Chapter xxii., v. ll. Here oaths are commanded; in Matthew, chap. v., w. 34 to 37, and James, chap, v., v. 12, they are forbidden.
Verse 18. 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' In the Douay, 'Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.' Can we wonder that our criminal courts occasionally reveal a scene of life in which we see one man parting with his hard-earned pence to propitiate another man, whom he believes to possess some supernatural power? It is customary on such occasions, for the presiding magistrate to deplore the ignorance of the labouring classes, and to exclaim against the folly of believing in witches and wizards, yet he swears the complainant on the Bible, containing this verse, and would refuse to receive his evidence, if, after hearing the magistrate's opinion on the folly of believing in witchcraft, he should happen to remark, 'Then I cannot believe in the Bible.'
Verses 20 and 28, and chap, xxiii., v. 13. Who and what are these Gods, and why these commands? The sole end of this religion is the worship of one God, yet here are other Gods referred to. If I sacrifice to them, I hazard destruction, and if I revile them, I shall fare no better. As for cursing the ruler of my people, I am one of those who deem curses to be vain words, which a man had far better leave unuttered; if the ruler does wrong, let him rule no longer, but let the people place another in his stead.
Chapter xxiv., vv. 9 to 14, are contradicted in chap, xxxiii., v. 20, John, chap, i., v. 18, 1st Epistle of John, chap, iv., v. 12, 1st Epistle to Timothy, chap, i., v. 17, Colossians, chap, i. vv. 15. It cannot be urged that this is figurative, because the evident intention is to give a literal account of seventy-four persons going up to see God. To what place they went up is not clear, it was not the mount, or but a short distance on it, for Moses and Joshua left them, and went up from them into the mount.
In the Hindoo mythology we shall find several instances of Gods, under whose feet paved work may be seen; but these Gods are neither omnipotent, infinite, nor omniscient. All enlightened Christians admit that the whole list of Indian deities is fabulous, and while they gaze on the curious pictures given in the 'Asiatic Researches,' and other works, they feel convinced of the superiority of their own system, which is free from such ridiculous absurdities. But how do these enlightened Christians deal with this chapter, which tells them their 'invisible' God was seen by seventy-four men in a fiery mount, with as it were, a paved work under his feet?
Dr. John Pye Smith, never at a loss, easily reconciles these apparent discrepancies by asserting that they refer to the different persons of the Father and the Messiah, but this is only 'confusion worse confounded,' for it is quite clear that it was not the Messiah who is referred to, either here or in the many other texts speaking of the appearance of the Lord to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it is also clear that Jesus was not invisible; so we are left without aid from the Reverend Dr.'s comment, and must still wonder how an 'invisible' God ever appeared to anybody.
Chapter xxv., v. 30. Here is an absurd and useless regulation. God could not and did not eat this bread.
Verse 40. What patterns were these, and is not Moses supposed to be in the mount when these words were spoken? This verse either refers to a previous interview, of which we have no account, or else this did not take place in the mount at all.
Chapter xxviii., w. 40, 41, and 42. Can anything be more puerile than to imagine the God of the universe giving directions for the particular description of girdle, bonnet, and breeches to be worn by some insignificant puny creatures, crawling on the outside of a little planet called the earth?
Chapter xxix., v. 44. At the very time that God was thus intimating that he would sanctify Aaron, the latter must have been engaged in the manufacture of the calf. Did God know this? If he did, it is hard to understand how he chose an idolator for his priest. If otherwise, God is not omniscient. The family of Levi, who were so severely cursed by Jacob, seem the most favoured by Jacob's God.
Chapter xxx., v. 6. It is not quite clear where this altar was to be placed; but from the text it appears to have been placed in the 'holiest of holies,' which creates a doubt as to how an altar in daily use could be situate in a place only entered once a year. The text is, however, rather complex in its description, and I may be mistaken in my reading.
Verse 15. The words 'when they gave an offering unto the Lord to make atonement for your souls,' are totally omitted in the Douay version.
Verses 22 to 38. God, who is a God of love and full of mercy and loving kindness, here ordains that every man who shall manufacture a particular kind of scented pomatum, shall be put to death. Christian Theist, you tell me that yours is the 'eternal, immortal, and only wise God' (vide 1st Timothy, chap, i., v. 17) – do you in truth believe that he would order me to be utterly cut off because I might perhaps unconsciously make a scented ointment of a particular character? Do you believe if I take a certain description of perfumed pomatum, and 'smell thereto,' previous to rubbing some on the hair of my head, that I shall be put to death? Perhaps these enactments were only meant for the Jews, who seem to have required some strange laws; if so, it is a pity God has allowed the Book to come to us in its present state, as we find it hard to conceive (without any fact to reason upon) that one verse is intended only for the Jews, and the following one intended for the whole world.
Chapter xxxi., v. 15. Moses would never have joined the 'Society for Abolition of Capital Punishment,' if it had been established in his day. This verse must have since become a dead letter, an obsolete statute which God does not enforce in the present age. But if this verse is a dead letter, how much more of the Bible is affected in the same manner? Who is to tell which enactments may be safely disobeyed, and which carry with them the terrible penalty?
V. 17. 'He rested and was refreshed.' Although even the most faithful and pious believer must have great difficulty in attempting to contemplate that stupendous work, the creation of the universe out of nothing, yet this great difficulty sinks into utter insignificance beside the greater one of endeavouring to imagine the omnipotent and immutable Deity resting after his labour, and being refreshed.
V. 18. The expression 'finger of God' is evidently intended to be understood literally here, but the question then arises as to the nature of an infinite spirit without body, parts, or passions (vide thirty-nine articles), yet having fingers, hands, face, and back parts. Dr. Pye Smith says, on the [ – ] (anthropopatheia) of the Scriptures (treatment of God as if possessing a human shape and nature) – 'This is very remarkable and very extensive, but it is manifested by comparison with many other parts of the Scriptures, that the terms employed are terms of condescending comparison with the acts and effects of the thus mentioned organs of the human body, to convey, especially to unpolished men a conception of those properties and actions of God, which to our feeble ideas have a resemblance, and that they were so understood. Language had not then terms for the expression of abstract conceptions.'
The Christian theologian tells me that God created man and all the circumstances that surrounded him, yet speaks of 'human incapacity, and infirmity,' and of 'the language of the Scriptures being formed in condescension thereto.'
Is it not remarkable that the all-wise Creator should have not foreseen the time when the language of his revelation should have sunken below the level of the human capacity? But it is worse than folly to put forward hypotheses as to God's condescension in using such language. The Book itself nowhere suggests such an idea, and I ask to what mind (however 'unpolished' he may be) can the following words convey any other conception of the properties and actions of God than that of the literal reading? —
'And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts, but my face shall not be seen.' Dr. Smith says that 'metaphysical or philosophical preciseness is not in the character of Scriptural composition,' yet upon our precise conception of the true meaning of that composition, hangs the penalty of eternal torment.
Chapter xxxii. During the absence of Moses, the Jewish people applied to Aaron to make them other Gods; they used very disrespectful language, saying 'As for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.' Aaron, who had been specially chosen by God to be his priest and Prophet, instead of reminding the people of the miracles God had just performed on their behalf, instead of reproving them for the slighting manner in which they had spoken of his brother Moses, instead even of appealing to Nadab and Abhu, and the seventy elders who had personally seen God so shortly before, and who must all have been impressed with the awful majesty of the Deity, forgetting the first and second commandment contained in chapter xx., w. 3, 4, and 5, and that their God is a jealous God, forgetting also the repetition contained in v. 23 of the same chapter, Aaron (who alone had been nominated to enter the holy of holies), without the slightest attempt at reason or remonstrance, asked the people for their golden earrings, and made a molten calf, and built an altar before it, and proclaimed a feast; and the people said, 'These be thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.'
God was very unfortunate in his choice; his chosen people are the first to forget him, or to doubt and deny his power. The miracles performed by Moses and Aaron in Egypt – events any one of which should have been sufficient to have struck terror into the Israelites for the remainder of their lives – the interview between God and the seventy-four, only a few days before, were all forgotten. God having permitted all this to happen, informed Moses thereof, and then uses this remarkable phrase – 'Let me alone that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them, and I will make of thee a great nation.' Is this the language of an infinite and immutable Deity?
Moses reasoned with God, and endeavoured to persuade him not to allow his wrath to wax hot, and ultimately the unchangeable changed his mind, and 'repented of the evil he thought to do his people.' The mode of expostulation adopted by Moses is very remarkable (see vv. 11, 12, and 13); one of the chief arguments used is not as to the merits of the case, but as to what the Egyptians will say when they hear about it.
Vv. 15 to 19. Moses, considering that he was so meek a man, soon lost his temper, and the act of throwing down the tables, betrays rather the character of a hasty petulant man.
V. 20. Gold is a metal distinguished by its extreme permanence in air and fire, by its malleability and ductility; it might have been melted by the action of fire, but could not be burnt – i.e., consumed by fire. The Douay says that Moses 'beat it to powder;' this would be impossible, as it is so malleable, that it may be beaten into leaves not more than the 280,000th part of an inch in thickness. Our version says, 'ground it to powder;' this would be a difficult task, unless Moses had other aids than we are aware of. The Golden Calf being reduced to powder, Moses strewed it upon the water, and made the Israelites drink of it. Unless a chloride of gold had been formed by the use of chlorine and nitro-muriatic acid, and of which we have no account, the gold would not be soluble in water, but would sink to the bottom, leaving the water entirely unaffected. After this Moses collected the tribe of Levi, who had been equally guilty with their brethren in the worship of the calf, and set them to slaughter every man his neighbour. In this slaughter there fell, according to our version, 3,000 men, but according to the Douay, 23,000 men were slain. Whichever version is right, it is evident that Aaron, who deserved the most punishment, escaped scot-free. The Lord's vengeance was not satisfied with even this terrible sacrifice of human life; and we are told, in the unique phraseology of the Bible, that 'the Lord plagued the people because they made the calf which Aaron made.'
Chapter xxxiii., vv. 1 to 3, and chap, xxxiv., v. 11. Judea was not a land flowing with milk and honey, and the Lord did not drive out the Canaanite and the other nations mentioned (vide Joshua, chap. xvii., v. 12 and 13; Judges chap, i., vv. 19, and 27 to 35; chap, ii., vv» 20 to 23, and chap, iii., vv. 1 to 6).
Vv. 4, 5, and 6. Why did the Lord want the children of Israel to put off their ornaments? If in any other book than the Bible some shrewd Christians would shake their heads and say, We are afraid Moses and Aaron were not quite honest – first, they deprive the people of their gold earrings under one pretext, and now they defraud them of their remaining trinkets, under the pretence that the Lord commands them to put them off.
Vv. 9 and 10. This 'pillar of cloud' is a favourite shape, and if the whole were an imposture, it would have been an easy matter for Moses by artificial means to have raised a 'pillar of cloud' when he pleased, especially as such precautions were taken to prevent too close an examination by the Israelites.
V. 11. Apart from any question of contradiction (which has been noticed on page 59), is not this verse condemned by itself? Its purpose and meaning is to raise Moses in the estimation of its readers, and to effect this object it degrades the Deity by the very terms it uses, the conversation contained in verses 12 to 20 has all the same tendency, making it appear that Moses was God's favourite, and that God knew his name.
In verse 13, instead of 'show me thy way,' the Douay has 'show me thy face;' this accounts for the expression in v. 20, 'Thou canst not see my face,' but it distinctly contradicts the 'face to face' of verse 11.
V. 23 needs no comment; but I defy any man to read this verse thoughtfully, and yet be filled with awe and admiration for a Deity, who only allows his favoured Prophet to see his 'back parts.' The absurdity is heightened by the remembrance of the many distinct appearances of God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and shortly before to Moses himself, and seventy-three other persons who all saw God.
Chapter xxxiv., v. 3. The same precaution to prevent detection, if imposture was really being perpetrated.
Verse 6. 'The Lord God merciful and gracious.' When? where? and how? Was it when cursing the first man and woman, and the very ground on which they stood (Genesis, chap, iii.); or when he determined to destroy both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air (Genesis, chap, vi., v. 7); or when he rained brimstone and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis, chap, xix., v. 24); or when he slew the firstborn in every family throughout Egypt (Exodus, chap, xii., v. 29); or when he drowned all Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea (Exodus, chap, xiv., v. 27); or when he swore to have war with Amalek from generation to generation (Exodus, chap, xvii., v. 16); or when he killed Nadab and Abihu with fire (Leviticus, chap. x., v. 2); or when he repeatedly attached the penalty of death to the infringement of almost any article of the ceremonial law; or when his fire consumed the people because they complained (Numbers, chap. xi, v. 1); or when he smote them with a great plague (verse 33); or when he ordered the man to be stoned to death who was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers, chap, xv., v. 36); or when he causes the earth to swallow Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and all that appertained to them, and afterwards slew 250 more by fire, and 14,700 more by plague (Numbers, chap, xvi., vv. 31 to 35, and 49); or when he sent fiery serpents to bite his people, so that they died (Numbers, chap, xxi., v. 6); or when he sent the plague, and killed 24,000 of his people (Numbers, chap, xxv., v. 9); or when he directed the terrible slaughter of the Midiantes (Numbers, chap. 31)? I might multiply these texts, but have confined myself to the same Pentateuch in which 'God's mercy, graciousness, and long suffering' are proclaimed by himself. Any reader who wishes further to pursue the subject, is referred to a pamphlet, written in answer to Bishop Watson's 'Apology for the Bible,' and entitled 'The God of the Jews.'
Verse 14. 'The Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God.' My dictionary tells me that to be jealous is to be 'suspiciously vigilant,' 'suspiciously fearful.' The omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite Deity, of what can he be jealous? Perhaps this phrase also is figurative.
Verses 29 and 30. The Douay says that after Moses had talked to the Lord, his face was horned, and that the children of Israel, seeing the horns, were afraid to come near him.
In concluding the comments on the Book of Exodus, I ask what is the result of our investigation? We have found the Book to be thoroughly worthless as a relation of actual occurrences, even when tested under the most favourable auspices; it repeatedly and in important particulars contradicts itself. It cannot be a revelation from God, because it pictures an all-wise God choosing a man with an impediment in his speech, to be a preacher, and relates that when the man hesitated on account of his infirmity, God became angry at a difficulty of his own creation, and which Moses could not help. It represents a just God as seeking to kill (apparently without the slightest cause) the very man whom he had just entrusted with the important mission of releasing his chosen people from bondage; it speaks of an invisible God as becoming visible; of an immutable God as being jealous; of a loving God declaring war against unborn generations of his own creatures; of a just God as punishing the people for following (the teachings of the priest whom he had appointed, and yet allowing the criminal priest not only to escape unpunished, but actually rewarded for his misconduct.) It pictures a merciful and good God as tormenting and murdering the Egyptians, solely for the purpose of convincing the Jews that he is really the Lord God of Israel, and afterwards plagueing and slaughtering those very Israelites, because all the former cruelties practised on their neighbours had not produced sufficient convincing effect on them. It teaches monotheism in one verse, and polytheism in another.
It ought not to be used as an educational book amongst the children of men, because it contains doctrines and precepts only fitted for the offspring of tyrants and slaves. It teaches that children may be born slaves, and that their parents may sell them as slaves, and it places money at a higher value than life, virtue, honour, or liberty.
BOOK III. LEVITICUS
In dealing with the laws of the Jews, I feel compelled to avoid very many texts on account of their disgusting nature; but generally I may remark that it is evident the Jews must have been an ignorant, viciously-inclined, unintellectual, and thoroughly-depraved people, or such laws would never have been required. If God chose the best people on the earth, the state of the whole of the human family must have been very bad indeed. My reason for avoiding the above-mentioned class of texts is twofold; first, although I think them fair matter for comment, I have no wish to offend or insult any reader who, from his or her mode of education, has been taught to regard such subjects as unfit for discussion; second, I am not quite certain that the 'Society for Suppression of Vice,' or some kindred society, may not be induced to again attack works of this class, in which case I have no wish to afford the counsel for the prosecution an opportunity of declaiming against my obscene style, but wish, if possible, to compel my most severe critics to admit that I have been more choice in my phraseology than the writers of the Book they defend.
Chapter, v. 3. The Douay reads – 'If his offering be a holocaust, and of the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish at the door of the testimony to make the Lord favourable to him.' It will be perceived that the words italicised are not contained in, our version at all. The holocaust, or whole burnt offering, is so called because the whole victim was consumed with fire, and ascended, as we are told in verse 9, 'with a sweet savour to the Lord.' What elevated conceptions of the Deity are here conveyed; an infinite God, whose favour is granted to the man who burns the most sheep or oxen; a just and immutable God, to whom the sweet savour of roast mutton is an acceptable expiatory equivalent on behalf of a murderer, a robber, or other criminal.
Chapter ii., vv. 3 and 10. The priests are not neglected in this revelation.
Verse 13. Without salt the sacrifice would be incomplete. Query. Was not the salt rather required by the priests than by God? It is easy to understand why a man wishes for salt to season his meat, but it is not so easy to comprehend the same requisition on the part of a God.
Chapter vi., v. 13. This fire must have been out several times, especially since the last conquest of Jerusalem. Where is it burning at the present time? By reference to chap, ix., v. 24, and chap, x., vv. 1 and 2, it would seem that this fire came from God himself.
Chapter vii., vv. 23 to 27. Those are cruel and useless laws. The punishment of death is strangely disproportioned to the offence; and unless the law has become obsolete, we must wonder that God allows the manufacturers and consumers of articles of food, made from the blood and fat of animals, to escape unpunished in the present day.
Chapter xi. It is difficult to conceive the reason why, in the list of articles fit for food, eels should be forbidden as having no scales, and classed as unclean with hares and swans, while locusts, grasshoppers, and beetles are permitted. The Douay gives entirely different names to some of the prohibited animals, mentioning, amongst others, the griffin, an animal whose existence is much doubted. No naturalist has ever yet described it to us, it is only mentioned in a few old fables.
Chapter xvi., vv. 21 and 22. 'And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away, by the hand of a fit man, into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inherited, and he shall let go the goat into the wilderness.' Is not this supremely ridiculous? and the absurdity is only heightened by the inutility, for I do not find that the Israelites were ever let off from any punishment by reason of the scapegoat. The doctrine of the scapegoat has gained considerably of late; and it is the custom when an outcry is raised against the actors in any public grievance, to offer up some person (who generally is innocent of all participation in the offence) as a scapegoat.
'The Egyptians had a similar custom, as we learn from Herodotus, Book 2, chap. 39, who relates it in these words: —
'"After they have killed the goat, they cut off its head, but they flay the animal's body, after which, having pronounced many imprecations on the head, those who have a market and Grecian merchants dwelling among them, carry it thither and sell it to them; but those who have no Grecian residents to sell it to, throw the head into the fire, pronouncing over it the following imprecations: – 'If any evil is about to befall either those that now sacrifice, or Egypt in general, may it be averted on this head!'" 'The two customs, though not perfectly the same, are so far similar that the one appears to have been derived from the other. The import of both is certainly the same; for in both the goat is made use of as a substitute to draw away calamity from the party sacrificing; in the one case being sent into the wilderness, and in the other consumed by fire.'
Chapter xvii., vv. 3 and 4. The absurdity of this command will be apparent upon the slightest examination. If the Jews were as numerous as is represented when in Egypt, and continued to increase and multiply in the same ratio, they would have filled a very large portion of the earth's surface; but even allowing for biblical exaggeration, it would have been impossible for a people, amounting to several hundreds of thousands, to have all slaughtered their cattle at one spot (the door of the Tabernacle); and if they had done so, judging from the appearance and odour of modern slaughterhouses, I can scarcely think that the 'holiest of holies' would have been at the same time 'the sweetest of sweets.' It would have been still more impossible for each individual to have brought (perhaps from a distance of several miles) each an ox, lamb, or goat killed. It is not at all probable, in a nation so ignorant as the Jews, that the people possessed carts and waggons for the purpose of transporting the dead cattle to and fro, and if they had, the waste of labour would have been enormous. The severe penalty of death is all that is required to make this essentially one of 'God's laws.' What would be said if all the slaughtered cattle in England were, by Act of Parliament, compelled, under penalty of death, to be brought to the door of St. Paul's Cathedral to have the fat and blood taken from them?
Verse 7, chap, xix., w. 26 and 31, chap, xx., vv. 6 and 27. What are devils? If God is the Creator of all things, did he create devils? If so, it is scarcely just to punish us for falling victims to devils, whom God must have made sufficiently powerful to tempt us to the commission of crime. If otherwise, are devils independent existences, because in that case the Deity is not omnipotent. They are neither; devils, angels, gods, familiar spirits and demons, all stand in the same mythological position. They belong to the past, not to the present. They belong to the age of ignorance, not of inquiry. We find in such verses as these the clue to the superstitious fear with which the inhabitants of some little villages still regard certain old men and women; we find in them also the clue to the persecutions for witchcraft in the reign of King James, etc. Strong objections have been urged against the doctrine of devils, demons, and familiar spirits. It is said by Theists that it is contrary to all natural conceptions of the benevolence and mercy of the Deity; that he should have created, and should sustain in existence, beings of the highest intellectual order to be the subjects of eternal misery, not only to themselves, but to all humanity. It is further urged that the doctrine detracts from the power of God by holding forth an almost omnipotent chief of a legion of powerful and mischievous devils, all bent on the destruction of mankind. It is further, and very reasonably, urged that the Jews, especially alter their connection with the Chaldean and Persian nations, had imbibed very extended, and, at the same time, very puerile ideas with regard to the operations of both good and bad spirits. The properties of plants, of mineral waters, of minerals, of certain climatic conditions, the existence of any remarkable phenomena, the insanity of men, or animals, were all attributed to the presence and influence of good and bad spirits. Sound science has exploded these errors; and why should not the whole mass of demonology be rejected as exploded also (vide Farmer on the 'Demoniacs,' and Pye Smith's 'Christian Theology')?
Chapter xxvi. It is worthy of notice that in this chapter, which professes to describe the reward for obedience to God's laws, and the punishment for disobedience, no reference whatever is made to a future state. The rewards are temporal – viz., good harvests, and easy victory over enemies, etc. The punishments are also temporal – viz., painful defeat in battle, sterile land, captivity, starvation, etc Not a word about the soul, or about heaven, or hell; yet a chapter like this seems a place in which, if such a doctrine had been held by the writer, we should expect to find some traces of it; temporal punishment of a very severe kind is threatened, but nothing occurs wnich can in any way lead us to a spiritual punishment; death seems to be the highest penalty, and the author of the Pentateuch did not contemplate the possibility of tormenting men after they were dead – this was reserved for more enlightened ages.
Chapter xxvii., vv. 28 and 29, has been noticed on page 54.
Verses 30 to 33. The clergy are very zealous in conserving their claims under these verses (which of course apply to the whole world). They act as the Lord's representatives, and take the Lord's share to themselves.
The Book of Leviticus only claims our attention under two phases – first, as a revelation from God: and second, as a code of laws. It cannot be a revelation from an immutable God, because it alleges that God is influenced in his conduct by particular kinds of sacrifice: it cannot be a revelation from an all-wise and just God, because it contains trifling and absurd commands enforced by severe penalties; it cannot be a revelation from an all-powerful and infinitely good Creator, because it treats of devils and bad spirits, either having independent or permitted power to commit evil. As a code of laws, it is utterly inapplicable to the present state of society; and, in fact, seems mainly intended to support and benefit the priests (placing the government in their hands), but is utterly without utility as regards the people, the punishments are mostly very disproportionate, and for breaches of the ceremonial law unnecessarily severe.