- 7 -
later period. As we read their account we are still as much overawed and solemnized
as they who had witnessed them. In illustration, we refer to the Divine
manifestations to Elijah and Elisha. In fact, their sublimeness increases in proportion
as the human element, and consequently the Divine accommodation to it, recedes.
Secondly, even as regards man's bearing towards the Lord, the Old Testament never
presents what seems the fundamental character of all ancient heathen religions. The
object of Israel's worship and services was never to deprecate, but to pray. There was
no malignant deity or fate to be averted, but a Father Who claimed love and a King
Who required allegiance. Lastly, there is never an exhibition of mere power on the
part of the Deity, but always a moral purpose conveyed by it, which in turn is
intended, to serve as germ of further spiritual development to the people. We are too
prone to miss this moral purpose, because it is often conveyed in a form adapted to
the standpoint of the men of that time, and hence differs from that suited to our own.
Of course, there are also many and serious critical and exegetical questions
connected with such portions of the Bible as the two Books of Samuel and the first
Book of Chronicles. To these I have endeavored to address myself to the best of my
power, so far as within the scope of a volume like this. Whether or not I may have
succeeded in this difficult task, I am at least entitled to address a caution to the
reader. Let him not take for granted that bold assertions of a negative character,
made with the greatest confidence, even by men of undoubted learning and ability,
are necessarily true. On the contrary, I venture to say, that their trustworthiness is
generally in inverse ratio to the confidence with which they are made. This is not the
place to furnish proof of this, - and yet it seems unfair to make a charge without
illustrating it at least by one instance. It is chosen almost at random from one of the
latest works of the kind, written expressly for English readers, by one of the ablest
Continental scholars, and the present leader of that special school of critics.^1 The
learned writer labors to prove that the promise in Genesis 3:15 "must lose the name
of, 'Proto-Evangelism,' which it owes to a positively incorrect view" of the passage.
Accordingly he translates it: "I will put enmity between thee (the serpent) and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed: this (seed) shall lie in wait for thy head,
and thou shalt lie in wait for his heel" - or, as he explains it: "man aims his attack at
the head of the serpent, while it tries to strike man in the heel." It may possibly occur
to ordinary readers that it scarcely needed what professes to be a record of Divine
revelation to acquaint us with such a fact. Very different are the views which the
oldest Jewish tradition expresses on this matter. But this is not the point to which I
am desirous of directing attention. Dr. Kuenen supports his interpretation by two
arguments.
First, he maintains that the verb commonly rendered "bruise," means "to lie in wait
for," "according to the Septuagint and the Targum of Onkelos," - and that
accordingly it cannot bear a Messianic reference.
(^)