Far from being embarrassed by the doctrine of full-orbed predestination, Calvin insists that volition and permission — though distinguishable from a human perspective — are identical for the utterly sovereign God [Calvin, Institutes, 3.22.11.]. Moreover, since God wills all that He permits, He determines reprobation in His eternal decree in the same manner as election, namely, out of His sovereign will and good pleasure [Calvin, Institutes, 3.21.5, 7; 3.22.6.].

JOEL R. BEEKE, DEBATED ISSUES IN SOVEREIGN PREDESTINATION: EARLY LUTHERAN PREDESTINATION, CALVINIAN REPROBATION, AND VARIATION SIN GENEVAN LAPSARIANISM, 85.

The doctrine of reprobation acts as a hinge upon which the entire doctrine of God’s sovereignty in salvation turns. If He chose some for salvation, then He must have chosen not to save others. To deny that God chose not to save some people is to raise the question whether God made any choice at all about whom He would save. One’s view of reprobation functions as a window into his understanding of election. . . .

In his definitive 1559 edition of the Institutes, Calvin unequivocally states: “Election itself could not stand except as set over against reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts into salvation; it will be highly absurd to say that others acquire by chance or obtain by their own effort what election alone confers on a few. Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.”

Joel R. Beeke, Debated Issues in Sovereign Predestination: Early Lutheran Predestination, Calvinian Reprobation, and Variation sin Genevan Lapsarianism, 83-84.

The chief interest of the Assembly centred in the processes accusing all the bishops of various derelictions of duty, breaches of law, transgressions, and horrible vices. With great foresight the Moderator, Henderson, gravely charged the Committee who were appointed to frame the indictments to see that they proceeded ‘accurately and orderlie, and that it may be upon some sure grounds, for our proceedings with be strichted [tested] to the uttermost.’ This judicial charge itself indicates the care with which the Covenanters proceeded to their solemn trial of the hierarchy.

J. K. Hewison, The Covenanters, Vol. 1, 299.

See also:

Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland 1638-1842

Records of the Kirk of Scotland containing the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies from 1638 by Alexander Peterkin

The rigour [sic] used against the Puritans had only created a popular feeling of esteem for them, and an impatience of temper at the repressive measures used against them.

J. K. Hewison, The Covenanters, Vol. 1, 275.

In separating themselves from them [i.e., heathen, papists, heretics], believers thus exercise communion with the church and her members. Part of the church is triumphant in heaven and part of it is militant upon earth. A believer exercises communion with both.

WILHELMUS À BRAKEL, THE CHRISTIAN’S REASONABLE SERVICE, VOL. 2, 98.

Introduction

The history of Pentateuchal Criticism is complex.[1] In the recent history of Pentateuchal Criticism, the “Documentary Hypothesis” has come into popular opinion.

“Documentary Hypothesis is a catchall name covering the many proposals that emerged to cope with the belief that the positing of two or more sources could perhaps explain puzzling features of the Pentateuch.”[2]

What puzzling features of the Pentateuch? As David W. Baker explains “Numerous items within the Pentateuch itself have caused people to question its Mosaic authorship,” specifically the following items: “Anachronisms,” “Divine Names,” “Duplicate Narratives,” “Literary Style and Vocabulary,” and “Contradictions and Divergences.”[3]

The aforementioned “many proposals” are scholarly fruit from interpretive strategies for dealing with the variety of “puzzling features.” Thus, biblical scholars have crafted claims about the documents/sources at back the Pentateuch. This obviously has significant implications upon its authorship and/or process of compilation.

In Pentateuchal studies, this has led to a “process of fragmenting the Pentateuch into supposedly underlying sources.”[4] As one author has observed, “The overwhelming tendency in biblical scholarship has been to explain the origin of the Pentateuch as the outcome of a process of compilations of various documents from different periods in Israelite history.”[5]

Assessment and Critique

Why is the “Documentary Hypothesis” not a viable approach to the composition/authorship of the Pentateuch? An assessment and critique of the Documentary Hypothesis must consider each of the “numerous items”/“puzzling features” that has caused biblical scholars to question Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Scholars who have examined these and have found the arguments and claims less than compelling.[6] Documentary theories have been met by “vigorous opposition from those convinced of the essential Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch,”[7] e.g., T. Desmond Alexander writes about how R. N. Whybray’s “detailed assessment” of the Documentary Hypothesis illustrates the (1) faulty underlying presuppositions, (2) arbitrary criteria for identifying underlying sources, and (3) questionable application of the criteria.[8] Other authors note how close readings of the Pentateuch, especially in its Ancient Near East context, relativize the claims of documentary theories, i.e., the varied divine names are not criteria for identify underlying documents, but rather they are typical in Ancient Near East literary works, and duplicate narratives, rather than pointing to underlying documents/sources, are organically linked to overarching literary purposes and have a “rhetorical function.”[9]

Essential Mosaic Authorship

The authorship of the Pentateuch was traditionally ascribed to Moses. However, there is “widespread agreement that the Pentateuch, as it now stands, is an edited work and not a piece of literature that was penned ab initio by one individual.”[10] “Essential Mosaic authorship” accounts for the following: the “clear statements that Moses was responsible for writing substantial parts of the Pentateuch,”[11] underlying oral and/or written sources that preceded Moses’ life,[12] and an editor after the time of Moses but utilizing Mosaic documents.[13] Contrary to the unsupported, purported “late sources” and clams of proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis camp, the Pentateuch is not a late compilation utilizing late sources, but rather it is a unified literary work that in many places explicitly self-attests Mosaic authorship. As Geerhardus Vos noted in his work arguing for Mosaic origin of the Pentateuchal Codes:

A detailed examination of the facts must furnish the basis upon which all debate must be conducted between conservative and destructive critics.[14]

As briefly mentioned in the assessment above, many scholars have found lacking the facts/claims of the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis, whereas they have found compelling the facts/claims arguing for “essential Mosaic authorship.”

[1] For a concise yet detailed history of Pentateuchal Criticism and the rise of the Documentary Hypothesis, see T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 3^rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 7-31.

[2] Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien, Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 1.

[3] “Source Criticism” by David W. Baker in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 800-801.

[4] “Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament” by R. K. Harrison in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1, Introductory Articles, gen. ed. Frank. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 240. The nomenclature for some of these underlying sources is “the now-famous sequence J, E, D, P” (T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land, 17). The oldest source is the Yahwist source (J); another ancient source is called the Elohist source (E); the fifth book of the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy, is another source (D); finally, a “priestly writer (or school of writers) who composed the legal sections and the history bound up with laws” is the “P” source. One of the most important shared traits of these documents/sources is that all were finished and/or came about after the time of Moses (Clyde T. Francisco, Introducing the Old Testament, revised edition (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1977), 55-56).

[5] “Pentateuch” by David J. A. Clines, Oxford Guide to the Bible, eds. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 580.

[6] For example, the esteemed rabbi and biblical scholar “Umberto Cassuto made a frontal attack upon the documentary hypothesis in 1941. In this work he claimed to have destroyed every argument upon which the hypothesis rests” (Clyde T. Francisco, Introducing the Old Testament, 58).

[7] “Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament” by R. K. Harrison in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1, Introductory Articles, general editor Frank. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 240.

[8] T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land, 61.

[9] “Source Criticism” by David W. Baker in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 803.

[10] “Authorship of the Pentateuch” by T. Desmond Alexander in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 62-63.

[11] “Authorship of the Pentateuch” by T. Desmond Alexander in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 70.

[12] E.g., In Numbers 21:14, an underlying source is mentioned: “Book of the Wars of the LORD.”

[13] Pace proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis, a late editor does not necessitate late sources; see comments in “Authorship of the Pentateuch” by T. Desmond Alexander in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 64.

[14] Geerhardus Vos, The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1886), 11.

You must be very much on guard for unanticipated sins which overtake you by surprise, and even more for presumptuous sins. This is very detrimental to holy familiarity, for the holy Jesus will withdraw Himself, and the soul will lose her liberty and her suitable frame. And if one has fallen, he must hastily arise and seek atonement and satisfaction in Christ’s ransom.

WILHELMUS À BRAKEL, THE CHRISTIAN’S REASONABLE SERVICE, VOL. 2, 96.

Psalm 46 

Verses 1-7

God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah.

There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early. The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he utter his voice, the earth melted. The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

Verses 8-11

Come, behold the works of the Lord, what desolations he hath made in the earth. He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire. Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

There are two distinct sections to Psalm 46.   Verses 1-7 are a corporate meditation upon the conflicts and flux of life. However, the meditation is from the perspective of knowing that God is near and that God is our help. Thus, this meditation leads to doxology — a corporate declaration — the “refrain” in verse 7: “The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge!”

Verses 8-11 takes the prior doxology and applies it to a future vision of peace, a meditation on how God will sovereignly bring an end to war. The prior confession in divine help, in verses 1-7, is the foundation for the subsequent meditation upon the optimistic view of the future. Thus, this additional meditation leads to additional doxology — another corporate declaration — the repeated “refrain” in verse 11: “The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge!”

The corporate nature of this Psalm is obvious; the plurals “our” and “we” and “us” are used throughout, and are reinforced by the militaristic refrain “the Lord of hosts”, i.e., “the Lord of armies is with us.” Both sections, verses 1-7 and 8-11, conclude with the same “refrain” which emphasizes God’s divine presence and help. Israel is proclaiming that God is near. Israel is proclaiming that God is her divine help, see verse 5 — “God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved.” Israel is also proclaiming assurance in the fact that God is her divine help, see verse 10 – “Be still, and know that I am God.”

In this Psalm Israel meditates upon conflicts and flux, but Israel meditates in light of her knowledge that God is present. Israel’s confession of faith in divine help and her corresponding assurance organically flows from her knowledge and trust in the gracious presence of God. This should also be the case today for Christians: we know that God is near to us in Jesus Christ, and that God through Jesus Christ is our divine help. God has “delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:13-14). Indeed, because of Jesus Christ, the Lord of hosts is with the Church. Indeed, because of Jesus Christ, God is refuge and strength of the Church.

The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Therefore, consider how Psalm 46 is:

•  Profitable for doctrine because we are reminded of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, which ought to be a constant source of comfort. God is sovereign and he is sovereign all the time! Even if the world were to “fall apart” and chaotic waters cover the mountains, God would still be our refuge and strength! This means that no matter what happens to us in life we have assurance that God is near and that God is our help.
•  Profitable for correction because this Psalm will most forcefully confront us when we are walking through the “hard providences” of life — those times which are more-often-than-not a road or a type of journey that we never would have chosen of our own volition. It is especially easy (tempting) during those times to doubt that God is near and that God is in control. And yet this Psalm mentions conflicts (meditates upon them!), but only in order to declare that such uncertainties are overshadowed by God’s presence and sovereign care. This Psalm looks affliction in the eye from the vantage point of dwelling in the presence of God. And from that vantage point Psalm 46 provides correction: even when we emotionally feel like God is distant and not in control, that is when we learn to trust God and place our assurance in God. In Psalm 46, when we are plagued by doubts, God speaks to us, and reminds us that he is near and that we need to place our trust in Him. We learn to do this by patiently and expectantly obeying God, who commands us to “be still” and know that He is God.
•  Profitable for instruction because it teaches us that God will not only be our strength and refuge today but also in the optimistic future (verses 8-10). God’s sovereignty is also over the future, and God has revealed that He will be victorious in the future, and thus, that it will be peaceful – “He maketh wars to cease” (verse 9) . . . I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth” (verse 10). Christians are wise to be instructed by verse 10: the God who is near is the “Lord of hosts” of a peaceful future, and because of the work of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, it is a peaceful Christian future. Through the work of the Cross and the preaching of the Gospel, God is making wars to cease, breaking bows, cutting spears in half, and burning chariots with fire. All conflicts have a shelf life and expiration date.

As Scottish minister John McCheyne said, writing in a pastoral letter in 1839, “It is no small joy to be able to sing Psalm 46 in the dark and cloudy day.”  The realization that God through Jesus Christ is near and our divine help is “no small joy,” particularly when conflict, affliction, and the flux of life are all too near. In such turbulent times we need to meditate — “Be still, and know that I am God.” And our meditation will lead to doxology, we will join the congregation and corporately declare the gracious presence of our Lord and Savior: “The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge!”

The soul who thus beholds Jesus, the heart going out in love towards Him, will share with her Beloved the frame of her heart, her love, and her grief for not loving Him more. She will bring all her needs to Him, reveal her desires to Him, make supplication to Him, plead affectionately with Him, and beg of Him sweetly for the fulfillment of her desire. She listens to what Jesus has to say to her, turns herself to His Word, deeming it to be the voice of her Beloved. This is particularly true when with clarity, power, and sweetness He impresses a text of Scripture upon her heart, causing her to speak to Him in return, giving expression to all the questions generated by her love, which in turn causes Jesus to reply to her. In doing so the soul will lose and forget herself, and it will grieve her if this dialogue is broken off, or if her body is too weak to endure the intensity of her desires as well as the kisses and influences of His love.

WILHELMUS À BRAKEL, THE CHRISTIAN’S REASONABLE SERVICE, VOL. 2, 95.

The Lord Jesus not only gives many and excellent benefits to His church, but He and His Church mutually belong to each other, are united with each other—and exercise communion with each other, all of which is wondrous beyond comparison. These three elements comprehend all true felicity.

All true believers are the property of Christ, and Christ is the property of all true believers. This is indicated by the possessive pronouns “mine” and “his,” which so frequently are employed in the Song of Solomon, as well as in many other texts. “My beloved is mine, and I am His” (Song 2:16); “Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled” (Song 5:2).

This is first of all based and founded upon a gift. The Father has given them to the Son. “Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me” (John 17:6); “Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession” (Ps 2:8).

The Father has likewise given the Son to believers. “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given” (Isa 9:6); “And gave Him to be the head over all things to the church” (Eph 1:22).

WILHELMUS À BRAKEL, THE CHRISTIAN’S REASONABLE SERVICE, VOL. 2, 87.