appear is to be found in the fact that they were

page 19

the first-born of the theocratic line although disfranchised. This fact would be more in keeping with the customs and legal requirements of the time.

Following our formula in Genesis 37:2 there is no genealogy whatsoever; neither is there any preceding it. The statement in this connection is that "These are the generations of Jacob." In chapter 36 we see the descendants of Esau and yet in 37:2 appears our expression. In this instance it can have no connection whatsoever with a genealogical table. Jacob has been the leading character in the drama of the section 25:19-36:43. From chapter 37 onward Joseph occupies the principal place; therefore, in this last instance of its occurrence in Genesis we must conclude that it has no connection whatsoever with a genealogical table. The only other significance it can possibly have here is that in the section which it terminates evidently it means that this portion of the book was either written by Jacob or that it was in his possession.

As further proof that this formula has no connection whatsoever with a genealogical table, I wish to call attention to its use in Numbers 3:1, "Now these are the generations of Aaron and Moses in the day that Jehovah spake with Moses in mount Sinai." In the first two chapters of this book we have an account of the first census of the children of Israel and the number, encampment, and princes of the tribes. Nothing of a genealogical nature is found here. After it, we have the list of the names of Aaron's sons and the account of Nadab and Abihu. Not one word is given concerning any of Moses' descendants either before or after our formula. This fact shows that it has no connection with a genealogical table. In this case we are driven to the irresistible conclusion that the contents of chapters 1 and 2 were written at the time of the events recorded either by or for Aaron and Moses and that the latter incorporated this material in the final codification of the Law.
The fact that each one of these sections closes within the lifetime of the one whose name appears in our formula cannot be accidental. Writers living several centuries afterwards would never have been so precise and exact in such an arrangement. The fact that the history in each section thus ends is positive proof that there was design in this arrangement. But let us not conclude that there was any manipulation of the records but rather the natural logical outworking of the cold hard facts of life. We, therefore, have in the first 36 chapters of Genesis the testimony and accounts of competent eyewitnesses to the things of which they wrote.

page 20


A careful study of Genesis and an analysis of the data connected with our formula prove that it was compiled from ancient documents by an editor at a very early date. The evidence is clear and convincing to the one who will open his mind and heart and look facts squarely in the face. The testimony supporting this proposition is based upon six different considerations.

a.  Babylonian Words in the First Eleven Chapters of Genesis

According to the best and leading scholars there appear in the first eleven chapters of Genesis different Babylonian words. In fact, as the dewdrop reflects the environment around it, these chapters mirror more or less distinctly a Babylonian environment. For proof of this fact consult the standard works on the subject.*

b. Palestinian Environment Reflected in Chapters 12-36

The second major division of Genesis consists of chapters 11:27-37:1. The experts are unable to find in this section the influences of Babylonia as they clearly point to them in the first section. Furthermore an unmistakable Palestinian background is apparent throughout this portion of the book. The geographical data together with the customs and life of Palestine are seen on every page. These facts are proof that it was written by those to whom Moses gives credit. To the truth-seeker it is also obvious that this section must have been written by an eyewitness.

* The traces of Babylonian influence, which are so very evident in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, argue for Israel's contact with that country. Two schools of thought have arisen in regard to this matter. One insists that all the data can be accounted for upon the basis that Abraham was a native of Ur of the Chaldees, and that, since these early chapters give the account of the beginnings of civilization which arose in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, normally traces of Babylonian influences would appear in this portion of the narrative. The other school, with a great array of learning and dogmatism, proclaims that the contact was made only when Nebuchadnezzar took the Jews to Babylon.
There is truth in the position taken by the first school. Abraham's contact with his native land cannot be doubted in the light of our present knowledge. There is, therefore, of necessity, traces in these early chapters of Babylonian influence. No one can deny this proposition. That Israel's contact with Babylon at the time of the captivity did color her civilization and culture subsequent to that time, and that traces of such influences do appear in the later books of the canon cannot be denied. But a scientific and unbiased investigation of Genesis can discover no evidence of Chaldean influences of the time of the exile.
The explanation appearing in the following pages, which accepts all the data at face value, accounts fully and scientifically for the evident Babylonian influences.

page  21

c. Egyptian Words in the Last Fourteen Chapters of Genesis

In great contrast with the early chapters of Genesis the last ones are permeated with Egyptian words and ideas. In fact, the entire background of these chapters is purely Egyptian with, of course, the ancient Hebrew civilization. In other words, in these chapters we see the Hebrew culture and civilization amid Egyptian environment.

d. Geographical Notations

Another line of proof that the first thirty-six chapters of Genesis constitute a primitive revelation is to be found in the geographical notations scattered here and there in this section of Scripture. Since in Genesis 14:2, mention is made of the king of Bela, an explanatory clause follows it stating that "the same is Zoar." In the next verse mention is made of "the vale of Siddim" which is explained by the clause "The same is the Salt Sea." Again in verse 7 En-mishpat is explained: "the same is Kadesh." Once again, we see another such note in the statement which spoke of Abraham's pursuing the five kings "unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus." Finally in verse 17 the vale of Shaveh is explained: "the same is the King's Vale." Why are these place names explained? The most plausible answer is that by a later writer they were inserted into documents which he received. For instance, the original which came into his hands simply spoke of the king of Bela. The author assumed on the part of the reader a knowledge of the city or state of Bela which was at that time well known. By the time of Moses its name had been changed to Zoar. Hence, in order to make the record intelligible to his readers, Moses added the explanatory clause.
Another example of this type of notation for the purpose of identification is found in 16:14: "Wherefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered." In the record of Rachel's burial place (Gen. 35:19) mention is made of Ephrath which is followed by the clause "the same is Bethlehem." Sarah died, according to Genesis 23:2, at Kiriath-arba which Moses explained as being Hebron.
Why all of these interpolations? The careful intelligent reader demands an answer. These additional explanatory notes obviously were inserted by Moses to make intelligible to his readers these ancient documents which he was placing in their hands. When Sarah died the place where Abraham lived was known as Kiriath-arba. Between that time and Moses' day the name had been

page 22

changed to Hebron. The Israelites in his day would not have known by reading this document where Sarah was buried unless indeed they had done some special research work or made particular inquiry about the ancient name of this city, which thing very few would have done. But to make intelligible to his readers the facts, Moses inserted this explanation. Neither could this note have been added at a date later than the time of the entrance of the children of Israel into Canaan, because in the original passage we are told that Hebron was in the land of Canaan. The translators of the Revised Version were unfortunate in including in the parentheses only the words "the same is Hebron," whereas they should have placed within these marks the entire statement, "the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan." Anyone who knows the Hebrew language and who will glance at the original text will see that the phrase, in the land of Canaan, is a part of the inserted note which Moses placed there to identify Kiriath-arba. There was no occasion for this note's being placed in the document after Israel entered the land, because Hebron was one of the principal cities of refuge and played a very important role in the life of the country. David set up his kingdom and reigned there for seven and a half years. Therefore it is unthinkable that this explanation could have been placed there after the conquest of the land. In the face of these stubborn facts there is but one conclusion to which one can reasonably come; namely, that it was inserted by Moses for the children of Israel just before they entered the Promised Land. What is said about this note is true also of the one which occurs in verse 19 of this same chapter.
Another fact which is positive proof of the antiquity of the book of Genesis is the use of the terms, "south country" (Gen. 20:1; 24:62) and "the east country" (Gen. 25:6). After the conquest of the land these places had well-known names. These primitive names bear silent testimony, therefore, to the ancient character of these documents which Moses passed on to Israel.

e. The Primitive Character of the Political Situation Reflected in Genesis

In Genesis we see a primitive political state reflected. Petty city states were the order of the day. The tribal character of this early civilization is reflected especially in such chapters as Genesis 10. At the time of David and Solomon, however, empires were developing, as we see in the cases of Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt. Most

page 23

recent finds of archaeology prove the correctness of the representation of this primitive order as set forth in Genesis. From this standpoint, therefore, we are driven to the conclusion that Genesis consists of ancient primitive documents.

f. Parallel Between Literary Composition of Genesis and Cuneiform Tablets

When the Jewish people spoke Hebrew, God made His revelation to them in that language; when they were using partially the Aramaic at the time of the Babylonian captivity, He gave some of His messages in that language; and after they began to speak Greek He naturally adopted this tongue in giving His revelation. Speech is the vehicle of thought. God's Word is the means by which He conveys His message to people. Hence, naturally He adopted the language which they were using at the time of the revelation. Furthermore, when papyri were used as writing material the men of God naturally employed that which was in use in their day. These facts are in accordance with common intelligence and good sense.
From the facts stated above we may conclude that when clay tablets and stone were used for writing material, God naturally employed them in preserving His revelation. Furthermore, when the cuneiform language was the international writing of the ancient world, it stands to reason that the Lord would use that language in giving His Word.
Do we have any evidence of these facts? Most assuredly. From the mounds of Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Egypt have been unearthed various clay tablets written in the language of the day-namely, Babylonian-Assyrian wedge-shaped writing. The Tell el-Amarna tablets from one of the ancient capitals of Egypt as well as others dug up in Palestine prove that clay tablets and cuneiform writing were used universally in Egypt and Palestine at the time of Moses and the Exodus. We naturally conclude, therefore, that God would give His revelation in the permanent form according to the methods employed at that time. These facts have long been recognized by conservative scholars but have not been emphasized, because of the scarcity of the evidence for comparison available to former generations. In the most recent discoveries, however, sufficient data have been brought to light and have been studied thoroughly to prove conclusively that the book of

page 24

Genesis is a series of ancient documents which have been put together in permanent form by the great Lawgiver of Israel-Moses.
There were certain literary methods employed by the old Babylonian-Assyrian scribes which are very clearly demonstrated by the tablets that have been unearthed. As with the Hebrew, so' with the ancient Babylonian tablets, the first words of tablet one of a series were used as the title of the following ones. They also employed the numerals which indicate the serial number of the tablet. Another safeguard in preserving the correct order came in the form of catchwords or catch-lines. The first words of the first tablet of the series were repeated at the bottom of each succeeding one to indicate that it belonged to the same set. The numbering showed the numerical order and the catch-lines were used as a check to confirm the serial order. In addition to these devices there was a colophon which appeared at the end of a document or a series of documents. This consisted largely of the name of the scribe and the date of the writing and corresponded largely to our title page of a book. These data came at the end of a document instead of at the beginning as in our case. Instead of the scribe or the writer's signing his own name, frequently his seal was used to close the communication and in addition sometimes the scribe gave his name.
An examination of the book of Genesis shows the remains of some of these ancient literary devices. The presence of these embedded in the text argues for a very early date of the composition of Genesis.
Evidence of this fact is to be found in the following examples:

Chap. Verse

i              1      "God created the heavens and the earth."
ii             4      "Lord God made the heavens and the earth."
ii             4      "When they were created."
v             2       "When they were created."
vi           10      "Shem, Ham and ]apheth."
x             1       "Shem, Ham and ]apheth."
x             1       "After the Flood."
xi          10       "After the Flood."
xi          26       "Abram, Nahor and Haran."
xi          27       "Abram, Nahor and Haran."
xxv       12       "Abraham's son."
xxv       19       "Abraham's son."
xxxvi      1       "Who is Edom."
xxxvi      8       "Who is Edom."
xxxvi      9       "Father of the Edomites" (lit.: Father Edom).
xxxvi      43      "Father of the Edomites" (lit.: Father Edom).

page 25

I wish the reader to note carefully that Genesis 1:1-2:4 begins and ends exactly alike. The same thing is true with the section 2:4-5:1. This section begins a certain way and closes with a repetition of the same words. The same thing appears in each of these pairs of sentences. This phenomenon cannot be accidental because it is too uniform and exact. Since in it is reflected the ancient literary method of writing in the orient, and since these repetitions occur where our formula appears, which takes the place of the original colophon, we cannot avoid the conclusion that Moses took earlier documents and welded them into the form which they now have in Genesis 1-36.
A study of the cuneiform tablets shows that many of them were dated in the year of certain outstanding events. For instance, one document is dated: "Year in which Canal Hammurabi was dug." In perfect conformity with this method of dating we see in Genesis 2:4 the words "In the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth." A similar example of dating is found in 5:1, "In the day God created man." Later tablets were not dated so much by the year in which a specific incident occurred but rather were given in terms of the residence of some leading personage. For instance, in 25:11 the date of the writing of this tablet was when "Isaac dwelt by Beer-lahai-roi." Compare also the method of dating in 36:8; 37:1.

As noted above, the cuneiform tablets always ended with a colophon, giving the name of the scribe along with the date. The counterpart of this device in the Scriptures is found in our recurring formula, "These are the generations of . . . ." In view of these facts we cannot avoid the conclusion that Genesis 1-36 was first written in the language of the day whose authors used the literary contrivances common at that time. Moses adopted this method which the scribes of Ashur-bani-pal used in their copying tablets from earlier generations.
The proper understanding of the literary composition of the first thirty-six chapters of Genesis forever demolishes the critical, destructive theory which asserts that it was composed of documents unrelated and coming from different centuries. The unity of the book of Genesis is guaranteed by the manner in which it was welded together by Moses.


As has already been seen, archaeology has proved conclusively that writing extends back to the dawn of history-the beginning of

page 26

the human race. Tablets have been unearthed which are admitted to have been written at least five and a half millenniums ago. Thanks to the tireless work of faithful archaeologists in bringing to our attention the historic past, we no longer have to depend upon the guesses and speculations of theorists concerning this matter. Accepting the cold facts which have been brought to light by archaeology, we are now in a position to affirm that the documents out of which Genesis was composed could have been written by any of the prediluvian patriarchs, beginning with Adam himself. It is now in order for us to examine minutely each of these original documents.

a. The Creation Document

We have already seen that the earliest material used for writing, especially in Babylonia, the cradle of civilization, was the clay tablet. We have also learned that there is abundant evidence in Genesis which proves that it was composed of documents which had the literary characteristics appearing in the early Babylonian clay tablets. We are, therefore, justified in concluding that these early documents were written on clay tablets; hence we shall think of them in such terms.
Genesis 1:1-2:4 is one of the most sublime pieces of literature extant today, being judged from the standpoint of simplicity, comprehensiveness, clarity, universality and majesty. Who could pen such an account? According to Commander Wiseman, who quotes Professor Wade in his Old Testa1nent History, this account is most accurate. Here are the words of the Professor who speaks "of the inherent improbability of an ancient writing anticipating accurately the conclusions of modern science." Of course, the Professor, viewing things as he does, wished to claim for this record a late date. According to him and the critical school, the Pentateuch came into its present form during and after the Babylonian captivity. Were science and knowledge, as developed by men, taking the position set forth in Genesis 1 at the time of the reputed composition of the Pentateuch? Those acquainted with the historical facts must answer in the negative. In fact, it is utterly absurd to think that a scribe or historian at the time of the Babylonian captivity could have by his own natural powers written an account like Genesis 1. The Professor, together with all others occupying the same position as he does, was driven by facts to the statement that this portion of Scripture is absolutely accurate.

page 27

If no one after the days of Moses and before the present scientific age could have written this account, who did? And when was it composed? If any man today thinks that he can write an account of the Creation, let him try it. Evidence pointing to the date of its composition is found in the record of the work of the fourth day (1:14-16). According to it,
"God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

The name here given to the sun and the moon is "lights," or "luminaries." These two greater heavenly lights are not called in this document by the name which they later bore in Babylonia. According to the tablets unearthed there, the sun at a later date was called "shemesh." Likewise in the Biblical account of the time of Abraham the greater luminary is called by the corresponding word in the Hebrew language (Gen. 15:12). Hammurabi in his code depicted on his stele himself as receiving the laws from the god "shemesh." The moon god also was worshiped in Ur of the Chaldees. The chapel in which he was worshiped was erected on the great tower in the central part of the city about 250 years prior to the birth of Abraham. He was also worshiped in Haran, Upper Mesopotamia. Had Genesis one been written after names had been given to the two luminaries, the writer would have spoken of them by these names instead of simply calling them ""lights." This very fact in and of itself is absolute and positive proof of the primitive character of Genesis 1:1-2:3.
Throughout this section the author repeatedly states, "and God said." The personal element together with the vivid portrayal of what was done and said all indicate clearly that the record was written by one to whom these events were told. In this connection let us bear in mind that the writer did not say "I saw," "I beheld," and "1 heard." It is direct speech. Everything throughout the account argues for its primitive character as having been recorded by the Lord Himself. Compare the style, the brevity, and the majesty of this record with the two tablets of the ten commandments given directly by the Lord.
Another bit of evidence pointing to the conclusion just stated is that in the section attributed to Noah (Gen. 5:29) is an echo of

page 28

the promise contained in 3:15. As a final statement relative to Genesis 1, I wish to quote the words of Commander Wiseman, which are clear, explicit, and most accurate:
"This first chapter is so ancient that it does not contain mythical or legendary matter; these elements are entirely absent. It was written before myth and legend had time to grow, and not as is often stated, at a later date when it had to be stripped of the mythical and legendary elements inherent in every other account of Creation extant. This account is so original that it does not bear a trace of any system of philosophy: yet it is so profound that it is capable of correcting philosophical systems. It is so ancient that it contains nothing that is merely nationalistic, neither Babylonian, Egyptian nor Jewish modes of thought find a place in it, for it was written before clans, or nations or philosophies originated. Thus it is the original, of which the other extant accounts are merely corrupted copies. Others incorporate their national philosophies in crude polytheistic and mythological form, while this is pure. Genesis chapter one is as primitive as man himself, the threshold of written history.-New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis.

b. The Tablet of Adam
The second tablet, or series of tablets, is attributed to Adam (2: 4-5: 1). In chapter 2 we have a description of the earth's being watered by a mist which went up from the ground. This is followed by a brief statement concerning the creation of man. This narration has been designated as a second record or duplicate account of man's creation. Unfortunately, some scholars have seen a contradiction between it and that which is contained in the first chapter. Furthermore, they have sought in these two accounts to find proof for the long-exploded documentary theory of the composition of the Torah. Since we are dealing with another tablet, or series of tablets, in the material found in 2: 4-5: 1, it is only natural to expect another reference to the creation of man. Since it was originally a document separate from 1:1-2: 3 and since it recounts God's dealings with the human family, naturally it relates, in a different way, the story of man's creation as given in the first tablet. In a set of books today, which is well-written, each succeeding volume takes up the story where the former left off and ties the new volume to the preceding one. Exactly this is what we see here. Hence the myth concerning a duplicate narrative, which the destructive critics have used in support of their visionary hypotheses, vanishes in the light of the plain facts.
In verses 8-17 of the second chapter we have a very vivid, detailed, and graphic description of the Garden eastward in Eden. There is nothing fantastic, visionary, or mythical connected with this straightforward account. It is just such a story as one would

page 29

expect an honest narrator to tell. It is tied down to earth-to realities and facts.
In this garden was planted every tree that was desirable for man's food and comfort. He was granted the privilege of partaking of the fruit of each one, except of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He had access all the time even to the tree of life. Nothing was withheld from him that was calculated to bring a blessing and make his stay in Eden all that was to be desired. A prohibition was imposed upon him, however, concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God warned man, saying, "in the day thou eatest thereof dying thou shalt surely die" (literal translation). This statement is absolutely correct. The very day that man partook of the forbidden fruit the catabolic processes, which are known to medical science, began to prey upon his physical body and they continued to eat at his very vitals until his life became extinct. The same destructive forces prey upon the bodies of everyone from the beginning of life and ultimately cause death. Thus this statement in this most primitive of all documents has been verified by modern Science.

In verses 18-25 we have an account of Adam's naming the various animals and also of the creation of woman. Unfortunately and mistakenly some men have spoken of Adam and his intellectual capacities as being very limited. The facts here narrated indicate otherwise. He had a great mind and intellectual capacity to give names appropriate to the different animals. As they filed before him, each with his mate, there was found no companion for man. Thus at this point of the history God brought the woman into being.
The account of this miracle is told very simply in a straightforward manner and in language that all can understand. According to it, God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, at which time He removed from his side a rib. Out of this He created woman. Some theologians correctly, I believe, conclude that this surgical operation was performed in order to remove from man's body the feminine organs. Hence around them He built up the body of the woman and breathed into her nostrils "the breath of lives," and she became a living, i.e., an immortal, soul.
Unfortunately many light and flippant people have ridiculed this majestic account of the creation of woman and have dubbed it "the rib story." The making of such a frivolous remark reveals immediately the shallow thinking of the person thus speaking. The first

page 30

great step in surgery was taken by a man who believed this account and who saw the practicability of it. God gave Adam an anesthetic before He performed this operation. The man who discovered modern anesthesia found his idea in this account. Everyone who has undergone a surgical operation in modern times owes the absence of suffering at the time to the knowledge that is here set forth in this precious passage.
In Genesis 3:1-8 we have the record of the tempter's deceiving Eve. He is spoken of as the serpent. The curse falling upon him made him crawl in the dust of the earth. Here only in the Old Testament is he referred to as the serpent. After this time he is never thus designated, but is called the adversary or Satan. Since he was known by this latter appellation, it is absolutely certain that had this record arisen from later times, he would not have had this name. Therefore the presence of this primitive designation argues for an early date for this section of the record.

The account of God's coming and talking in the cool of the evening with Adam and Eve is very personal and, at the same time, graphic and vivid. The Almighty is represented as appearing in human form and conversing with man.* In the books of Moses and throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Almighty is never spoken of thus, but rather is represented and thought of as the King of the universe, high, exalted, and lifted above the heavens. It is, therefore, inconceivable that the account in the third chapter of Genesis, narrating God's visit to man in the Garden, came from a later time in Jewish history. This fact argues most conclusively for the early origin of this portion of the Word.
In 3:9-21 we have an account of the Almighty's conversation with Adam and Eve announcing the coming of the world-Redeemer and at the same time pronouncing the curse upon man, woman, and the ground. This promise of a Redeemer, while definite enough, is veiled more or less in mystery. It becomes intelligible, however, when read in the light of later predictions. It is of such a character
* In the narration concerning the events of the tower of Babel, God is spoken of as coming down to earth (Gen. 11:1-9). In 17:1 we are told that Jehovah appeared to Abraham. Whether or not He appeared only in vision, or similarly to His appearance in Eden we are not told. A like situation appears in chapters 18 and 19. But from the days of Jacob and onward we read of the appearance of "the Angel of Jehovah," One would conclude naturally that the use of the primitive expression relative to the Lord's appearing in the early chapters of the book argue for the composition of the chapters prior to the time when the later half of the book was written.

page 31

that one would expect it to be the primitive or the initial promise. This fact, likewise, argues for an early date of this original section.

In the fourth chapter we have the account of the birth of Cain and Abel and the former's slaying the latter. This incident is followed by the pronouncement of the curse upon Cain. The section concludes with a short history of Cain's descendants up to and including Lamech. Here is found the record of the beginning of a materialistic culture, built up by those who have little regard for God and spiritual interests. This record closes with the eighth generation of Adam through Cain, the worldly branch of the human family which developed a godless civilization.
As stated before, Moses claims that this is "the book of the generations of Adam." Since the personal touch is so very evident and the narrative reflects most positively the earliest primitive civilization, the only reasonable explanation of this formula is that Adam was the one either who wrote this account, or, in whose possession it was.

c. The Tablet of Noah

This third tablet, which claims to give the generations or the historical account of Noah, begins with Adam and traces the former's genealogy to himself. This is found in the fifth chapter and is followed by an account of the corrupt condition of the world in Noah's Day (Gen. 6:1-8).
Some in modern times have stumbled over the record in this fifth chapter because of the extremely long span of life of the ancient patriarchs. Various efforts have been made to read into the record some other idea than that which is the simple, straightforward, plain meaning of the words. All efforts to make the chapter mean something different from what it says meets with failure.
It is logical to believe that primitive man had greater vitality and strength in the early period of the history of the race than in our day. The characteristic which we observe everywhere, and which affects both animate and inanimate creation, is that everything is tending towards dissolution and a general breakdown. Chemistry teaches this great lesson. It is visible on every hand in nature. As one grows older, the less vitality he has; consequently the smaller is his capacity for recuperation. As a person in youth has greater vitality and power, so did the human family in those early, primitive days. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to believe the record as it is given in the fifth chapter of Genesis which shows longevity at its best.

page 32

According to Genesis 5, there were ten of the patriarchs from Adam to Noah. Skeptics have often ridiculed the Biblical record on this point but confirmation has come to us from archaeology which confirn1s the Scriptures. For instance, Mr. H. WeldBlundell obtained a number of clay prisms which had been found at Larsa. These have been placed in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford and have been deciphered by Professor Langdon. One of them, which is designated W.B.444 gives a list of those who "ruled before the Flood." Following this, we have a list of those who ruled "after the Flood" up to about 2000 B.C.E. of the current chronological scheme. On another tablet is found the list of ten persons who "ruled before the Flood" (See Tablet W.B.62).

The material in this section, as stated above, consists of the genealogical list of Noah's ancestors and of the culture and environment in which he lived, and which was very wicked-so very much so that God had to bring the judgment of the Flood on that generation to purge the world of its gross corruption.

Adam lived until the year 930 A.H. Methuselah was born in the year 687 A.H.; hence their lives overlapped for 243 years. Methuselah lived 969 years and died in the Flood year, 1656 A.H. Since that disaster occurred in the 600th year of Noah, his life overlapped with that of Methuselah for 600 years; therefore, he had ample opportunity to procure all the genealogical data from Methuselah who in turn could have gathered it from Adam and others of the early patriarchs. Therefore in this section we have a well authenticated genealogical table giving the exact facts of the theocratic line and a short description of the corruption of Noah's day. Since Moses attributed this section to Noah and since all the data are in harmony with this position, we are logically forced to believe that Noah was the author or the possessor of this tablet.

d. The Tablet of Noah's Sons

The fourth tablet, or series of tablets, as already seen, is found in Genesis 6:9-10:1. This section begins with 6:9b and speaks of Noah as a righteous man and places him in contrast with the corrupt world of his day. This is doubtless done to show that God always uses men whose lives are pure, chaste, and clean. Naturally in this new series of tablets the writer would depict the lost, corrupt condition of the world and God's pronouncing the curse upon it. This account is followed by the record of the Flood, of which we read in chapters 7 and 8. After Noah emerged from the Ark he

page 33

made certain sacrifices to God, at which time the Lord entered into a covenant with him and gave the Magna Charta of civil governments. These things are recorded in chapter 9.
We are still living in the land of Babylonia in this section of the book and only leave it to see the Ark resting upon Mount Ararat north of Babylonia, which was probably in the present country of Armenia. The description of what took place at the time of the Flood is so very clear and minute that only eyewitnesses could have written such a vivid account. This record is by Moses attributed to the three sons of Noah. Since we are moving in the realm of ideas of ancient Babylonia in this section, we are again logically driven to accept the position that the authors are the three sons of Noah who passed through the experiences here narrated.

e. The Tablet of Shem

The fifth tablet, or series of tablets, is found in Genesis 10:2-11:9. This portion was written when the political situation had developed into small city-states consisting largely of clans 0" certain small tribes. This picture of the ancient orient shows the conditions as they existed from the time of the Flood to the breaking up of the original continent into the present land distribution which occurred in all probability, as stated before, in the year 1757, or 101 years after the Flood. But since the record takes us into the next generation after Peleg, we, of course, realize that it went for another generation beyond that of the catastrophe which befell the earth, and which is crystallized in the name of Peleg.
Nimrod, the founder of the kingdom of Babylon, was third in the Hamitic line. From Shinar he went out into the land of Assyria and built Nineveh and Some other cities.
Let us remember that at the time of the writing of this tenth chapter of Genesis, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities of the Plain were still standing, as is evident from the nineteenth verse. Since they were destroyed in the days of Abraham, probably when he was 99, in the year 2107 A.H., it is likely that this judgment fell 350 years after the division of the earth. Therefore Shem's account was written before Abraham's day.
Moses, the compiler of the book of Genesis, attributes this section to Shem, who lived 502 years after the Flood, and whose life overlapped that of Abraham by 150 years; hence we may conclude that Shem either wrote the book or that it was in his possession. The probability is that he wrote it.

Page 34

f. The Tablet of Terah

Terah's tablet is the shortest of the series. It consists only of the ancestral line of Terah, the father of Abraham, who traced his lineage from Shem. He had the opportunity of learning the facts from Shem and of continuing the genealogy to include himself.

g. The Tablets of Ishmael and Isaac

The next and longest division of Genesis is chapters 11:27-25:11. This is followed by what might be properly called a postscript consisting of verses 12-19. Abraham, of course, is the chief character in this section. Contrary to Dr. Driver's dictum, Abraham's name is not connected in any way with our formula as one would expect if Driver's assertion were correct.
This section properly ends with verse 11, which gives the data of the composition of this series of tablets in terms of Isaac's dwelling at Beer-lahai-roi. The last statement (vss. 9 and 10) tells of the burial of Abraham by his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Moses added his colophon in the form of our formula in verse 12 and followed that with the postscript concerning Isaac. This addition is concluded with the colophon regarding Isaac in verse 19. In keeping with his usual custom, Moses recognized the priority of the birth of Ishmael and placed him before Isaac, just as he did in the case of Esau and Jacob in 36:1, 9 and 37:2. We see the same thing in Numbers 3:1 where Moses placed Aaron, his elder brother, before himself.
There are a vividness, a graphicness, and the personal touch throughout this section which show first-hand information concerning the most minute details of the various incidents recorded therein. It is just such an account as one would expect Abraham to recount to his sons, Ishmael and Isaac, especially to the latter. The original tablet must have been in possession of Ishmael and Isaac and finally reached the hand of Moses, who welded it with the other documents which came into his possession.

h. The Tablets of Esau and Jacob

The final tablets, or series of tablets, are found in Genesis 25:20-36:1. There are two postscripts to this section as indicated by verses 1 and 9 of chapter 36.
Here again we have a vivid, graphic description of various epochs in the lives of Esau and Jacob. The personal touch is in evidence throughout the section. It finally concludes with the burial of

page 35

Isaac by his two sons, Esau and Jacob. Chapter 36 constitutes, as stated above, the postscript to this section of the narrative. Finally in 37:2 we find a colophon which attributes this history to Jacob. Without doubt, therefore, the material forming this section of Genesis was the property of Esau and Jacob, which providentially was brought into the hands of Moses, and which he has incorporated in the, account of this wonderful book of Beginnings.
The portraits of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as set forth in the last two sections discussed, are consistent in every detail. From this account we can see that the incidental references strewn throughout the text brighten the picture of Abraham. He was a man of influence and power, not only in Canaan but in Egypt. He had the respect of all with whom he associated. The same is true with reference to Isaac and Jacob, even though they did not tower in the public eye so much as Abraham did. Genuineness and historicity are stamped upon every chapter of this narrative as well as upon all the primitive oracles which later came into the hands of Moses.
In view of all the evidence which we have discovered during this study, we are driven to the irresistible conclusion that the first thirty-six chapters of Genesis form a composite document made up of primitive records which were in the hands of the leaders of the theocratic line, and which came finally into the possession of Moses. They were welded together by him into one continuous narrative as we possess them today.

i. The Last Fourteen Chapters of Genesis

The next question arising in this investigation is, Who wrote the last fourteen chapters of Genesis, or what connection did Moses have with this part of the record? In order to answer this question, one must study Genesis in connection with the other four books of the Torah. In the first two chapters of Exodus we have an account of the birth and miraculous preservation of Moses and his life at the court of Pharaoh. Following this narrative is the episode of his flight from Egypt to Midian where he met the girl whom he married. After forty years' residence in that country God called him to deliver His people from the bondage of Egypt. The account is found in the third chapter. From this time onward God constantly spoke to him. In Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy we see the recurring statement, "and Jehovah spake unto Moses."

page 36

In striking contrast with this reiterated and emphasized statement as we have already seen, is the fact that not one single word is to be found in the book of Genesis which declares that God spoke to 1'Ioses. There is not even an intimation to this effect. This is a fact which demands consideration on the part of the one who is studying this question.

The liberal critics tell us that the expression, "Jehovah spoke unto Moses," was inserted into the materials which the imaginary redactors of the time of the Babylonian captivity inserted into the supposed original documents that they wove into the literary fabric now known as the Torah, or that the authors of the supposed original documents falsely inserted the great Law-giver's name into their writings. This was done, they assert, in order to give to these forged documents the authority and prestige of the name of Moses. Let us, for the sake of discussion, assume the correctness of this position. How is it, then, that they would with great profusion inject his name throughout the last four books of the Torah, but never once put it into the first one, Genesis? These imaginary editors would want his authority for this part of their work just as much as for the latter part. This fact is conclusive evidence that the critical theory evades the issue and is absolutely contrary to facts.

Since I have in this connection mentioned the false documentary theory of the composition of the Pentateuch, it might also be well to note the fact that Genesis refers to a primitive revelation which God made and which Abraham obeyed. It is found in 26:5; but, in order that the reader might see the connection, I will quote the first part of this chapter:

And there was a famine in the land, besides the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines, unto Gerar. 2 And Jehovah appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: 3 sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; 4 and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (Gen. 26:1-5).

According to verse 5, God told Isaac that Abraham, his father, had obeyed His voice, had kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws. Let us remember that Abraham lived approximately 400 years prior to the days of Moses, through whom God gave the Law at Sinai. Nevertheless the Lord stated to Isaac

page 37

that his father had kept His commandments, statutes, and laws. Evidently He had given a primitive revelation, which was in effect at that time, and which Abraham obeyed. Who had those laws, statutes, and commandments? The order of the items of this verse gives a little hint. Abraham first obeyed God's voice and then kept His charge, His commandments, statutes, and laws.
Abraham was born into an idolatrous environment (Josh. 24:1, 2). God gave him a call to leave his father's house and the land of his nativity and to go to the land which He would afterwards show him (Gen. 12:1-3). In obedience to this challenge to separation, Abraham journeyed northward into Haran and thence, when his father was dead, down into Canaan and finally located at Hebron. The facts recorded in Genesis 14 throw quite a bit of light on this question. After he had rescued Lot, Abraham carne and paid tithes to Melchizedek, king of Salem, which was Jerusalem. At the same time he was also priest of God Most High. Being king of a petty city-state and priest, he evidently l1ad the law and the services together with the ritual of God Most High. Obviously the Lord called Abraham out of his heathen environment and brought him over into this kingdom of Melchizedek in which the statutes of God were the laws of the land. Being a subject in the kingdom of Melchizedek, he obeyed these laws of God and worshiped Him according to the ritual over which Melchizedek presided.
Since there was a primitive revelation-statutes, commandments, and laws-which God originally committed to men, and which Abraham obeyed, where are they today? No one can answer this question absolutely. They have not been preserved to us, so far as we know. It is quite likely that the Lord through Moses incorporated the abiding elements of the primitive code in the law which he delivered to Israel at Mount Sinai. Let me illustrate this principle. My native state of Tennessee came to statehood in 1796. At that time a constitution was drawn up and adopted. This commonwealth functioned under it as long as it met the needs. When, however, the state developed so that the old constitution was not sufficient, another one was drawn up and adopted by the legislature. Under this it is operating at the present time. Doubtless there were many of the original statutes in the old document which have been brought over and incorporated into the new, because of their universal application and their adaptability even to the newly developed situation. In all probability a like situation existed in those primitive times. In fact, we see various sacrifices and offer-

page 38

ings mentioned throughout the book of Genesis. In the Law delivered at Sinai a very elaborate, sacrificial ceremonialism was inaugurated. This doubtless consisted of much that was in this primitive revelation, and that was essential to make out the full message of the law.
We have already seen that Genesis 1-36 is the compilation of genealogies and histories which were attributed to Adam, Noah, Noah's sons, Shem, Terah, Ishmael and Isaac, and Esau and Jacob. These documents, as we have already noted, reflect most vividly and accurately the conditions of the times during which the authors lived. They were taken by one person and welded into a continuous narrative. The one doing this work, I have hitherto assumed, was Moses but a little below I shall give the positive reasons for this conviction.
In order to support or bolster up the claims of the documentary theory, those holding it refer to such passages as I Chronicles 29:29, 30:

"Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the history of Samuel the seer, and in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the history of Gad the seer, 30 with al1 his reign and his might, and the times that went over him, and over Israel, and over al1 the kingdoms of the countries."

The writers of Kings and Chronicles in summing up the reigns of certain sovereigns make statements to this effect: "Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the histories of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, after the manner of genealogies?" (II Chron. 12:15). These passages are relied upon to prove that the material constituting the present books of Kings and Chronicles was taken over en masse by the sacred writers, edited, and welded into continuous documents. In like manner, the books of the Torah, according to this theory, came to their present form. These quotations and similar ones when accepted at their face value do not in the least support the documentary theory. They simply tell us that the things recorded of those concerning whom the statements are made may be found in certain books which were extant in that day and time. In other words, this is simply a reference note showing where the reader could find confirmation of the things recorded. Histories today in connection with each chapter often give a list of reference works where the first-hand information may be gained, but the authors do not wish the reader to understand that they have simply taken certain earlier documents and patched them together into a hotchpotch of a literary narrative.

page 39

On the contrary, the compiler of Genesis has told us that he took primitive documents and welded them together, has shown us exactly where he made the connections and has given us the names of the authors, or the ones in whose possession they were originally or by whom they were handed down.
These original documents were written by inspired writers who were guided infallibly by the Spirit of God to record the events narrated. Moses, the inspired lawgiver of Israel, collected these primitive documents, the oracles of the Living God, and united them into one continuous whole. Hence we may take our stand positively on the proposition that Genesis 1:1-37:2 was infallibly inspired by the Spirit of God in every detail and that every word is correct and accurate. Hence we can depend upon each statement therein contained.
All the Biblical writers in referring to the Scriptures written prior to their day as a rule are very accurate in ascribing a quotation to a given writer. This practice is seen throughout the Bible. For instance, various prophets and apostles in referring to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy attribute certain statements to Moses, the servant of God, but in quoting the book of Genesis they never say that Moses spoke or wrote it. The reason is obvious; namely, that he did not do it originally, but simply took inspired records and, by the guidance of the Spirit, combined them into one continuous, glorious revelation.
Thus far I have assumed that Moses was the compiler, honored of God, to combine preexisting, primitive revelations into one continuous whole. Now let us investigate this question more thoroughly. There are four cogent reasons for believing that Moses was the compiler of the former revelations and the author of the last fourteen chapters of the book of Genesis. On this point I wish to quote from Commander Wiseman:

"What internal evidence then have we of the connection of Moses with the Book? In the first place, there is the obvious unity of plan which it presents. Secondly, there is the authorship of the story of Joseph in Egypt. Moses was learned in all the arts of the Egyptians, and his acquaintance with literature and the ability to write it was perhaps the greatest. He was born sixty-four years after Joseph had died. Joseph may have written a great part of hig story, but we are not told that he did so, for there is no such phrase as, 'These are the origins of Joseph,' at the end of Genesis. Besides, in this instance Joseph's death and embalming are recorded, and he would not have written that. The whole of the story contains numerous Egyptian expressions, and shows an exact acquaintance with Egyptian customs. Every indication points to Moses as the writer of the narrative. Thirdly, there are the 'notes' and 'explanations' made by a compiler. These (as we have seen in Chapter VI) fit in exactly with the

page 40

circumstances of a people on the edge of the Promised land, for whom Moses was writing. The fourth piece of evidence is that the Book of Exodus commences just where Genesis leaves off, and is unintelligible without the explanation, given in Genesis, of the circumstances leading up to the state of affairs with which it opens."

In view of these four most cogent and powerful reasons, I am convinced that Moses was the servant, honored of God, to gather these primitive revelations, to weld them into one document, and to write the history of Joseph and the narrative of Israel's deliverance from Egyptian bondage and of the giving of the Law and ritual at Sinai.
Conservative scholars call attention generally to the fact that Moses was the author of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and say very little about his connection with Genesis. They seem to assume that he wrote it because his name is connected with it and because the first five Books are called "The Books of Moses." On this point Wiseman states, "Doubtless the reason why most have hesitated to say that he received the whole as we have it, as a direct revelation from God on Mount Sinai, is a very sufficient one, that he himself omits to say that he did so, and surely had he so received it, Moses would have stated the fact, just as he so constantly does in Exodus to Deuteronomy." Since he repeatedly stated that he received a revelation from God which he wrote down in Exodus to Deuteronomy, since he does not say one word as to his having received directly from God the revelation found in Genesis, and since all five books are spoken of as the Law of Moses, we naturally conclude that his relationship to the book of Genesis is different from that which he bore to the other four. In the light of all the facts which we have studied thus far, we see that this relationship to the first thirty-six chapters of Genesis was in the nature of the inspired editor who welded the previous revelations into a continuous narrative as an introduction to the oracles which he received directly from God both at Sinai and during the wilderness journeyings, and which terminated with the repetition of the Law, the book of Deuteronomy, received in the plains of Moab east of Jordan.
Possibly the reader is wondering why believing scholars have not called attention to the nature of the book of Genesis as here set forth. If this position is true, a number of outstanding conservative scholars have told us that Genesis was originally written on clay tablets but have not given us the information explaining in detail its composition. As to the reason why these experts have not given

page 41

us this information, I wish to quote from Commander Wiseman again:

"There have been so many eminent scholars who have suggested, and some who have asserted, that Moses used previously written documents from which he compiled Genesis, but none, so far as I am aware, have even suggested the precise nature and contents of the document which came into his possession, notwithstanding the fact this information is given in Genesis. There are three reasons for this: firstly, it is due, as we have seen in Chapter V, to a misunderstanding of the use of the phrase, 'These are the generations (or origins) of. . . " and secondly, to a lack of acquaintance with or oversight of the literary methods in use in the times of Genesis or a failure to apply these to the Book. These methods, such as dating, catch lines, titles, and colophons, are rarely referred to except in technical archaeological works. Thirdly, it is due to acquiescence in the now obsolete, but commonly accepted, opinion of the conservative school, that the contents of Genesis were handed down to Moses by word of mouth, and the long ages to which the pre-Flood Patriarchs lived is emphasized to show that oral transmission as far as Abraham would have entailed the narratives and genealogies passing through but few memories. There is nothing whatever in Genesis, or elsewhere, to support this opinion of an oral transmission, but it would seem that it was not possible until the results of the past few years' excavations had become known, to read such a verse as chapter v. 1, 'This is the book (tablet) of . . . " as though it could mean precisely what it says. This oral transmission theory originated at a time when men were unacquainted with the facts concerning the early development of writing."

In view of the fact that archaeology has proved beyond a shade of a doubt that writing dates back to the beginning of the human race and in view of the further fact that records were kept of historical events, we must discard the obsolete theory that tradition concerning the creation of the world and man together with the history of the early patriarchs was transmitted from generation to generation by word of mouth. Moses did not collect floating stories and legends, as is usually supposed by some scholars, for he himself gives us the exact data as to the sources of his information, which he declares to have been written records, historical accounts in the possession of certain patriarchs of the theocratic line. These accounts, beginning from the dawn of creation, continued to increase in number as Noah, his sons, Shem, Ishmael and Isaac, and Esau and Jacob added their tablets to the collection. On the transmission of these precious documents from one generation to another and their being brought together into one collection, let us see the graphic way in which Wiseman presents the case:

"How did these tablets get into the hands of Moses? They contain records from the creation of man to his own birth. We have seen that the tablet of Creation was in the possession of the sons of Adam, and we find that the record of the Garden and the Fall had been written by their time. These would descend to Noah, for we notice that in his own tablet (ch. v. 29) he makes a reference, chapter iii, 17, to Adam's account. Noah added the genealogical list

page 42
contained in chapter v. Already several cuneiform tablets bearing some resemblance to this chapter have been found; they refer to ten men who 'ruled before the Flood.' Noah's tablet is simple and straightforward compared with these, and the ages given not a tenth of those stated in the Babylonian tablets. Noah also adds a short statement regarding the corruption existing in the world in his day. His sons, we are informed in Genesis, wrote the account of the Flood, Shem, the genealogical list which now occupies chapter x, and also the brief description of the building of the Tower of Babel. Thus we see how Noah, possessing Tablet I (The Creation) and Tablet II (The Fall), would pass these on to Shem, together with his own tablet, and as Shem already had the tablets relating to the Flood, these, including his own (Genesis x, and the Tower of Babel), would naturally pass down to Abraham with the genealogical tablet written by his father Terah, thus to him were committed these ancient 'oracles of God,' now Genesis i to xi, 27."*


Having seen that the first thirty-six chapters of Genesis consist of the oracles of God written by some of the leading patriarchs in the theocratic line, we will now give our attention to the question of the transmission and preservation of these various tablet~ from one generation to another until they came into the hands of Moses, the servant of God, inspired by the Spirit to weld these primitive oracles into one continuous narrative. In order to do this thing, we shall have to notice how these tablets are connected.

* Since writing was prevalent from the dawn of history; i. e., from the Creation of man and since, as we learn from the clay tablets of Babylonia, many documents were copied, we may be absolutely certain that these sacred tablets were copied by interested people. That such is true is evident from the fact that we have the "seven tablets of Creation" and the tablets relating to the Flood, known as the Gilgamesh tales. These Babylonian accounts are evidently the outgrowth of copies that were made of the original. When men refused to retain God in their knowledge, He gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things that were unseemly and absolutely sinful. Their minds became darkened. Their perverted imaginations began to work; philosophies sprang up; various cults and religious systems came into being, and speculations in every sphere became the order of the day. Hence there was injected into these copies of the true tablets, strange, weird, mythical, and idolatrous elements. Although these foreign additions all but covered up the originals, yet the faint outlines of the true copies are discernible underneath the rubbish of pagan myths and legends. All of these accounts when stripped of their legendary and pagan elements are recognized as copies of the original. Wherever there are counterfeits, we may be certain there is an original. We are told by the critics that the Biblical writers copied from the Babylonian legends; then stripped from them all mystical, legendary, and polytheistic ideas, thus giving us the majestic account which we have in the form of the Holy Scriptures. No evidence which we have bears out such a theory but all of the facts which have been discussed in this section thus far prove that the originals which we have embedded in the text of Genesis were copied and corrupted by later generations.

page 43

As stated before, we learn from the cuneiform tablets that there were several literary aids or devices whereby a series of tablets were connected. The methods employed were the repetition of the title of the document, the catchword and catch line, and the colophon consisting of the name of the writer and usually of the date together with other relevant material. The title consisted usually of the first word or words of the initial tablet, which were repeated at the beginning of each succeeding tablet. The catch-line or words appearing at the end of a given tablet were repeated at the beginning of the next one in order to indicate that these tablets were in serial order. Finally, the colophon consisting of the signature of the scribe or author together with the date was placed at the bottom of the tablets constituting the series and sometimes only at the end of the last of the set.
As an illustration of the use of the first few words of the book as its title, I wish to call attention to the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible which is called Bereshith, the first word of the Book, and is printed at the top of every page of Genesis. The same thing is true of the rest of the books of the Hebrew Bible. In modern volumes the title of a given chapter is usually placed at the top of the right-hand page. At the top of the left-hand page, the title of the book appears. Of course, there are some variations from this well-established order, but I am calling attention to this practice only to show that we preserve even in modern books a remnant of the method employed by the ancients.
The first tablet in the oracles of God consists of Genesis 1:1-2:3. At the conclusion of this majestic account Moses gives us the statement that "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth" and concludes his sentence by saying "in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." Let the reader note the fact that in the first verse of the passage our attention is called to the fact that God created the heavens and the earth. In order to weld the second tablet with the first one, Adam adopted the method of the use of the catch line by calling our attention to the fact that "the Lord God made earth and heaven." This is a repetition of the first line and since it is used after our regular formula to introduce the second chapter and since it uses the same words that appear as the first statement of the first tablet we are absolutely certain that this was used to connect the first two documents. An examination of the methods employed by the scribes to connect a series of docu-

page 44
ments which they copied illustrates that which was used by the writer of the second document,  that is called the tablet of Adam. Adam having this original tablet, giving the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth, thus tied his tablet to the one which God had given him by repeating the statement that the Lord God made earth and heaven. This fact shows that it was Adam's purpose to add his tablet (2:4-4:26) to the first one in beginning a series of these primitive Oracles of God.

According to 5:1, Moses tells us that the contents of 2:4-4:26 constituted, "The book of the generations (historical origins) of Adam." The writer of the third tablet began his record (5:2-6:8) by tying his tablet to the second. He did this by the catch line method. Adam had used the words "when they were created" in the beginning of his tablet; Noah inserted into the beginning of his tablet the same words, "when they were created," in the introduction to his tablet. Thus it becomes immediately apparent that Noah wished to indicate that his tablet belonged to this series of the Oracles of God. The sons of Noah, realizing that their tablets were the Oracles of God and that the contribution which God was giving through them should be joined with the existing series, connected it to the tablet given by their father by the catch line method. The reader will note that from 5:28-6:8 Noah looms large in the picture. In the last verse of his section the statement occurs, "But Noah found favor in the eyes of God." The new tablet starts with the word, "Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his generations; Noah walked with God." Noah is the catchword in this connection. The bond uniting these two tablets is further strengthened by a repetition of kindred thoughts. Since the former tablet speaks of Noah's having found favor with God, the latter is also emphasizing why he found favor with God; namely, that he was a righteous man, perfect in his generations and walked with God. Anyone living in the days of the sons of Noah and seeing these repetitions at the place where these tablets are joined would recognize them as constituting one united series of documents.
The section of the sons of Noah extends from 6:9 to 9:29. This division begins thus: "And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Han1 and Japheth" (6:10). In order to see the connection made at 10:1, uniting tablets four and five, I will give my own rendering of this verse: "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah. Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood."

page 45

This translation is true to the grammar of the original text and brings out the connection much more clearly than the usual rendering which inserts the word namely into the text. This word is unnecessary and is rather misleading. Shem, the author of the fifth tablet, used the catch line method in uniting his tablet with the last of the series.

Tablets five and six are welded together at 11:10. The catch line method is here, likewise, employed as at 10:1. In this latter verse the phrase, "after the flood," is repeated in 11:10. The reader living in the days of Shem would instantly recognize this phrase as an indication that the following document was intended to be one of the series.

Isaac, doubtless the author of tablet seven, connected the contribution which God made through him to the former series by the catch line method. This is clearly seen by noting the fact that Terah concluded his tablet with this statement, "And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram,
Nahor, and Haran." Isaac began his tablet by saying, "Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran." The reader of the day, being familiar with these literary devices for uniting a series of tablets in one continuous narrative, would instantly recognize this repetition as welding document seven to that of six.
Isaac's series probably ends with 25:11. Verses 9 and 10 tell of Abraham's being buried by his two sons. This tablet is dated, according to verse 11, at the time that Isaac dwelt at Beer-lahai-roi. A postscript is added in the form of verses 12-18 inclusive, which is connected with the main document by the expression, "Ishmael, Abraham's son."
The last of the series (25:19b-37:2a) is Jacob's document. He united it with that of his father by the catch line method. This is seen in the form of the term, "Abraham's son," (vs. 19). Here, again, the reader of the time of Jacob would instantly recognize the fact that this document was with design tied to that which Isaac had by the Spirit of God written.


Tablet one is not ascribed to any human author. The colophon to it simply states that it is the historical origin or the account of the historical origin of the heavens and the earth. It is altogether possible that the Lord gave this account in a complete form to

page 46

Adam, just as He gave the tablets of stone of the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai. On this point, however, I shall not be dogmatic, though the circumstances seem to point in that direction.
Adam, by the inspiration of God, wrote the second tablet and joined it, as we have just seen in the last section, to the one which God gave him. He did this, as we have also seen, by the usual, normal, literary aid of his time. The method which he chose on this occasion was the use of the title words. Doubtless in his will (if men had such in that day and time) he entrusted the preservation of these two tablets-the one given to him by God directly and the one which he by inspiration wrote-to one of his faithful sons or grandchildren who in turn passed them on to faithful Noah.
This righteous man of God, who walked with the Lord by faith, was led by the Spirit of God to trace the genealogy of the theocratic line from Adam to himself and to give a brief description of the moral and religious situation in his day and time. As seen before, he connected his contribution to the former one by adopting the literary method of repeating the title of the forn1er tablet. When he laid down life's burdens he passed on these precious tablets to his son Shem.

Noah's three sons who passed through the exciting days of the prediluvian experiences and were with their father in the Ark came out with him after the flood and began life anew. They were eyewitnesses of the things which are incorporated in the document which bears their names. Shem passed on to Terah the Oracles of God which were in his possession who in turn delivered them to the next generation. They came into the possession of Isaac and through him to Jacob. Without doubt he took them as his most prized treasures when he went down into Egypt. From him Joseph received them. Upon his death they were kept in the theocratic line and at the proper time came into the hands of Moses.
Moses, being called and commissioned of God to deliver his brethren and to transmit to them the Sacred Oracles, naturally welded them together into one complete literary unity and then continued the story of the Chosen People by writing the last fourteen chapters of the book. This section constitutes the connecting link which binds the former revelations with the one which God gave directly through the Great Lawgiver. As stated before, Moses is the only one who was thoroughly qualified to do this editorial work and to give an accurate account of the life and labors of

page 47

Joseph. In making this statement I am speaking only of the human qualifications. Of course, the Spirit of God guided him in his labors.

Archaeology has revealed the fact that there was an ancient script which antedated even the Sumerian writing. By Moses' time a knowledge of this primitive language doubtless had largely died out. The children of Israel would not be able to read or to understand it. Therefore it had to be translated into the language of the day. Unquestionably Moses is the one who was best qualified for this most difficult task, and whom God chose to perform it.
Moses' translating the tablets falling into his hands explains a situation that cannot be understood otherwise. The matter to which I refer is the use of the name Jehovah in the early part of Genesis. Beginning with the second chapter, we find its frequent occurrence throughout the entire narrative. Notwithstanding this fact we read in Exodus 6:2, 3 the following statement made by the Lord to Moses: "I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them." The plain common-sense meaning of these words is that God never revealed Himself to any of the patriarchs by His memorial name Jehovah.. which He made known to Israel at Sinai for the first time. To the Hebrew Fathers, however, He revealed Himself as El Shaddai. God Almighty. The first occurrence of this particular name is in Genesis 17:1. But to Melchizedek king of Salem the Lord revealed Himself as God Most High. Notwithstanding these plain statements informing us that He did not reveal Himself as Jehovah, we read in Genesis 4:26 the following sentence: "Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah." This statement was speaking of the days of Enosh, the grandson of Adam.

If God did not reveal Himself as Jehovah until Israel came to Sinai, how could Enosh call upon the name of Jehovah, which had not been made known at that time? The facts in the case seem to have been these. At first God revealed Himself as the Strong One, for such is the meaning of the word used to refer to the Lord in Genesis 1. By the third generation men began to depart from God and to deify nature. This development was the beginning of polytheism. But the minority who loved the Lord refused such ideas and continued to worship the true God. Then in order for them to distinguish the Supreme Being from the false gods that

page 48

were springing up on every hand, the Lord revealed a name, in the primitive language, by which His servants could call upon Him. As idolatry increased, He made a further disclosure of Himself by making known His name God Almighty. This new name would help further to differentiate Him from the false gods.
When Israel left Egypt, there was a pressing need for God to unfold before His Chosen People an additional revelation of His true nature and being; hence He made known His everlasting, memorial name Jehovah. This appellation is the one by which He will always be known. It signifies "the One who causes" things to come into existence and to continue. In other words, He is "The Uncaused Cause" of all things. When the Lord revealed His permanent name, by which He is to be known throughout all eternity, Moses, in translating the precious documents which had come into his hands, could render the sacred name given in the days of Enosh only by the newly revealed appellation Jehovah. Every translator can easily recognize that such was the only thing that Moses could do. The word Jehovah is a Hebrew word. The original sacred name was the proper one in the primitive language. But when the great Lawgiver came to translate this word, he was, of necessity, forced to render it by the final name by which God had made Himself known.
In view of these facts we can see how it is that this sacred name appears from the beginning of the history of the human family, although this name was never revealed to man until Israel came to Sinai. This is the only reasonable, sone explanation of all the facts. This hypothesis accepts all the data at their face value without forcing any strained meaning upon a single passage.
All other problems connected with the Genesis account become luminous in the light of the explanation which has been given concerning the nature and the composition of this book of Beginnings. May the Lord God of Abraham lead us into a fuller light of this most marvelous revelation.

This analysis has shown us that Genesis is undoubtedly a composite document consisting of early writings of men of God which by God's overruling providence came into the possession of Moses. He, according to the methods of literary composition in vogue in his day, welded them together into one sublime whole and has given us an inspired, authentic book telling us of the origin of all things. For this divine revelation we thank and praise the Lord.

Page  49


The second pillar upon which the Scriptural chronological bridge is suspended is the book of Daniel. Its unique place in the revelation of the development of the order of events becomes immediately apparent when one studies carefully chapter 9. Here we learn that Daniel was reading Jeremiah's prophecies and understood them in the light of "the books." Undoubtedly he was reading Jeremiah, chapters 25 and 29. The former of these links Biblical history with world movements. It likewise traces the chronology backward for 23 years and synchronizes the trend of events in Judah with those of the world empire, Babylon. Daniel 9 also looks out into the future and tells of a period of 490 years, which will be studied in chapter XIV. In this discussion we shall see that this inspired man of God traced the future to the close of the present age and beyond that period "until time shall be no more." These statements being true, one can see why the book of Daniel is the second mighty column upon which the chronological bridge is suspended.
Because of its unique position in the revelation of God, and because of the exactness with which the predictions outlined therein have been fulfilled, the rationalistic critics have waged an incessont warfare against this portion of the Scriptures. Daniel has correctly been said to have been incarcerated in the den of the critics as well as that of the lions. But truth crushed to earth will rise again, for all the eternal years of God are hers. The faithful labors of scientific scholars, who have had a passion for truth and facts alone, have proved beyond a question the genuineness and the authenticity of this marvelous book. The evidence which they have brought forward is of a very positive nature, proving its divine inspiration and overthrowing the spurious objections brought against it; that is, they have produced the absolute evidence of its genuineness. At the same time they have brought forth, in their rebuttal, concrete testimony which completely disproves the negative criticisms. The book of Daniel, therefore, in the eyes of those who are acquainted with the controversy stands as an unimpeachable witness to the truth of God. Since the many excellent works which have shown its genuineness are inaccessible to the reading public, it becomes necessary for me to call attention, in a brief way, to the evidence which proves the inspiration of Daniel and to the rebuttal proof which counteracts the negative criticism.

page 50

A. Ezekiel's Recognition of Daniel as His Contemporary

Ezekiel was taken captive with Jeconiah and engaged in his ministry among the captives in Babylonia. On one occasion the elders of Israel came to him, their purpose for doing so not being revealed. The word of the Lord came to the prophet, informing him of their spiritual condition. Thereupon he demanded of them saying, "Return ye, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations." For the third time the word of God came informing him, "though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord Jehovah" (Ezek. 14:14). The same thought is repeated in verse 20. This reference shows that, in the prophet's thought, there had been three real men bearing these names, who stood head and shoulders above the great masses. To him none of them was imaginary.
Whenever the name Noah was pronounced, instantly everyone thought of the man who built the Ark (Gen. 6-9). The mention of Job immediately called to mind the hero of the book bearing that name. In the same manner the reference to Daniel focused the attention of the hearers upon the hero of the book of Daniel. It is true that there were two other Daniels of whom we read in the Scriptures. They, however, were so very insignificant that no one thought of them. The force of this argument may be seen by a parallel case. In America today the mention of the name Roosevelt calls the attention of the hearer to our president. No one thinks of anyone else but him, unless there is some qualifying statement drawing attention from him to the other. The same thing is true with reference to Herbert Hoover, our ex-president. These men stand out from the masses because of the positions which they occupy. The same thing was true of Daniel. As a boy he was taken in the first deportation of captives in the third year of Jehoiakim. Eight years later Ezekiel was led to Babylon with Jehoiachin.

There can be no doubt concerning Ezekiel's knowledge of Daniel and the position to which he had been advanced. The latter as a young man was faithful to God and was a believer in prayer. In answer to his petitions God granted him marvelous revelations. This fact brought him to the attention of his contemporaries and gave him a place among those who had power with God in prayer. Since the other two Daniels of whom we read in the Scriptures lived in obscurity, and since Daniel of the book bearing his name stood head and shoulders above everyone else, there can be no doubt

page 51

concerning Ezekiel's referring to him. This passage of Ezekiel fits into the facts presented by the book of Daniel as a single piece of a jig-saw puzzle does into its proper place. This evidence is so very clear that it cannot be questioned.
Some have endeavored to break the force of this testimony by calling attention to the fact that Daniel is placed between Noah and Job. There was no occasion for his mentioning them in chronological order. Various considerations determine the order of names in a given list. Many are the factors which might determine the place which a name occupies in such a tabulation. Hence the objection, weighed from the standpoint of the chronological order, falls under its own weight.

B. Fulfilled Prophecy


The proof of the inspiration of a prophet was the fulfilling of the things which he foretold. Whenever one makes a statement, those in his presence immediately place a certain value upon it-sometimes high, sometimes low. One's estimate of a speaker's word depends upon his confidence in him. This principle governs us in everything which we hear in our daily routine of life.
Moses knew that God would raise up prophets from time to time to deliver special messages to meet a certain emergency or crisis. Moreover, he realized that there would arise in the minds of the people the question as to whether or not the one who appeared before them was actually speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Knowing that this thought would always arise, Moses gave the test by which Israel could determine the true prophet from the false. His instructions are found in Deuteronomy 18:20-22:
"But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thy heart, How shall we know the word which Jehovah hath not spoken? 22 when a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Note, Moses implied that there would arise men who would prophesy presumptuously in the name of Jehovah. Hence he warned them that, should anyone claim to be speaking in the name of Jehovah, the God of Israel, they should await the fulfillment of his predictions before they should follow him in any of his teachings. Israel was to demand of such a one that he make a prediction

page 52

which would come to pass within a reasonable time so that they could know positively whether or not he was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. On the other haf1d, should a prophet arise foretelling some event which actually and literally came to pass and should he urge the people to cease following Jehovah and to worship a foreign god, Israel was to turn from him and to reject his message. In fact they were commanded to stone such a one:

"If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams: for Jehovah your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after Jehovah your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken rebellion against Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which Jehovah thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee" (Deut. 13:1-15).

This passage shows that there is a spirit in the world other than the Holy Spirit of God, who sometimes speaks through men and actually tells what will come to pass. From a study of the Scriptures we know who this one is, namely, the great adversary of man, the devil.
The acid test of a prediction made by any man was this: First, he must speak in the name of Jehovah, the God of Israel; secondly, his prediction must come to pass. When his utterances stood this absolute test, the prophet was established in the minds of the people as an inspired man of God, and his teachings were received by the faithful.
Jeremiah was confronted constantly by false prophets speaking in the name of Jehovah. He himself knew that they were imposters. His task was to convince his contemporaries that his opponents were false. Hence in the presence of the priests and the people who were in the house of the Lord, Jeremiah confronted the false prophet, Hananiah. In his indictment against this deceiver Jeremiah called attention to the fundamental test of the inspired men of God:

"The prophet that prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that Jehovah hath truly sent him" (Jer.28:9).

page 53

The writer of the book of Daniel, who, as we have every reason to believe, was an historical personage living during the trying days of the Babylonian siege and captivity, interpreted the dream-vision which the Almighty gave to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2). Furthermore, he was granted visions and revelations referring to the future which are recorded in this most precious book. Daniel rested his reputation as an inspired man of God upon the predictions which he made relative to the outline and course of future world history. A careful study of his prophecies shows that he was willing to let his reputation as a man of God rest upon the fulfillment of his forecast of universal history. Realizing that his predictions outlined the course of events beginning with his day onward to the time of the establishment of the kingdom of God upon the earth when the glory of God shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea, we see that he was not making shrewd guesses based upon tendencies and the trend of events in his day. Since he spoke as a servant of Jehovah, the God of Israel, he met the first test of a true prophet. The second and conclusive evidence of his divine call to the ministry was and is the fulfillment of his predictions. History alone renders the verdict-affirmative findings declaring he actually, by the Spirit of God, saw the things which he outlined.
In order that the reader may see the force of the fulfillment of predictive prophecy, I wish to quote a very extensive section from Wonders of Prophecy by John Urquhart:

"We can imagine no graver position than that of the man who takes his seat in the Jury-box at a criminal trial. He is bound by his oath and by his duty to his country, not only 'to well and truly try,' but also to declare his judgment. It is his to decide whether he shall brand a man with lasting infamy and crush the hearts of parents, wife, children, friends, beneath a load which nothing can remove. He is asked to say whether a man, whose good name, liberty, and life, are as sacred as his own, shall be consigned to years of a stern and terrible prison discipline, or, it may be, to death at the hands of the executioner.

"And yet it sometimes happens that one piece of evidence impresses the mind of the Jury with such overwhelming conviction that they cannot hesitate, though the gravest of all issues depends upon their decision. A large employer of labor, for example, has been found dead on the way to his own home. The cause of death was a gunshot wound, and it was evident that he had been murdered. One of his workmen, whom he had discharged after a personal altercation, is suspected, and placed upon his trial. The quarrel, and the consequent discharge, are proved. Witnesses also testify that the prisoner threatened to be revenged; that he was seen in the neighborhood at the time of the murder; and that a gun, which had been recently fired, was found in his house. So far there is ground for strong suspicion. But, when it is proved that the wadding used in loading the gun was found in an adjacent hedge, was

page 54

unrolled, and discovered to be part of a letter addressed to the prisoner, and that the letter itself, from which the piece had been torn, was found in his possession, suspicion becomes certainty. Both parts are laid before the Jury and in that moment every hope of the murderer's escape vanishes. Have we anything in the whole range of the Christian evidences which will prove the claims of Scripture as convincingly as the fragments of the letter prove the man's guilt? I believe we have. I believe the evidence placed in our hands by the fulfilled predictions of Scripture does more.

"In the dedication to his book on the Prophecies, Bishop Newton refers to some conversations he had with Marshal Wade. The latter laughed at the alleged proof of Christianity from the fulfillment of prophecy, and all argument was set aside with the observation that the predictions were written after the events. The Bishop urged in reply that there were several prophecies which were not fulfilled till recent times, and several more which were beyond doubt written centuries before the events happened. The Marshal was startled, 'and said he must acknowledge that, if this point could be proved to satisfaction, there would be no argument against such plain matter of fact; it would certainly convince him, and, he believed, would be the readiest way to convince every reasonable man of the truth of revelation.'
"That judgment is one which all must endorse. If it is possible to produce evidence of the kind referred to by Bishop Newton, then the inspiration of the Scriptures is no longer open to doubt, nor is the existence of Him from whom they are said to have come. As this is a point of such vast importance let us WEIGH THE ARGUMENT for a moment. None have better information in regard to our own families than we ourselves possess. We know the present condition and the past history of each member of them. We are aware of the circumstances which will largely influence their future, and we see even now how these circumstances are likely to affect them. Say, then, that we are asked to go forward in thought only ten years and to state distinctly what the condition of each member of the family will be at the end of that time; to say who will be alive, if any; who, if any, dead; in what place each will then be residing; who will be in prosperous circumstances, who in circumstances the reverse. How should we meet the demand? Should we entertain the questions seriously even for a moment? Much as we do know, none but a madman or a fool could suppose us capable of resolving such points as these.
"Again: we all have some acquaintance with the city, town, or place in which we dwell. We can say whether there is promise of increased population and prosperity, or whether a decrease of both is threatened. But, thoroughly as we know the place and its prospects, will anyone of us venture to leave the region of opinion and surmise, and speak minutely and positively of what its condition will be a hundred years hence? Or, to take another illustration: there are men now guiding the destinies of Europe who have studied politics for half a century. Many of them have had long and accurate knowledge of the tendencies and resources of the various countries, and of the dangers which threaten them from without and from within. Ask the man who has the keenest vision of them all, what will be the condition at the close of the next half-century of India, or Germany, or France, or Great Britain. Ask whether Switzerland, for example, will then retain her independence, or have been seized by one of her bigger neighbors, and in the latter event, by which. Suppose these questions gravely put, and gravely entertained, will not the answer be, that the things which we wish to know lie far beyond the range of the keenest sight possessed by man-that the wisest, though he may shrewdly conjecture, cannot write a single page, nor pen a single line, of the story of the future?

page 55

"It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to emphasize this by further illustrations. But literature abounds with proofs of how completely, notwithstanding all we say about insight and foresight, the future is hid from us. Malte Brun in his description of Prussia, says that 'from its proximity to Russia it must be in many respects a secondary power,' little anticipating the political developments of present times. 'It is curious,' Henry Greville writes under date March 20 1848, 'that Lord Hardinge, who arrived here on Thursday, passed two hours at Vienna, and saw Metternich, who spoke of passing events without the slightest apprehension, and said that it was possible there might be some disturbances in different parts of the Empire, but that they would be put down without any difficulty, and that he had no intention of making any concessions at this time. Four days afterwards he was obliged to fly from Vienna, and his house was sacked and burnt.'*
"Instances of similar blindness might easily be multiplied, but I mention three only which have a common bearing on one of the greatest events of modern times-the regeneration of Italy. Macaulay concludes his essay on Machiavelli with the words: 'In the church of sonta Croce a monument was erected to his memory. . . which will be approached with still deeper homage when the object to which his public life was devoted shall be attained, when the foreign yoke shall be broken, when a second Procida shall avenge the wrongs of Naples, when a happier Rienzi shall restore the good estate of Rome, when the streets of Florence and Bologna shall again resound with their ancient war-cry, "Popolo; popolo; muoiano i tiranni.'" This was written in 1827. Who knew that in the days of men then living all these aspirations would be fulfilled-that every tyrant should have fled, and that the land be no more darkened with the shadow of an oppressor?
"In 1851, Mr. Gladstone published his letter regarding the condition of Naples. Between twenty and thirty thousond political prisoners lay crowded together in the fortresses and jails. No man raised his voice on behalf of liberty, or even fell under suspicion of holding liberal opinions, but was sent into exile or cast into a dungeon. Mr. Gladstone published his indignant appeal to the public opinion of Europe, thinking, perhaps, that the Neapolitan Government might be shamed into humanity, but seeing no other hope for a cruelly oppressed people. Who could have foreseen that before another ten years had passed that land should be free-free as it had not been for ages; and that a fugitive from his beloved Italy, then wandering on the far-distant shores of America, was the man through whom deliverance should come? Who was then able, with his hand upon these facts, to warn the tyrant, or to console the down-trodden?
"The last and not least startling instance, which I cite, of man's ignorance of the future, is found in a letter written on the eve of Italy's complete deliverance. As late as the Spring of 1866 George A. Sala wrote as follows regarding Venice: 'When is the day of her deliverance to come, and when are the tears which, with but twelve months' intermission, have flowed for half a century, to be dried? She waits and waits, and the Italians wait too, clenching their hands, and grinding their teeth. . . . It is impossible to cross the frontier, or to be half-an-hour in the Austro- Venetian territory without becoming aware that the Austrian "Autograph"-as Mr. Thackeray called the double-headed eagle-has got a very tight grip of the country. . . As he is a very powerful eagle, strong on the wing and adamantine in the talons, the contingency of his giving up his Venetian quarry is, to say the least. remote. It is not impossible. (t) To these words he has appended the following note: "This was written in the Spring. In the Summer came Sadowa, and the Austrians gave up Venice."
* Leaves frol1~ the Diary of Henry Greville, Vol. I, p. 243.
(t)Rome and Venice, pp. 33-36.

page 56

“’It is,' as a veteran statesman once said, 'the unexpected that happens.' The anticipations of the most far-seeing, and the precautions of the wisest are mocked again and again by the bitter irony of events. We might as soon think to pluck the stars from heaven as to wrest its secrets from the future. The king, when he bade the advancing waves retire, was not more powerless than we, when we command the approaching days to appear and tell what things they bring. We cannot foresee even dimly the events of tomorrow or of the next hour. We stand before a wall of impenetrable darkness. We have hopes and fears, but no certainties. Thoughts rise up within our bosom, but from the future there comes neither voice nor sign. If, then, this feat, which we rightly declare is impossible for man to perform, has been achieved-if the future has been read, and, not only years, but centuries have yielded up their secrets-if we produce a book in which predictions, so numerous, and varied, and minute as to preclude all possibility of chance, were RECORDED CENTURIES BEFORE the events occurred in which they were startlingly fulfilled-will it be any longer possible to doubt that God is, and that this is His word to us? If evidence of this kind can really be produced, doubt will be an impossibility. And whether our evidence be of this kind the reader will now be able to judge."

We see from this lengthy quotation the full force of predictive prophecy. No man by human sagacity, insight, or profound study can forecast what will come in the future. If anyone thinks he can, let him try his hand on telling us what the map of Europe will be five years hence. Let him also give us a full picture, in detail, of the political situation which will exist there. As was stated in the quotation above, an impenetrable wall separates us from the future. No one can see through it except as he is enabled by the Spirit of God. Some, however, by the aid of the devil or evil spirits, can forecast, in a vague and distorted manner, certain things in the immediate future. But only men of God aided by the Holy Spirit and speaking in the name of the Lord God of Israel could reveal things in the distant future.
With these general statements before our minds, let us examine some of the predictions made by Daniel and ascertain whether or not his forecasts stand the acid test as set by Moses.


In Daniel 2 we have a record of a vision, given in a dream to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. When this monarch attempted to recall what he had seen, he was unable to do so. Hence he called in the Chaldeans and enchanters to reproduce the revelation and to interpret it for him. In their desperation they, being unable to make the vision known to the king, insisted that he was demanding of them things such as had never been required by any monarch. Thereupon the despot began to question their ability to do the things

page 57

for which they made claims. Nevertheless, they protested the more vigorously against his exacting demands, for they declared there was "not a man upon the earth who could show the king the matter." Furthermore, they asserted that only the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh, could reveal the secret. In a fit of rage Nebuchadnezzar dismissed them and immediately issued an edict that all the wise men should be slain. Since Daniel had been educated as one of them, naturally he was sought as a victim of the decree.
When the proclamation was made known to Daniel, he, in the boldness of faith, went into the king's presence and asked that he be permitted to interpret the dream. This request being granted and a time being appointed for him to appear in the royal presence, he called a prayer meeting of his most intimate companions who sought most earnestly divine guidance. The Lord heard their cry and inspired Daniel to reveal to the king what had already been made known to him.
At the appointed time Daniel appeared before Nebuchadnezzar, reproduced the vision, and gave its interpretation (Dan. 2:31-45):

"Thou, 0 king, sawest, and, behold, a great image. This image, which was mighty, and whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the aspect thereof was terrible. 32 As for this image, its head was of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, 33 its legs of iron, its feet part of iron, and part of clay. 34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. 35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. "36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. 37 Thou, 0 king, art king of kings, unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory; 38 and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens hath he given into thy hand, and hath made thee to rule over them all: thou art the head of gold. 39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee; and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that crusheth all these, shall it break in pieces and crush. 41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. 43 And whereas thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron doth not mingle with clay. 44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people;

page 58

 but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure."

According to verses 37 and 38 the head of gold of the image symbolized the Babylonian empire, of which Nebuchadnezzar was king. "Thou art the head of gold," said Daniel to the proud monarch. This statement is similar to the one made by Louis XIV, who declared, "I am the State"-he was the life of the empire. That this is the correct interpretation is seen from verse 39 which declares that "after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee." In the light of this fact it becomes apparent that the king and kingdom are here used interchangeably. In one instance, figuratively speaking, the spotlight is focused upon the sovereign, whereas in the other it is flashed over the entire realm.
To Nebuchadnezzar as king of Babylon the God of Heaven granted "the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory; and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beast of the field and the birds of the heavens hath he given into thy hand, and hath made thee to rule over them all." This language can mean only one thing; namely, that God granted to Nebuchadnezzar authority over the entire world. "Did he ever take possession of his possession?" A glance at any reliable map of the ancient world for that period will show that he did not; but his failure along this line did not make null and void the grant which was made to him. In the spiritual realm God offers to every man peace and joy, comfort and freedom from worry, and deliverance from the ills of life; but how few men accept God and His gracious provisions in their fullest extent! The number is, I may say, infinitesimally small. But our lack of appropriating His gifts does not make null and void the fact of His having put them at our disposal. Such was the case with Nebuchadnezzar.

According to verse 39 there was to arise another kingdom inferior to Babylon. This was symbolized by the chest and arms of silver. As silver is of less value than gold, so the second empire was to be of an order lower than Babylon.
God withdrew the authority and power which He gave to
Nebuchadnezzar when Babylon could no longer serve his purpose and conferred it upon another kingdom which was inferior to it. This government incorporated all the territory which Babylon had

page 59

occupied and appropriated its civilization. Not only did its kings do this, but they extended the borders of their empire far beyond that of Babylon. In the process of time this second kingdom ceased to function in a way that it could advance God's plan of the ages. Hence in due process of time He withdrew this delegated authority from it and, as is also indicated in verse 39, transferred it to a third kingdom.

This empire was symbolized by the belly of brass. To it the Lord, in like manner, gave authority to rule over all the earth. When it ceased to be usable in advancing the divine plan among men, He set it aside. Withdrawing this authority, He conferred it upon a fourth race of peoples. This is seen in verses 40 and 41. The same world dominion was granted to them, which had been given at first to Babylon; but they, like their predecessors, did not appropriate the full grant of power which had been put at their disposal. This fourth kingdom was symbolized by the legs, feet, and toes of the image. Just as the arms and the chest indicated the dual nature of the second empire, thus the two legs signified the twofold division of the fourth kingdom. According to verse 41 we see that the ten toes signified a further division of this last empire into ten sections at the end of its career.

Unlike the three former metals, the legs were of iron, whereas the feet and the toes were of iron and miry or brittle clay. The iron, according to Daniel's interpretation, signified strength and power such as none of the preceding empires enjoyed. In the foot-and-toe stage, however, there is an element of weakness, which is indicated by the miry or brittle clay.

King Nebuchadnezzar had a right to understand from Daniel's interpretation of the dream that the fourth kingdom would be divided as indicated by the legs, and that it would continue in this dual form throughout its entire existence until it reached the stage signified by the ten toes. There was no break in the legs; they continued from the torso downward to the feet. The only logical conclusion which Nebuchadnezzar or any of his contemporaries could gather from such a presentation was that this kingdom would continue to exist in this dual form from the time of its division until it reaches the ten-toe stage. They would reason something like this: The head of gold signifies a real visible, tangible, organic empire. The same is to be true of the second and third kingdoms. Accepting the revelation of God at its face value, they would also conclude that the same thing would be true with

page 60

reference to the fourth. It would, according to the representation, arise after the third, separate into two sections, and finally in its last stage subdivide into ten parts.
Thus far in this discussion we have seen the divine interpretation of the facts of the vision. It is now for us to trace its historical fulfillment.

All conservative scholars, so far as I know, are agreed in understanding that the head of gold symbolized the Babylonian kingdom, of which Nebuchadnezzar was the absolute sovereign. This vision was granted to him in the second year of his reign, which was 603 B.C.E. The Babylonian exile of the Hebrews, as we shall see later, began the year before Nebuchadnezzar came to power and continued for 70 years. At the expiration of that period the Medes and the Persians overthrew the Babylonian empire and incorporated it into their expanding kingdom. As was indicated by the arms, the second empire was of a dual form. At the beginning the Median element seemed to be predominant, but, upon the death of Darius the Mede, Cyrus the Persian gained the ascendancy. Nevertheless, it was still a dual monarchy. It held sway under God as long as it fitted into and carried forward the plans of the Almighty. When, however, it abused its power, God withdrew this authority and transferred it to the Greeks, who in turn fitted into the divine plan and extended their borders far beyond those of the Medes and the Persians. Like their predecessors they finally began to abuse these divinely bestowed prerogatives. Thereupon God, in the due process of time, withdrew this delegated authority and conferred it upon the Romans.
Rome, according to the usual reckoning, was founded in 754 or 753 B.C.E. and gradually grew into a world empire. At the proper time, she overcame the Greeks and swallowed up their civilization. The world-wide authority which was first conferred upon Nebuchadnezzar was at last passed on to the Romans. Like their predecessors in receiving this divine authority of universal dominion, they failed signally in appropriating all that was granted them. Nevertheless, they extended their boundaries beyond that of any of the former kingdoms.
According to the metallic image the fourth kingdom was to be divided as indicated by the legs. Rome entered this stage of her career in 285 C.E. when Diocletian divided the empire into the two sections-the eastern and the western-and appointed a colleague in the administration of the empire. The capital in the

page 61

West was at Rome on the Tiber, and that of the eastern division was at Byzantium on the Bosphorus, which was later re-named Constantinople. This dual political set-up, as we shall see, has continued through the centuries to the present day.
Assuming that the image was facing northward, we would say that the right leg symbolized the eastern half of the empire, and the left, the western. The right remained intact and functioned properly until 1453 C.E. At that time it was overrun by the Ottoman Turks. Constantinople was captured. The government collapsed and the empire fell into the hands of its conquerors, who reared upon its ruins a vast and mighty kingdom, which shone forth in splendor for about a century.
Frequently that which seems to be a calamity proves to be otherwise. There is seldom an unmitigated evil. In many instances, however, the bad results overshadow the good. Frequently losses in a certain realm are sustained and at the same time gains are made in others. Thus by the fall of the eastern half of the empire the great culture and civilization that had centered in Constantinople were scattered throughout western Europe. The fleeing exiles, therefore, carried their culture, civilization, ideals, religion, and institutions with them. They could not overthrow the established order, but they did wield a mighty influence. That which seemed to be a great calamity proved in many ways to be a real blessing, so far as the West was concerned. Seeds were sown which grew and developed into the Renaissonce and Reformation.
The continuity of any variety of plant is carried in the seed. Everything produces after its kind. If one should compare the Byzantine Empire to a tree yielding its fruit according to its kind, he might think of the refugees-especially the outstanding leaders-as the seed of the fruit borne by this tree. After its destruction the most virile seed was borne northward-the leaders went into Russia. They carried with them their civilization, culture, and ideals together with their religion and finally influenced the native population who adopted this type of civilization-political, religious, and cultural. Thus there sprang up on Russian soil an empire that was the duplicate of that which had existed at Constantinople for about eleven centuries. A close study of the old Byzantine regime and a comparison of it with the Russian political institutions reveal the fact that they were similar. They were related as father and son. During the Czaristic regime the Russians, being more or less largely under the influence of the Church, accepted the authority of the

page 62

Patriarch at Constantinople. They, recognizing the continuity binding the modern state with the Byzantine Empire, called their ruler "Czar," which is "Caesar" spelled in Russian. Thus the empire which collapsed in Constantinople in 1453 came up again in renewed vigor and power on Russian soil. This is what one would expect; that is, the continuity of the type of government, culture, and civilization.

The legs of the image, presented to Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel, continued from the trunk to the feet and toes. This fact, as has already been noted, indicated the existence of the two divisions of the Roman Empire through the centuries. The continuity depended not upon territorial boundaries, but upon the persistency of the type of government, culture, and civilization-a species of the Caesarian imperialism with mastery over its subjects in all departments of life. From these facts we have a right to believe that Rome in the East would continue through the centuries.

With the shifting of the center of political gravity from time to time there were sometimes the contraction and at others the expansion of borders. Nevertheless, during the time of these multitudinous changes, the original type of imperialism with its special culture and civilization has stubbornly persisted. This is that which was symbolized by the iron constituting the legs.
On the other hand, the fortunes of the empire in the West have been somewhat different. Nevertheless there is a great similarity, because history repeats itself. Under the great avalanche of the Teutonic hordes the western division went down in 476 C.E. Chaos was the order of the day. Although there was no central government as had existed prior to that crisis, nevertheless the same type of civilization, culture, institutions, ideals, and outlook prevailed in the midst of all of the wreckage.
"When the storm was over and the various German tribes had settled down, they began to build up smaller national governments on the ruins of the old imperial government. The Franks took over Gaul and ultimately gave their name to the country of France. The West Goths set up an extensive kingdom in Spain, the Vandals in North Africa and the islands of the western Mediterranean, the Lombards in northern Italy and less important tribes in other sections. "The first effects of this great invasion seemed to be disastrous, but the German masters soon began to accept from their conquered subjects both civilization and religion. The subjects conquered

Page 63

their masters in an intellectual and spiritual way, and a process of assimilation soon began which ultimately formed a new basis for the life of all western Europe.”
The same historian, in speaking of the events of the eighth century as they transpired in the West, summed up the situation in the following words: "After a time the Franks began to unite the political fragments of the West again by extending their sway over much of the territory that had once composed the western part of the Roman empire. As their dominions extended dreams of reviving the empire began to haunt the Frankish mind. These ambitions embodied themselves in Charlemagne. To his title as King of the Franks he added King of Italy in 773 when he overthrew the Lombards and established his own sway over northern Italy as far south as the Papal State. Finally on Christmas day 800, while he was kneeling in worship at the grave of St. Peter in Rome the pope suddenly advanced and placed upon his head the imperial crown, thus restoring the empire in the West and constituting Charlemagne emperor.”
Charlemagne advanced in power, extended his borders, and finally incorporated much of that which had forn1erly been the empire in the West. He called his government the Holy Roman Empire of the Frankish Nation. This was the correct title, because it was but the old type of civilization and imperialism which had been destroyed in 476.

The Holy Roman Empire of the Frankish Nation was short-lived, for, about 963 C. E., Otho the Great with his Germanic hordes overran and conquered it. They immediately adopted the culture of their victims and romanized their own civilization, annexing the territory of the vanquished. From that time forward the leading prince among the Germanic states thought of himself as the successor of the ancient Caesars; hence, he became known as Kaiser (Caesar spelled in German). A study of the institutions, culture, and civilization of the Germans and a comparison of them with that of the ancient Roman Empire reveal the fact that they also are two of a kind. They, likewise, stand in their relations as a father does to the son; hence there was a perpetuity of the type of government and civilization. In this instance, therefore, history was in conformity with that which was signified by the legs of the image.
From this rather rough and brief, yet accurate, survey of the political fortunes which overtook the two divisions of the Roman empire during the centuries, we can see that the historical facts

page 64

correspond exactly to that which was foreshadowed by the legs of the metallic image. Speaking in a figure I would say that the right leg of the image was broken in 1453 C.E., but was healed when the same type of government, which had been at Constantinople, sprang up on Russian soil. Through the vicissitudes of time many changes have taken place. Choosing a figure drawn from the physical realm, I would say that the center of political gravity, which had been at Constantinople, was first shifted to Kief, then to Moscow, next to Leningrad, and finally back to Moscow. Nevertheless, the same type of imperialism has continued through the centuries as manifested in the government functioning in these various places. The same thing was true with reference to the fortunes and vicissitudes of the Empire in the West. The center of political gravity was, as seen above, centered at Rome on the Tiber; next, it was shifted to Frankish territory; and finally to Germanic soil, where it has persisted until the present time.
To show that Rome has continued through the centuries as signified by the legs of the image, I wish to draw a parallel between this situation and the United States of America. Today if one is asked, "Who was the first president of the United States?” he replies, “George Washington.” To the question, “What is the capital of the United States?” the answer is, “Washington, D. C.” If one is asked if California is a part of the United States, he answers in the affirmative. All of these replies are absolutely correct, and yet an explanation must be made in order to set forth the truth as it has been. Washington, D. C., is the present capital, but it was not the original one. As we know from history, the first capital was in New Amsterdam, which is the present city of New York. Later the center of political gravity was shifted from there to Philadelphia and still later to the site upon the Potomac now known as Washington, D. C. George Washington was the first president of the thirteen original colonies on the Atlantic seaboard, but he was not the chief executive of America as it now is. Since his day there has been an enormous expansion of this country until it has extended its borders to the Pacific. In addition to this it has several island possessions. Franklin D. Roosevelt is the president of America as it is today. We shall imagine something that every true American would hate to see. I am using this simple illustration, however, to set forth a point that is vital to the understanding of this prophecy. Let us

page 65

suppose that some European power should attack the Atlantic seaboard of the United States. Needless to say the government would send its forces there to oppose the invader. But in this hypothetical war we will assume that the aggressor is victorious on all battlefields and pushes our armies backward into the interior. Before their advancing march, the capital would be moved westward. All government documents and appurtenances would be carried to the new capital. Further, let us suppose that the enemy pushes our forces beyond the western boundaries of the thirteen original colonies. Under those conditions the capital would be moved still farther westward. Finally, it would become apparent that our forces could not check the enemy's onward march. In this crisis the government calls for an armistice. Hostilities cease. A conference is arranged. Delegates gather around the table for the discussion of peace. The enemy demands as an indemnity of the war, we shall say, all the territory that constituted the thirteen original colonies. Being vanquished, our government accepts the terms and surrenders the territory demanded. The officials of the government continue to function in the new capital, which, for clearness, let us suppose, is Kansas City, Mo. This country and government would still be known by all as the United States of America, although it would not hold one foot of the original soil where it came into being. It would truly be the United States of America because it had an unbroken connection with the past. It would consist of people of the same stock and race, with the same constitution, type of government, culture, ideals, and outlook upon life. No one can fail to see the correctness of this statement. In the language used above, the center of political gravity which was first located at New Amsterdam was later shifted to Philadelphia, next to Washington and gradually westward until it would be headed up at Kansas City. From this illustration we can see that the continuity of the government is not conditioned upon locality, but simply upon the type of administration, institutions, culture, and civilization. This illustration may be used as parallel to that of Rome, both in the East and the West. The type persisted, as was foreshadowed by the legs, although the center of political gravity was shifted northward in both cases with varying changes of borders-sometime contraction and sometimes expansion.
When Rome reaches the foot-stage, a new element is introduced into it, which is symbolized by the non-cohesive, brittle clay. Undoubtedly the iron symbolizes a powerful government. Since the

page 66

miry clay lacks cohesion, it evidently signifies the weaknesses of a degenerate democracy carried to the extreme of socialism, communism, and the like.
This fourth kingdom is to be in a tenfold form at the very end of its career, which fact is signified by the ten toes. Many commentators, ignoring the time element of the prediction, have sought to locate and to identify these political divisions. They hunt for five of them in the territory which constituted the western division of the empire and five in that of the East. Of course, the assumption is that the fourth kingdom has already reached the toe-stage. These commentators presume that the territory which was occupied by the two divisions of the empire in its palmy days of the past are signified by the ten toes. But none of these scholars are in perfect agreement. There is, in my judgment, a reason for these conflicting views, which is that Rome has never yet reached the toe-stage. Hence it is utterly impossible for one to identify them.

To show that Rome has never reached this development, may I call attention to our method of representing time? Speakers often compare it to a journey or a stream. In the figure of a journey, the beginning signifies the first part of the period; the middle represents the central portion; likewise the end corresponds to the close of the period. In comparing time to a stream, the source of the latter corresponds to the beginning of the period. The central part answers to the middle, and the mouth of the river, to the close of the epoch. Such are our usual representations. The Lord's symbolic presentation of a given era was this metallic image. In our imagination let us think in terms of these usual figures and at the same time place this image along beside the journey and the stream. The head of gold corresponds to the source of the river and the start of the journey. The hips and thighs answer to the middle point of the river and the halfway place in the journey. The toes, in like manner, correspond to the end of the journey and the mouth of the river. About this analogy there can be no question. To prophetic students it is evident that at the present time we have not reached the end of this period which is here set forth by the metallic image, the reason for this assertion being that at its close God, in a most catastrophic manner, sets up His glorious government which shall be an everlasting kingdom. In view of these cogent reasons I am bold to say that we have never yet reached the stage in the Roman empire symbolized by the toes. Hence, in my opinion, to attempt an identification of these ten political divisions is

page 67

but speculation and guessing. Such is profitable for nothing; it causes confusion only.
At the end of this period of world governments symbolized by the image, God will establish the Messianic kingdom as set forth in Daniel 2:44. That event is indicated by the falling of the little stone, cut out from the mountains without hands, which, rolling down the mountainside, accelerates its speed and finally by a mighty impact with the image reduces it to mere bits like the chaff of the summer threshing floor. These fragments are removed as if by the wind. Then the little stone becomes a mountain that fills the whole earth.
According to this verse God establishes this glorious kingdom “in the days of those kings.” An examination of the preceding verses shows that the kings of which he is speaking can be none other than those represented by the ten toes. We may, therefore, know of a certainty that it is impossible at this time to identify the political divisions signified by the toes.

In Daniel 2:1 we see that this vision was shown to Nebuchadnezzar in the second year of his reign. Since he reigned 43 years, he lived 41 after seeing this vision. Let us, at this stage of the investigation, accept the record at its face value. Daniel looked out into the future farther than "human eye could see" and observed all the wonders that would be. It was revealed to him that the Babylonian empire would continue for 68 more years and would be succeeded by a dual monarchy, the Medo-Persian Empire. No living man at that time could have, by guessing and cold calculation, foretold this fact. There is but one explanation, which is that the writer was inspired by the Spirit to penetrate the wall separating him from the future and to reveal to him what would come to pass thereafter. As we have already seen, he was shown that another empire inferior to that of the Medes and the Persians would arise. After them there would appear another kingdom of iron symbolized by the legs of the image. Since we accept the face meaning of this passage, we see that Daniel looked out into the future from the years 603 B.C.E. to the year 285 C.E. and foretold the division of the Roman Empire into the eastern and western sections. Was it possible by mere guessing to penetrate into the future and tell the world what would occur nearly 900 years in the distant future? Everyone will admit that such is unthinkable. Only by the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit could anyone thus see into the future and reveal accurately what would come to pass.

page 68

On the contrary, let US, for the sake of argument, assume, as some rationalistic critics avow, that Daniel did not write this book, but that it was composed by an anonymous author or authors during the Maccabean period. This revolt began roughly in 167 B.C.E. and continued until the Roman occupation of Palestine in 63 B.C.E. -one century. Let us say that some zealot of that day wrote "this patriotic paper," as the book of Daniel has been called, for the encouragement and the stimulation of the faith of the nationalistic party. Let us put the date of its authorship as late as 100 B.C.E. According to this hypothesis the writer, looking out into the future, revealed what would come to pass 385 years thereafter. Is there anyone who has so very much credulity that he will accept such a proposition? Such marvelous belief cannot be designated as faith but as gullibleness. The only answer we can make to such a supposition is that the writer was inspired by the Spirit of God to reveal in a definite and detailed manner things nearly 400 years in the future.
There is not one iota of evidence pointing to a late date for the authorship of Daniel. Since everything of a positive nature leads one to accept the historic Daniel of the time of the captivity as the author of this book, we shall now look at another angle of the question. He, in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, looked out into the future and showed that, not only would the fourth empire be divided into two sections, but that those divisions would continue through many centuries, which fact is indicated by the length of the legs in comparison with the rest of the body. As we have seen in the survey, this prediction was literally fulfilled in the persistence of the type of government, civilization, and culture, notwithstanding the fact that the center of political gravity of both sections was shifted northward. Such knowledge can be accounted for only upon the basis of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Another factor must be taken into consideration in this connection. The writer of Daniel shows that there would be only four powers to whom God would delegate authority over the world. There have been four, and only four. That one which is now in existence will continue until the God of heaven destroys it and sets up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed. When we look at all these facts with an impartial' mind seeking the truth and nothing but the truth, we are overwhelmed with the conviction that in the second chapter of Daniel we have an infallibly inspired record, and

page 69

that history for approximately 2500 years has pronounced the verdict of absolute infallibility for Daniel's writings.


In chapter 7 appears the record of four visions which were granted Daniel, and which cover the same period of time as that which was shown to Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 2. Conservative scholars, with few dissenting voices, agree that the subject of both visions is the same. In the vision shown to Nebuchadnezzar, God represented human governments as men see them; in the beast visions of chapter 7 he presented the same outline of history but as He Himself views civil governments.

Since different imagery is used in each instance and the viewpoint is changed, it is natural that there should be some details mentioned in one passage which are omitted from the other, and vice versa. We shall now turn to this marvelous revelation.

"1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters. 2 Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of heaven brake forth upon the great sea. 3 And four great beasts carne up from the sea, diverse one from another. 4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand upon two feet as a man; and a man's heart was given to it. 5 And, behold, another beast, a second, like to a bear; and it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. 6 After this I beheld, and, 10, another, like a leopard, which had upon its back four wings of a bird; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. 7 After this I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, terrible and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. 8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there carne up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. "9 I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire. 10 A fiery stream issued and carne forth from before him: thousonds of thousonds ministered unto him, and ten thousond times ten thousond stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. 11 I beheld at that time because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire. 12 And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. "13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there carne with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man. and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion,

page 70

and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. "18 As for me, Daniel, my spirit was grieved in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. 16 I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. 17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, that shall arise out of the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. 19 Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was diverse from all of them, exceeding terrible, whose teeth were of iron, and its nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet; 20 and concerning the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, and before which three fell, even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake great things, whose look was more stout than its fellows. 21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22 until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. "23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. 24 And as for the ten horns, out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the former, and he shall put down three kings. 25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time. 26 But the judgment shall be set, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. 27 And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. 28 Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me, and my countenance was changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart" (Dan. 7: 1-28).

a. First Vision

In the initial vision Daniel saw three beasts coming up out of the agitated waters of the sea. The first was like a lion; the second, like a bear; the third resembled a leopard. The impression which one receives upon reading this message is that these beasts are not literal, but rather are symbols. This conviction is confirmed by a glance at verse 17 which says, "These beasts which are four are four kings." Since they are symbols the entire representation is likewise emblematic. From various passages of Scripture we see that waters signify in symbolic language peoples in a state of unrest (Psa. 124). In the description the winds agitate the waters. Evidently they refer to some disturbing, invisible force that moves nations into a frenzy of unrest. A glance at the first chapter of Job will show that this disrupting element is none other than the devil, the great adversary of the soul. From this first vision we learn that there was to

page 71

be a succession of three empires, the principal characteristic of each being set forth by the wild beast used to represent it.

b. Second Vision

In the second vision the prophet saw another beast which followed the third one, and which was so very different from those which preceded it that there was no animal with which he could compare it. This beast was far more powerful and terrible than any of its predecessors. The full description is given in verses 7 and 8. It "stamped the residue with its feet; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it and it had ten horns." Note the fact that this beast brake in pieces and stamped the residue with its feet. This verse, when read in the light of 23 below, means that this beast will devour the whole earth, break it in pieces, and destroy that which it does not want.
In conservative circles these four beasts are understood to symbolize the four world powers signified by the various metals of the image in chapter 2. According to the common-sense meaning of the narrative they follow one another in succession from the standpoint of time, the latter taking the place of the former. This position has been challenged by certain interpreters who insist that, while they come upon the arena of life in succession at the end of the age, all four appear together for enacting the final drama. Is this a possible interpretation? The answer is to be found in the first words of verses 6 and 7 studied in the original Aramaic, which are rendered, "after this." The literal translation of this prepositional phrase is, "in the place this (one)." The principal word in this phrase wherever it occurs in the sacred text is to be taken literally and means place, location. Unless there is something in this context to indicate a departure from the literal meaning we shall do well to accept it. An examination of the context does not point otherwise. Therefore we must render these words in the place of this one; that is, in the place of the second beast the third one appears. The same thing is true with reference to the fourth one which takes the place of the third. This fact shows conclusively that the former disappears before the latter takes its place. Hence the theory now under consideration is disproved by this fact.

c. Third Vision

In verses 9 to 12 is recorded the third vision of the series. In the two former ones the scene was placed upon earth. The two latter

page 72

ones are pictures of the courtroom of the Supreme Judge of the Universe. At first we see the room as it is being prepared for the coming of the Judge and His attendants. Then the Ancient of Days, accompanied by His retinue of servants, marches into the room, takes His place upon the bench, and pronounces the judgment of destruction upon the fourth beast, who will at that time be in the plenitude of his power upon the earth hurling defiance at the Almighty. After the pronouncement of the judgment against this beast, the decree is executed at the logical moment, and he is cast into the lake of fire.

d. Fourth Vision

The fourth and last vision is given in verses 13 and 14. In it we see one like unto a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven and appearing before the Ancient of Days, who is seated upon the throne. He takes his stand before the latter and is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
Who is this one like unto a son of man? He appears before the august throne of the Almighty and receives an everlasting, worldwide kingdom. He is not in the form of an angel but in that of a man. The expression, son of man, is a regular phrase to indicate a person. This usage is seen in Psalm 8:4: What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?
The term, man, in the first line corresponds to the phrase, son of man, in the second and refers to man in general. This significance appears in many passages. When we see it, we must understand that it has this connotation unless the facts of the context indicate that it has a different meaning. Daniel simply described this one in terms of his appearance. When the Angel of the Lord appeared to different ones of the patriarchs, the historians usually spoke of Him as a man. For example, see such passages as Genesis 18 and 19; 32:22-32; Joshua 5:13-15; Judges 6:11-24; 13:2-25. On these occasions this Angel assumed the form of a man and thus appeared to the ones mentioned in the narrative.
But in the vision Daniel saw one like a son of man in heaven. How could this be? The true explanation of it evidently is to be found in such predictions as Isaiah 7:14; Psalm 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6, 7. The first of these passages foretells the coming of God into the human realm, entering it by virgin birth. The second one

page 73

informs us that, after the authorities in Zion reject Him, the Almighty invites Him to ascend to His right hand and to take a seat there until all of His enemies are put under His feet. The third reference foretells the time when this long-rejected one will return and mount the throne of David. At that time He will be recognized as the "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Then His dominion will increase until it encircles the globe.

Daniel's vision of this one like a son of man and of His receiving world dominion becomes clear in the light of these three most marvelous passages. Evidently this glorious event will occur at the end of this present age when the long-rejected Messiah appears in the courtroom of heaven, and there is conferred upon Him the authority to establish a world kingdom of righteousness with its capital in the very city where He at His first coming was rejected. This coronation ceremony, let it be remembered, does not give Him any more authority than He, by virtue of His divine nature, possesses; it simply recognizes, officially in the presence of all intelligent beings of the Universe, Him as the sole Monarch of this earth. This service will be held, as we learn from many other passages of Scripture, as the prelude to the casting of Satan the god of this world with all his servile hosts (Isa. 24:21-23) into the pit of the abyss for a 1000 years.

e. Divine Interpretation

Daniel evidently looked with great amazement at the visions which were given, but did not comprehend their import. Finally, he approached an angel who was standing near him and asked the significance of all that he had seen. The angel's reply was that these beasts, which he in vision had observed, were symbols of kings and their kingdoms. This revelation is followed by the significant statement that, notwithstanding the fact that these beasts arise out of the earth and exercise dominion over it, the saints shall receive the kingdom and possess it forever, even forever and ever. This language implies that there is a kingdom which has been in the hands of the rulers of each of these empires in succession, and which finally passes out of the hands of the last emperor, when he is slain, into those of the saints of the most high God. This promise, of course, refers to the consummation of the present age when the Messiah of Israel will come and will take over the government of the world, calling His Chosen People to assist in the administration of His reign of righteousness. Although Daniel was interested in each of

page 74

these beasts, the fourth one impressed him more powerfully than the rest. This was natural because he appeared as a monstrosity. The thing that impressed Daniel so very forcefully was the fact that it had ten horns, among which came up a little one, an eleventh. Later it put down three of the former and waxed very defiant against God and His saints. Daniel, being unable to understand the significance of the vision, was informed by the angel that "the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. 24 And as for the ten horns, out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the former, and he shall put down three kings" (Dan. 7:23, 24).
We must constantly keep in mind that the fourth beast, as we have already learned, followed the third in immediate succession. We must also bear it in mind that this same beast is in the world at the time the Ancient of Days mounts the throne of judgment and pronounces the decree of condemnation against its impious ruler. The third fact which we must remember is that the fourth beast, after his appearing and taking the place of the third one, remains upon the stage until judgment is pronounced and executed upon him, which we know will be at the end of the Great Tribulation period. In this symbolic representation this beast after his appearance upon the stage remains in full view until the stroke of judgment at the end of the age falls upon him. This fact is conclusive evidence that the kingdom which is represented by this beast succeeds the third one, remains upon the earth ever growing in influence and power, and finally gains the mastery of the world. This thought is in harmony with that which was expressed by the legs of the metallic image. The legs were attached to the body and continued in a normal way down to the feet. This fact with the one concerning the continuance of the beast upon the great arena of life from the time of his appearance until he is slain at the end of the age is conclusive proof that this fourth beast never disappears from the earth but remains a political factor; it finally gains ascendancy over all peoples and incorporates them in his universal kingdom.
Notwithstanding this evident truth, many excellent Bible teachers are of the opinion that this fourth beast, which symbolized Rome, appears after the third one but eventually goes down into oblivion only to reappear in a revived form at the conclusion of the age. Of course, these scholars are sincere in their contention but, in my

page 75

judgment, this theory is contrary to the plain teaching of the facts found in Daniel 2 and 7. The reason for their taking this position is the construction usually put upon Revelation 17:8, which speaks of a beast (a government) that shall bear rule over all the earth at the end of this age (Rev. 13:7). But, in my judgment, Revelation 17: 8 does not support this contention. John was talking not about something that occurred in 476 C. E., but that shall, as we shall presently see, come to pass in the end of this age.
According to verse 23, this fourth beast eventually devours "the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces." The government which it symbolizes does not possess the whole world throughout its entire career but simply in the end time. Like a vicious, ferocious animal which breaks out of its pen, devours, and destroys what it wishes, and runs to and fro at large, wrecking property at will, it will launch a campaign of aggression and conquest. By force of circumstances and arms it subdues the world and builds up an empire-a political octopus. Verse 23 undoubtedly shows that it is to be a universal one, which incorporates all peoples, tongues, and nations.
The angel, in verse 24, gave Daniel a further revelation concerning the political change that will take place after this world kingdom has crushed the earth and incorporated all within its domains.
After it becomes in actuality a world empire, a mighty and sudden crisis arises, for “as for the ten horns, out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise." Let us notice carefully that in verse 24 the expression, this kingdom, refers to the fourth one after it has devoured and broken in pieces all nations and has brought all peoples into its deathly grasp. The significance of its ten horns is that, after it becomes universal, it suddenly breaks up into ten divisions. Since no dictator will willingly surrender power that he has gained, we may be certain that there is a crisis which arises, and which wrecks this world empire and splits it into ten divisions. This crash is probably the thing that is referred to by John in Revelation 13 in his statement concerning "the beast who hath the stroke of the sword and lived." After receiving this death stroke, which virtually for the time being destroys the world kingdom, this last emperor comes back to life by the power of the devil and reorganizes his shattered realm in a new form-more despotic than ever. This death stroke alluded to in Revelation 13 brings to an end that period of the beast that is designated as "was" in Revelation 17:8. The short time of chaos resulting there from is the time spoken of as

page 76

"is not." And his coming back to life and power is expressed in the phrase "and is about to come up out of the pit of the abyss and to go into perdition." In other words, this last emperor of the world empire is mortally wounded, probably by an assassin, but is brought back to life by Satan. This explanation seems to fit perfectly all the facts presented in Revelation 13 and 17. Hence that which is plainly taught by John is hinted at by the context and is presupposed as occurring between verses 23 and 24 of Daniel 7.
The individual, who is represented as the little horn which comes up among the ten, and which puts down three of them, becomes indeed the world dictator who seizes the imperial purple and the sceptre of nations, ruling with an iron hand without mercy or compassion for a time, times and half a time-three years and one half. This one can be none other than the wicked king of the time of the end. When he comes into full power over the world, he will change the time, the seasons, and the laws and will persecute the saints of God for these three and one-half years.
At the conclusion of this period, "the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heavens, shall be given to the saints of the most high: His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey Him." At the end of these three and a half years of merciless terrorism and persecution, world dominion will be turned over to the people of the saints of the Most High who will, as we learned from other passages, have accepted their long-rejected Messiah.

f. The Historical Unfolding

As has already been stated, the four beasts of this seventh chapter of Daniel correspond to the four elements of the metallic image. These symbolize the four kingdoms: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Daniel shows little interest in the first three of these world governments, but his attention is focused upon the fourth, Rome. As has already been stated, Rome had a small beginning in 754 or 753 B. C. E. Through the centuries she gained power by extending her borders. She suffered certain reverses as well as gained important victories, but she has never disappeared from the scene of human activity. Finally, in the end time she will grasp at and obtain world-wide dominion. This proof, as has been suggested, is found in Daniel 7: 23. The final world dictator will be energized by the power of the adversary of men's souls, Satan. This individual will have no respect for the God of the universe nor for man. He

page 77

will eventually become very egotistical and will demand that the people worship him. He will, however, meet his doom by a stroke of divine judgment.
After the three and a half short years of stormy, turbulent times, during which the wrath of God will be poured out upon this ruthless tyrant and all of his understudies, the Hebrew Messiah will appear upon the scene, deliver his hard-pressed people, take the world authority and dominion into His own hands, and reign in righteousness. Such is the outline that is presented here in chapter 7.
By these hasty surveys we can see that these two predictions outline the history of the time beginning with the Babylonian empire through the centuries to the close of this present evil age and the beginning of the glorious kingdom era. Regardless of where we place historically the author of the book of Daniel, we can see that he by the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit looked through and beyond the impenetrable wall separating the present from the future, outlined the course of the centuries, and expressed the thought in terms of the metallic image and the four symbolic beasts. There have been four, and only four, world governments beginning with Nebuchadnezzar up to the present time, and there will never be another one until King Messiah returns and establishes his reign of righteousness. Of course, the present one will assume world-wide proportions immediately prior to Messiah's appearance. History has developed just as indicated by Daniel. How did Daniel see this whole scheme, viewing it from a date 2500 years ago? He rested his reputation as a prophet of God upon the fulfillment of these bold utterances. But the verdict of history has been and is that Daniel was aided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to outline "the times of the Gentiles." Everything that was scheduled to transpire prior to our time has been fulfilled-to the letter. About this proposition there can be no reasonable doubt. Furthermore, at the present time the trend of affairs is toward centralization of power and the ruthless control of the masses by dictatorship. Such a spirit of domination is manifest on every hand. The prophetic word is being fulfilled literally today as never before; therefore, I am bold to say that the predictions set forth here in symbolic form have been fulfilled during these 2500 years and will continue to be carried out to the very letter. We know conclusively that Daniel, the writer, was inspired by the infallible Spirit of God

page 78

and that we can rely 100 per cent upon the statements which he has made throughout his book.

C. Negative Criticism Answered

Notwithstanding the clear and positive proof that the book of Daniel is inspired, as is evident from the fulfillment of the predictions outlining the course of history, its genuineness has been questioned by negative criticism-never by positive facts. To demonstrate the force of insinuations and denials, let us take the following illustration. I may praise one very highly, calling attention to his excellencies and capabilities. At the same time I continue in such a vein as this: "While all of these things are absolutely true, there is this one thing-well, I'll not say anything about this." Such a suggestion creates misgivings and doubts which by far overbalance all the good and excellent things I have said. A purely negative attitude is disastrous, for nothing can be accomplished by one while he is in this state of mind-except that which is demoralizing and destructive.
In the short space which is at my disposal, it will be impossible to enter into the arguments which are made against the book of Daniel. To do so would require volumes. These have all been answered in a sone, sound, and scholarly manner. Nevertheless, the destructive critic ignores the proof and continues his negation. In this special section I shall draw upon the material found in the two volumes of the late Robert Dick Wilson, Ph.D., entitled Studies in the Book of Daniel. This author, in a most scholarly manner, states the position of the opposition, follows this with one or more quotations of the critics, points out the pure assumptions upon which the negative assertions are based, presents facts-most powerful and indisputable-which expose the fallacies of the presumptions, builds his argument scientifically upon the discovered data, and then draws his conclusions-deductions which are overwhelmingly convincing. Let me say that no man who is willing to come to the study of the critical questions centering around the book of Daniel and will with an unbiased mind study the evidence presented by Dr. Wilson in these two volumes can still hold to his negative critical attitude. Since I have such limited space, I can only state the chief negative positions and Dr. Wilson's conclusions. I ask the reader to consult these volumes for all the facts.

1. THE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE The destructive criticism against Daniel is largely based upon what is known by logicians as the argument from silence which is

page 79

recognized as the most fallacious method of reasoning. Dr. Wilson discusses this particular question pro and con under fourteen different propositions, which show without a doubt that an argument based upon silence is, as a rule, very undependable. He draws his conclusion in the following words which are convincing to any man:

"In concluding these general remarks upon the so-called argument from silence, and having in view our almost absolute lack of first-class evidence bearing upon the historicity of the statements made in the Old Testament in general and of Daniel in particular, we refuse to accept as true the indiscriminate charges and multitudinous specifications entirely unsupported by evidence which are often made against the truthfulness of the Old Testament writings. A man is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. A book, or document, is supposed to be true until it is proven false. And as to particular objections made against the historicity of a person or event mentioned in the book of Daniel on the ground that other authorities fail to notice them, would it not be well for us to possess our souls in patience, until such charges are supported by some direct evidence bearing upon the case? Why not give Daniel the benefit of the doubt, if doubt there be?"


There are those who doubt the historicity of Daniel upon the grounds that his name does not appear in the records of the period of the exile. One noted critic stated the case thus: "It is natural that we should turn to the monuments and inscriptions of the Babylonian, Persian, and Median Empires to see if any message can be found of so prominent a ruler, but hitherto neither his name has been discovered, nor the faintest trace of his existence."
Dr. Wilson discusses this phase of the question thoroughly, looking at the various types of inscriptions that have come to us and showing that it is most unreasonable to base an argument upon the kind of data that we have, especially upon the lack of evidence. After setting forth the case in an impartial manner and discussing pro and con every possibility, Dr. Wilson draws this conclusion:

"Inasmuch, then, as these inscriptions mention no one filling any of the positions, or performing any of the functions or doing any of the deeds, which the book of Daniel ascribes to its hero Belteshazzar; how can anyone expect to find in them any mention of Daniel, in either its Hebrew or its Babylonian form? And is it fair, in view of what the monuments of all kinds make known to us, to use the fact that they do not mention Daniel at all, as an argument against his existence?
"What about the numerous governors, judges, generals, priests, wise men, writers, sculptors, architects, and all kinds of famous men, who must have lived during that long period? Who planned and supervised the building of the magnificent canals, and walls, and palaces, and temples of Babylon? Who led the armies, and held in subjection and governed the provinces, and adjudged cases in the high courts of justice, and sat in the king's council? Who were the mothers and wives and queenly daughters of the monarchs, who sat upon the thrones of those mighty empires? Had the kings no friends,

page 80

no favorites, no adulatory poets or historians, no servile prophets, no sycophantic priests, no obsequious courtiers, who were deemed worthy to have their names inscribed upon these memorials of royal pride and victory; that we should expect to find there the name of Daniel, a Hebrew captive, a citizen of an annihilated city, a member of a despised and conquered nation, a stranger living on the bounty of the king, an alien, a slave, whose very education was the gift of his master and his elevation dependent on his grace? Let him believe who can. As for me, were the documents multiplied tenfold, I would not expect to find in them any reference to this humble subject of imperious kings."


Concerning the statement found in Daniel 1: If relative to Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem and his taking some of the vessels of the temple in the third year of Jehoiakim to Babylon, Dr. Driver makes the following pronouncement:

"That Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, and carried away some of the sacred vessels in 'the third year of Jehoiakim' (Dan. 1:1f.), though it cannot, strictly speaking, be disproved, is highly improbable; not only is the book of Kings silent, but Jeremiah in the following year (c. 25, c., see v. 1) speaks of the Chaldeans in a manner which appears distinctly to imply that their arms had not yet been seen in Judah."
Following this statement Dr. Wilson, in a masterly and scholarly way, shows that this argument is based upon a pure assumption. After having marshaled the facts, he summarizes his conclusions in the following statements:

"1. That Kings, Chronicles, Berosus, Josephus, and Daniel all affirm that Nebuchadnezzar did come up against Jerusalem in the days of Jehoiakim.

"2. That Chronicles, Daniel, Berosus, and Josephus unite in saying that Nebuchadnezzar carried many captives from Judea to Babylon in the reign of Jehoiakim.

"3. That Berosus supports the statement of Daniel with regard to the carrying away of some of the vessels of the house of the Lord by saying that Nebuchadnezzar brought spoils from Judea which were put in the temple of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon.

"4. That Berosus supports Daniel in declaring an expedition against Jerusalem to have occurred before the death of Nabopolassar.

"5. That since Nabopolassar died while Nebuchadnezzar was in the midst of his expedition against Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar may have been king de jure before he came up against Jerusalem; for it would take the news of the death of Nabopolassar several weeks to reach Jerusalem, and in those weeks there would have been abundance of time for Nebuchadnezzar to have captured Jerusalem, especially if J ehoiakim surrendered at this time without fighting or after a brief siege, as Josephus says that he did in his eleventh year.

"6. That the book of Jeremiah is silent with regard to al! of these events. It does not say that Nebuchadnezzar did not come up to Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiakim. It simply says nothing about it. Why it says nothing about it we do not know. The expedition or expeditions may have been mentioned in 'the many like words' recorded by Baruch (Jer. xxxvi, 32), which have not been preserved for us."

page 81

"7. That finally, the statement of Daniel: 1-3, that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim and carried captive to Babylon certain of the nobility, and some of the vessels of the house of the Lord, stands absolutely un impugned by any testimony to be produced from any reliable source of information."


An objection is brought against Daniel because he speaks of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, and his coming against Jerusalem to war in the third year of Jehoiakim. It is a well-known fact that Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, was king of Babylon that year. The objection against the record of Daniel has been brought by Professor Bertholdt in the following words: "Jeremiah XXV, (1) says, that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. How then is it possible, that according to the composer of this biographical sketch of Daniel, the King Nebuchadnezzar could already in the third year of Jehoiakim have besieged and taken Jerusalem ?"

Dr. Dick Wilson discusses this question most thoroughly and draws the following cogent and conclusive deduction:

"The above discussion has, we think, made it clear that a man who was not actually reigning at the time to which some event in his life is afterwards referred might rightly be called king by a writer who was describing that event after the man had really been clothed with the royal dignity. It has shown, also, that a man who was never king in the sense of having himself reigned de facto, or de jure, might be called king by way of distinction or honor, because he was in some way related to the reigning king. Lastly, it has shown that the word used for king by the ancient writers is to be defined not by the modern usus loquendi, nor by the conception which one may have formed from present-day usage, but in harmony with the manner in which the word was employed in antiquity and in the particular language to which the term, by us translated 'king,' belonged. Judged by these three rules there is no good reason why the author of Daniel may not properly and justly have called Nebuchadnezzar 'the king of Babylon,' when referring to an event in his life that happened before he had actually ascended the throne of his father."


Another objection brought against Daniel is his statements relative to Belshazzar's being king of Babylon when it was captured by the Medes and the Persians. Statements from some of the leading authorities of the critical school present the situation clearly. Dr. Wilson gives three, which I wish to note:
"1. 'To represent that the king in whose reign Babylon was captured and the Chaldean empire destroyed was named Belshazzar and that he was a son of Nebuchadnezzar (Ch. V) is to contradict all the other assured witnesses of the Old Testament. 4

page 82

"2. 'Belshazzar is represented as "king of Babylon." In point of fact Nabunaid was the last king of Babylon. Belshazzar may have distinguished himself, perhaps more than his father Nabunaid (Nabonidus), at the time when Babylon passed into the power of the Persians; and hence, in the recollections of a later age he may have been pictured as its last king: but he was not styled "king" by his contemporaries (cf. Schrader on Dan. v. 1, 2).'
"3. 'Belshazzar never became king in his father's place.'"

After arguing the question pro and con and bringing absolute and indisputable evidence to bear upon the question, Dr. Wilson draws the following conclusion:

"The evidence given above shows that the author of Daniel does not contradict any 'other assured witnesses of the Old Testament,' when he represents Belshazzar as the king of Babylon under whom the citadel was taken. All that the book of Daniel necessarily implies when it says that Belshazzar was king of Babylon is that he was de facto king of the city after Nabunaid was taken prisoner. The evidence shows, also, that Belshazzar may have been called king of Babylon without ever having become king in his father's place over the empire of Babylonia; for in the last four months before the citadel was taken and after his father had surrendered, he was the only king whom the last defenders of Babylon could have acknowledged. His first year as king of Babylon is all that the book of Daniel mentions. He may have been king of the Chaldeans, or Chaldean king, for, many years before, through the capture of his father Nabunaid by the Persians, he became king of Babylon.

"Thus 'the recollections of a late age,' as they are presented in Daniel, will agree exactly with what the monuments tell us about the situation at the time when Babylon was taken by the Medes and Persians. Further, it has been shown by the evidence that a son of a king might be called a king; that Belshazzar may have been king at the same time that his father was; that there may have been two persons called king of Babylon at the same time; that a man might have been king of the Chaldeans, or king both of Babylon and of the Chaldeans; and that the years of the reign of a monarch might be dated in one way for his rule over one country, or people, and in another way for his rule over a second country, or people. Lastly, it has been shown that Belshazzar may legally have had two fathers; and that hence it is no objection to the accuracy of Daniel that he is called by him the son of Nebuchadnezzar, while the monuments call him the son of Nabunaid.
"In short, the evidence fails to show that any of the above-named assumptions of the critics with regard to him are true."


The historicity of Daniel has been questioned on the ground that the Biblical account does not square with the known historical facts. Dr. Wilson states the objection in the following words:

"Among other objections it is asserted, that 'the author of Daniel had an entirely false idea regarding the fall of Babylon under the Semitic dynasty. He evidently thought that Darius the Mede preceded Cyrus the Persian.' The author of Daniel 'makes a Median ruler receive Babylon after the overthrow of the native dynasty, and then mentions later the historical Cyrus. We may suppose that the biblical writer believed that Cyrus succeeded to the

page 83

empire of Babylon on the death of the Median Darius.'" Prince Commentary on Daniel, p. 54.

After a thorough discussion of every phase of the question, Dr. Wilson draws the following conclusion, which is unanswerable:

"From the above evidence it is clear that the author of Daniel does not state, nor even intimate, that Cyrus succeeded Darius the Mede in the empire of Babylon. On the contrary, he indicates that Darius the Mede received from Cyrus his overlord the kingdom of Belshazzar the Chaldean, which at best constituted but a small portion of the empire of the Persians. The monumental evidence shows the possibility of 120 satraps being installed in the province of Babylonia alone. This evidence shows, also, that dual datings were common among the ancient nations, and that hence Cyrus and Darius the Mede may have been reigning at the same time, one as overlord and the other as sub-king, or viceroy. It is pure conjecture to suppose that the author of Daniel 'evidently thought that Darius the Mede preceded Cyrus the Persian,' or that he 'believed that Cyrus succeeded to the empire of Babylon on the death of the Median Darius,' rather than on its conquest from Nabunaid and Belshazzar."


One of the greatest objections brought against the historicity of Daniel is that the author was confused concerning Darius the Mede and the Persian kings. The issue as stated by outstanding authorities is as follows:

"When we find him (i.e., Daniel) attributing to the Persian empire a total of only four kings (Dan. xi, 2; comp. also vii, 6), this clearly arises from the fact that by accident the names of only four Persian kings are mentioned in the O.T.; when we find that he makes the fourth of these exceedingly rich, provoke a mighty war against Greece, and in a triumphant repulse of this attack by the Greek king Alexander the Great to be defeated and dethroned-it is clear that the author has confused Xerxes and Darius Hystaspes by making them one and the same person, and mistaken the latter for Darius Codomannus.

"In 6:1, the temptation to suspect a confusion (of Darius the Mede) with Darius Hystaspes-who actually organized the Persian empire into 'satrapies' though much fewer than 120-is strong. Tradition, it can hardly be doubted, has here confused persons and events in reality distinct.
"'Darius the Mede' must be a reflection into the past of Darius Hystaspes, father-not son-of Xerxes, who had to re-conquer Babylon in B. C. 521 and again in 515, and who established the system of satrapies, combined, not impossibly, with indistinct recollections of Gubaru (or Ugbaru) , who first occupied Babylon in Cyrus' behalf, and who, in appointing governors there, appears to have acted as Cyrus' deputy."

A careful analysis of these statements shows that many things are assumed by these writers and upon the basis of these presuppositions certain hasty and unwarranted deductions are made.
Dr. Wilson presents all the facts, now known, in a most scholarly and cogent manner in five chapters of the first volume Studies in

page 84

the Book of Daniel. The question is such an intricate one and so very abstract that I do not attempt to call attention to any of its ramifications. The reader is referred to this book for information. I only give Dr. Wilson's conclusion, which is sufficient.

"In the discussions of the last five chapters, we have attempted to show that the author of Daniel does not attribute to the Persian empire a total of only four kings; that it is scarcely possible that the author of Daniel, if he wrote after the time of Alexander the Great, can have thought that this empire had only four kings; that it is not proven that only four kings of Persia are mentioned in the Old Testament outside of Daniel; that Darius the Mede cannot have been a reflection of Darius Hystaspes; that the author of Daniel has not confused Darius Hystaspes and Xerxes his son; that he does not mistake Darius Hystaspes for Darius Codomannus; and that he does not state that the war of the fourth king of Persia against Greece was repulsed by Alexander the Great. We leave the reader to judge whether we have succeeded in our attempt."


The Scripture account of Nebuchadnezzar's insonity has given the critics quite a bit of trouble. They inform us that this is an incredible account. One writer states that "Nebuchadnezzar's madness during seven years cannot be taken literally." Another delivers himself thus: "No proof is needed to show the incredibility attaching to the supposed incapacity of this king for governing, owing to madness, for the space of seven years." Such statements could be multiplied. They are simply based upon assumptions. Six of these leading presuppositions are examined by Dr. Wilson, who draws the following conclusion:

"From the above discussion it is evident that the madness of Nebuchadnezzar may be taken literally; that he may have been mad for seven years, or times; and that proof is needed to show the incredibility alleged as attaching to his supposed incapacity for governing."


One of the most serious objections brought against the historicity and genuineness of Daniel is based upon the position of the book in the Canon of the Hebrew text. I herewith present the accusations as brought by the opposition:

"The first alleged proof of the late date of Daniel is 'the position of the Book in the Jewish Canon, not among the prophets, but in the miscellaneous collection of writings called the Hagiographa, and among the latest of these, in proximity to Esther. Though little definite is known respecting the formation of the Canon, the division known as the "Prophets" was doubtless formed prior to the Hagiographa; and had the Book of Daniel existed at the time, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have ranked as the work of a prophet, and have been included among the former.'"

page 85

"In the Hebrew Scriptures 'Daniel has never occupied a place among the prophetical Books, but is included in the third collection of sacred writings, called the Kethubim or Hagiographa. Of the history of the Jewish Canon very little is known with certainty, but there is every reason to believe that the collection of Prophetical Books, from which lessons were read in the Synagogue, was definitely closed sometime before the Hagiographa, of which the greater part had no place in the public services. That the collection of Prophetical Books cannot have been completed till sometime after the Exile, is obvious, and on the supposition that Daniel was then known to the Jews, the exclusion of this is wholly inexplicable.'"

"'The place of the Book of Daniel among the Hagiographa favors also its late composition. If it had been written during the Exile, notwithstanding its apocalyptic character, it naturally would have been placed among the Prophets.' "
"'Not until the time of the LXX (which, moreover, has treated the text of Daniel in a very arbitrary fashion) does it find a place, after Ezekiel, as the fourth of the "great" prophets, and thus it comes to pass that once in the New Testament Daniel is designated as a prophet.'"

"'The position of the book among the Hagiographa instead of among the Prophetical works would seem to indicate that it must have been introduced after the closing of the Prophetical Canon. . . . The natural explanation regarding the position of the Book of Daniel is that the work could not have been in existence at the time of the completion of the second part of the Canon, as otherwise, the collectors of the prophetical writings, who in their care did not neglect even the parable of Jonah, would hardly have ignored the record of such a great prophet as Daniel is represented to be.'"
"Among 'objective reasons of the utmost weight, which render the view of its non-genuineness necessary,' Cornill mentions 'the position of the book in the Hebrew Canon, where it is inserted, not among the prophets, but in the third division of the canon, the so-called Hagiographa. If it were the work of a prophet of the time of Cyrus, no reason would be evident why there should be withheld from it a designation which was not denied to a Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi-nay, even to a Jonah.'"

"'In the Hebrew Canon, Daniel is not placed among the Prophets, but in the Hagiographa, the latest section of the Canon; although Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who were later than the time at which Daniel is described as living, are placed among the Prophets. Either the Jews did not regard the book as prophetical, or it was considerably later than Malachi, c. 444.'"

Many other statements might be produced which present various aspects of the accusations, but these are sufficient. They give the unacquainted reader some idea of the controversy.
Dr. Wilson, in his thorough and scholarly manner, produces evidence-absolute, concrete facts-in overthrowing the charges and assumptions that are brought against the book of Daniel from this standpoint. In a most masterly manner he summarizes the only conclusion to which an unbiased mind can come, when he looks at all the data. Ponder these telling facts:

"The evidence given above and its discussion permit only of the following conclusions:
"1. That the position of a book in the Hebrew Canon was not determined by the time at which it was written.

Page 86

"2. That the position of a book in the list of the Mishna, or of the Hebrew manuscripts, versions, and editions, does not determine the time at which it was admitted to the Canon.
"3. That all the earlier Hebrew sources, and all the Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Armenian sources put Daniel among the Prophets.
"4. That Daniel's genuineness, or its right to be in the Canon, was never disputed by the ancient Jews or Christians except possibly the Aramaic portions.
"5. That there is no external evidence, direct or indirect, except the argument from the silence of Ecclesiasticus, that Daniel was not composed till the time of the Maccabees.
"6. That the silence of Ecclesiasticus is more than offset by the silence of I and II Maccabees, and of all other sources, as to the origination of any such book, or the existence of the author of any such book, at the time of the Maccabees.
"7. That there is no direct evidence of the existence of a three-fold division earlier than the prologue of Jesus ben Sira, written in 132 B.C.
"8. That the absence of any selection from Daniel in the Haphtaroth does not prove that the book of Daniel was not in existence, or acknowledged as canonical, when the Haphtaroth were chosen.
"9. That Daniel was always considered by Josephus, and by the writers of the New Testament, to be a prophet, and that his book was placed by the same authorities among the prophetical books.
"10. That all the early Hebrew authorities which place Daniel among the prophets, agree with the Mishna in holding to a three-fold division of the Canon.
"11. That the testimony that we possess does not show that the second part of the Canon was closed before the books of the third part were all written.
"12. That the assumption that the division of the Hebrew Canon called the Prophets in our present editions of the Hebrew Bible was doubtless formed prior to the Hagiographa, is unfounded, inasmuch as there is no evidence that this division as it is now made was in existence before the second century A.D.
"13. That all witnesses agree in putting the Law first; and that Melito and Leontius alone change the order of the books of the Law, in that they put N umbers before Leviticus.
"14. That not one of the ancient witnesses puts the five Megilloth together. not even the Talmud.
"15. That in nearly all the lists, the five poetical books are placed together.
"16. That the only great difference of order between Philo, Luke, and Josephus, representing the earliest Hebrew arrangement, and the early Christian lists, arises from the fact that the former put the poetical books at the end, whereas the latter usually place them before the sixteen books of the Prophets.
"17. That the books of the Old Testament Canon were never authoritatively and fixedly arranged in any specific order, either by the Jews, or by the Christians.
"18. That the order has nothing to do with the canonicity, nor necessarily even with the date of a book.
"19. That length, supposed authorship, subject-matter, and convenience, as well as the material upon which a book was written, were the potent factors in all the ancient arrangements of the books.

page 87

"20. That since the modern Jews have changed the position of Ruth, Lamentations, and Esther, to suit their convenience in the public service, there is every reason to believe that their so-called book of the Prophets was collected together into one for the same reason; and that the omission of Daniel from this collection had nothing to do either with its age or canonicity, but simply with the fact that it was not employed in these public services.
"20a. That the Haphtaroth and the eight prophetical books never are found in the same MSS.
"21. That all the testimony that the ancient Jewish and OJristian sources give, bearing upon the time of the composition of the Old Testament books, is consentient in granting the claims of the books themselves as to their historicity, genuineness, and authority.
"22. That the determining factor in the canonization of a book was its supposed age and author, its agreement with the Law, and its approval by the prophets.
"23. That in accordance with these rules Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Maccabees, and other apocryphal books on the one hand, and on the other hand the pseudepigraphical books of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Jubilees, and the XII Patriarchs, were rejected from the Canon.
"24. That those who rely upon documentary evidence, cannot escape the conclusion that the indictment against the book of Daniel on the ground that it is not among the Prophets is false; and that in so far as the age and canonicity of the book of Daniel are assailed on the ground of its position in the Canon, the old view stands approved."


Statements from two of the critics will set forth the issues before us: "Jesus the son of Sirach (writing c. 200 B. C.), in his enumeration of Israelitish worthies, chaps. XLIV-L, though he mentions Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and (collectively) the Twelve Minor Prophets, is silent as to Daniel."-Driver, Literature of the Old Testament.. p. 498.

"The silence of Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) concerning Daniel seems to show that the prophet was unknown to that late writer who, in his list of celebrated men (chap. xlix) makes no mention of Daniel, but passes from Jeremiah to Ezekiel and then to the twelve Minor Prophets and Zerubbabel. If Daniel had been known to Jesus Sirach, we would certainly expect to find his name in this list, probably between Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Again, the only explanation seems to be that the Book of Daniel was not known to Sirach who lived and wrote between 200 and 180 B.C. Had so celebrated a person as Daniel been known, he could hardly have escaped mention in such a complete list of Israel's leading spirits. Hengstengberg remarked that Ezra and Mordecai were also left unmentioned, but the case is not parallel. Daniel is represented in the work attributed to him as a great prophet, while Ezra appears in the Book bearing his name as nothing more than a rather prominent priest and scholar,"-Prince, Commentary on Daniel, p. 16f.

When one enters the realm of the reasons for another's pursuing a certain course, he has a most difficult task. In fact, it is very hard for us sometimes to analyze the real causes motivating our own actions. The fact that one writer does not mention another is no

page 88

evidence that he does not know of his existence. Ignorance, prejudice, misjudgment, neglect, or even contempt may influence one and cause him to omit mention of another. So long as these elements enter into and determine the course which one pursues, it is utterly impossible for us to arrive at a definite conclusion concerning such omissions as the ones noted by the objectors.
Dr. Wilson, in his usual straightforward and scholarly manner, investigates all of the assumptions upon which a charge is made and draws the following conclusion:

"Having thus considered fully all the objections to the early date of the Book of Daniel made on the ground of the silence of Ben Sira with respect to it, there seems to be no sufficient reason for doubting the conclusion that notwithstanding this silence the Book of Daniel may have been in existence before 180 B. C."

In this rapid survey of the conclusions which Dr. Wilson drew from the facts, I have passed over his presentation and evaluation of them. As stated before, it is utterly impossible for me to incorporate the whys and the wherefores, the pros and the cons, in such a limited space as I have. I wish to urge everyone who is disturbed about these so-called objections brought, upon historical grounds, against the book of Daniel to procure the two volumes of Dr. Wilson's Studies in the Book of Daniel and to investigate these questions for himself. I am confident that no honest, conscientious, sincere true-seeker, who is willing to look facts squarely in the face, and who will study the evidence which Dr. Wilson arrays, can still doubt for a second the genuineness of the book of Daniel as a production coming from such a character as Daniel, who lived at the time mentioned throughout the work. Our only appeal to those who want the truth is to study these volumes of Dr. Wilson. His arguments are unanswerable. Others have discussed the issues involved and have shown the unreasonableness of the critical hypothesis concerning this most marvelous and wonderful book.

Thus from a prophetic and from a historical standpoint all the evidence presented in Daniel proves conclusively that it was written by the Spirit of God and by one who unfolded before his contemporaries the course of history through the centuries. The book of Daniel, therefore, may be relied upon in every particular for guidance and instruction.

In our discussion throughout this chapter we have seen that the two piers upon which our chronological suspension bridge is resting are made of the solid rock of historical facts and prophetic truths

page 89

that have been verified by fulfillment. We can, therefore, proceed with the construction of this bridge with all confidence of reaching the facts of the case and determining the date of Messiah's first appearance upon earth for carrying out His redemptive career.


Under sections I and II the investigation has proceeded upon the assumption that both Genesis and Daniel are the very Word of God given by the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit. A corollary to this proposition is that, if these books were thus given, they present a truthful account 01 what actually transpired-records upon which we can rely absolutely. A second corollary to this general proposition is that these writings mean what they say and say what they mean and are thus to be understood. During this discussion emphasis has been placed upon the necessity of observing the golden rule of interpretation, which is this: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."

In the first section we have also discovered clear intimations that Genesis is indeed a composite document, not in the sense as is ordinarily understood by the critical school, but in that way which is demanded by the plain sense of the oft-recurring formula "These are the generations of ------." We have, furthermore, learned that Genesis fits into the world situation as it has been revealed by archaeology (and not, as has been supposed, by theorists in the class room), just as a piece of a jig-saw puzzle fits into its proper place without being forced or changed in any way. We have also seen that various statements and the necessary inferences to be drawn therefrom are in perfect accord with the latest discoveries in the scientific realm. These facts and many others have convinced us that the primary assumption relative to these records and their being the Word of God has been amply and thoroughly demonstrated.

In our study of Daniel we have dealt with it as the very Word of God. Its predictions covering a period of 2500 years have been fulfilled literally. By this fact our faith has been confirmed that these Oracles were inspired by the Spirit of God. In addition to the positive proof afforded by predictions and their fulfillment, we have noted some of the negative criticisms launched against the

page 90

book of Daniel and have seen that they are without force, and that all have been answered.
The critics tell us that the Torah (Pentateuch) was not written by Moses, but that it is a composite document produced by editors of the exilic and postexilic periods. These unknown authors came into possession of certain documents, which are now designated as "E," "J ," "P ," and "D." After doing certain editorial revision upon their sources, they welded them together and produced the Torah as we have it today. There are some, however, who do not confine this theory to the first five books of the Scriptures but rather to the first six (hexateuch). By the same principles of literary analysis they dissect most of the books of the Tenach (Old Testament). According to these experts, Moses, for instance, did not write Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, although we find some statements in them asserting that he did. These late redactors, according to the theory, presented to the public under the magnetic name of Moses, the material which they received, and which they worked over. By this method they gained a hearty reception for their literary fraud. Such a dissection of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures deprives us of these divine Oracles and has reduced them, in the minds of many people, to the low level of human productions, in which are many mistakes and errors.

Since these critical scholars are so very positive concerning the correctness of the conclusions to which they have come, it is but proper and right that they should by an actual demonstration prove to the world their ability to restore original documents out of which a composite one has been made. Their laborious vivisection of the early books of the Scriptures is so very minute in every detail that the average uninformed person would attribute to them exact scientific knowledge. But are they able by their critical analysis to restore the so-called original sources and tell us who wrote this portion, and what writer composed another section? Can they demonstrate to us that their critical analysis is accurate and do it in such a way that we may be absolutely certain of the correctness of their conclusions? If they are, every honest-hearted truth-seeker wants to know. On the other hand, if they are unable to do what they claim, it is nothing but proper and right that people should know they cannot make their claim good. Can we test, therefore, their ability? Shall we not allow them to demonstrate the accuracy of their deductions and the scientific character of their work? They

page 91

certainly should be given an opportunity to convince us that they are right, and that their principles are scientific.

In order that they may do this, I am herewith submitting a composite document which is the result of editorial revision of certain original essays. These were written by different people in various walks of life; were, in turn, subjected to editorial revision, emendation; and finally were welded together into the present document. The original compositions and all papers used in the editorial work performed in welding them together are preserved in a fireproof lock-box here in Los Angeles. From these documents every step taken in the entire process of revision and compilation, until the final document was produced, may be observed.

Since our critical friends insist that they have the ability to dissect ancient literary works coming from a world far removed from ours, with its oriental civilization and outlook, the labor to dissect and restore the original documents which lie behind the one I am submitting, will, of course, be far easier than the task of restoring the primary sources of documents coming to us from the ancient world.

If any scholar or any number of them will restore the original documents and point out the work of the various editors who have shared in the production of this present one and will accept this challenge to do so, I shall be glad to publish in the Biblical Research Monthly, the official organ of the Biblical Research Society, their findings. After the leading exponents of this school of thought have had ample time to complete the work and have submitted to me a draft of "the assured results of their scientific criticism," I then shall publish the original documents with the notes and revisions as they appear in the lock-box of a fireproof vault at the present day.
If these gentlemen will only demonstrate to us that they with their critical apparatus are able to do what they assert, it is due them and the world to know about it. On the other hand, if they are not able, we also have a right to learn of their inability to make their claims good.

I appeal to the entire critical school to accept this challenge and demonstrate to the world that these literary experts can do what they claim.
Herewith I assert that we have in the vault here in Los Angeles the original documents and all other papers which were used in the development of the following one. I call upon them to analyze this one critically. There are tens of thousonds of people who will

page 92

eagerly await someone to accept the challenge and to demonstrate the truthfulness of the claims of the critical school. Gentlemen, who will come forward and pick up the gauntlet?


The history of Abraham, the friend of God, is recorded in Genesis 11:27 to 25: 19. All of the various incidents recorded are connected and constitute one literary whole. But the account of the war recorded in Genesis 14, in which Abraham took a vital part, is of particular interest to every Bible student, because we have our first synchronism with profane history.

About the year 1900 B.C. four kings of the East made war against five kings of the West. The East in this instance refers to the land bordering on the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers north of the Persian Gulf, and the West refers to the land of Palestine. Chedorlaomer of Elam, the most powerful eastern ruler of the day, was the head of the eastern confederacy, which included Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar, and Tidal, king of nations, who was a chief of various wandering tribes. The western confederacy was made up of five powerful leaders, Bera, king of Sodom, Birsha, king of Gomorrah, Shinab, king of Admah, Shemeber, king of Zeboiim and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

After being under the Elamite yoke for 12 years the kings of the Jordan valley rebelled in the 13th year. Evidently there was great dissatisfaction which caused these five petty kings to attempt to match swords with their overlord and his powerful associates.

The story of Abraham and Lot is continued from Genesis 13 in the one under consideration. This episode is the first instance of actual war in the Bible. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Tim. 3: 16). In this chapter we are "instructed in righteousness" by the magnanimous loyalty displayed by Abram to Lot, who had selfishly chosen the well-watered plain of the Jordan, when they separated one from the other because of their great flocks and herds, and the consequent quarrels of their herdsmen. Abraham's disregard for the past and his great concern for Lot, who was then in dire trouble, was a great opportunity for a closer fellowship with his Lord, which meant victory and blessing to him. The magnanimous loyalty displayed by him to his nephew could well be emulated today.

page 93

The record of the War is similar to that of a modern newspaper report. There were four kings, of whom Chedorlaomer of Elam evidently Was most Powerful, for during the space of twelve years five other kings served him, but rebelled in the thirteenth. Though this report is somewhat similar to modern accounts of war, it is absolutely different from them, for it was given by "a holy man of old," who wrote the book of Genesis under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit. The reason it is given is that it had special reference to Abraham in his relation to Lot, who, it will be recalled "chose him all the plain of Jordan" when he and Abraham discussed the matter of separating one from the other. This friction was due to the fact that both of these men were rich in flocks and herds, and their herdsmen strove one with the other. Hence Lot pitched his tent toward Sodom, as the Word declares, and soon moved into that wicked city and became a part of its life and civilization. But Abraham dwelt in the hill-country.
The battle took place in the Vale of Siddim, which was full of slime pits. The conflict issued in the victory of Chedorlaomer and his allies, who sacked the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The spoils were seized and many of the people, including Lot, Were taken as hostages. Realizing that God is righteous and always overrules and punishes sin in every form, We can see the hand of God in this incident. Lot, though a righteous man, had no business living in such a city. Man must not deceive himself, for God is not mocked; whatsoever he sows he shall reap. Although this carnal child of God was in trouble and Was being punished for his sins, the Lord had mercy upon him and providentially rescued him, using Abraham against whom he had sinned.
One wonders what were Lot's thoughts after he was captured and was being led as an exile into a foreign land. Did it Occur to him that possibly God was permitting this misfortune to overtake him in punishment of his sins? Often we meditate on the more serious problems of life only when we are brought to our extremity. This should be a lesson to everyone who claims to be a child of God.
One of the escaped captives told Abram what had happened. When this venerable patriarch in this way learned the sad news relative to his nephew's troubles, he, in a most gracious and bold manner, went to his assistance. At once this godly, practical man mustered his 318 men, rallied his allies, and with the strategy of a modern general, divided his small army to make it appear larger, and then went in pursuit of Lot's captors. It is altogether Possible

page 94

that the reinforcements which Abram doubtless obtained from his neighbors augmented his forces until they numbered an army of at least 1000 men. This was the only practical thing for a man like Abram to do. He could, consistently with his idea of separation from the world unto God, join forces with the Canaanites in such an emergency. God uses the wicked to praise Himself. At various times he employed one pagan nation to punish another when the latter was no longer plastic in His hands.

Abram showed his generalship by dividing his small forces and by making a bold surprise attack by night, when the enemy was least expecting such a stroke. The rapidity and the strength with which he struck threw the foes into consternation. It is quite likely, though one may not be positive, that the main body of the army of the victors was far in advance of the baggage train which was bearing the spoils and hostages to a land far away. In this case, Abram made a surprise night attack with lightning rapidity against the rear guard and completely vanquished it, recapturing the prisoners of war and the material goods in their possession. In triumph, yet in humility, this great man of God returned with the recovered goods and captives.
At this point of the narrative, rather abruptly, a mysterious character, designated as a priest of the Most High God, is introduced. His name is Melchizedek, who was "king of Salem." His name etymologically means "king of righteousness." He was king of Salem, which means peace. It is supposed that the early form of the name Jerusalem, in which Melchizedek reigned, was Ur-salem. The meaning, in this case, would be "city of peace."

After getting a glimpse of Melchizedek in this passage, we never hear of him again until David by inspiration wrote Psalm 110, which makes him a type of the Hebrew Messiah. A lapse of 2000 years after this episode brings us to the time when this same mysterious character is pointed out as the one after whom the priesthood of the Messiah is patterned.

Returning from the slaughter of the kings Abram was met by this priest-king, who was representative of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth. This man of God brought bread and wine out to Abraham, meeting him in the Vale of Shaveh, which is the Kings' Vale. On this occasion, he blessed Abraham in the name of Jehovah the Almighty. Being true to his convictions as a servant of God, Abram paid to Melchizedek tithes of all that he had.

page 95

This is the first time we have the word "priest" (cohen) in the Bible. It is the word later applied to the Levitical priesthood. The patriarchs seem to have had no other priests than the head of the family. But here we find one designated a special priest and empowered to solemnly bless Abraham.

The bread and the wine which Melchizedek gave Abraham were refreshing and comforting to Abraham, and he was thus strengthened to meet another enemy-the king of Sodom, who was clearly a subtle foe. Although he had paid tithes to the priest, for the maintenance of the services of God, Abraham refused to have anything to do with the king of Sodom. This act of faith brought him into possession of even greater blessings from the hand of the Lord. When one, emulating Abraham's faith, steps out upon the promises of God, He will never disappoint him.
Abraham ran a great risk in rescuing Lot and the goods from the retreating army. He doubtless had incurred the displeasure of the king of Sodom in his refusing to accept the gift which he most graciously offered him as compensation for what he had done. When such generosity is thus rebuffed, usually a sting is left. Abram realized this fact. Nevertheless, he refused to accept any tainted goods from him, king of one of the most wicked cities that has ever existed.
Immediately after this episode, the Lord appeared to Abraham and assured him that he needed not to be afraid, for He declared that He was his shield and exceeding great reward. In other words, the Almighty promised to protect him from any and all dangers and to give him everything that he needed, since he had by faith refused wealth stained with sin. God will be a shield and the exceeding great reward to anyone who will act as did Abraham and walk in His footsteps.*

* The reader is to remember that the composite document given above is made up of different essays by various writers. Of course, I do not necessarily approve of each statement of the different authors, though they are excellent people,

Return To Table Of Contents


Questions and comments are always welcome

Return to BIBLE FRAGRANCES index



©Ron Wallace, Anyone is free to reproduce this material and distribute it,
but it may not be sold under any circumstances whatsoever without the author's consent.


Home | Recent Additions | Studies | Commentary


Prophecy | Articles | Topical | About Us