In this paper the
authenticity and credibility of the Bible are assumed, by which is meant
(1), that its books were written by the
authors to whom they are ascribed, and that their contents are in all
material points as when they came from their hands; and
(2), that those contents are worthy of
entire acceptance as to their statements of fact. Were there need to prove
these assumptions, the evidence is abundant, and abler pens have dealt
with it.
Let it not be supposed,
however, that because these things are assumed their relative importance is
undervalued. On the contrary, they underlie inspiration, and, as President
Patton says, come in on the ground floor. They have to do with the historicity
of the Bible, which for us just now is the basis of its authority. Nothing can
be settled until this is settled, but admitting its settlement which, all
things considered, we now may be permitted to do, what can be of deeper
interest than the question as to how far that authority extends?
This is the inspiration
question, and while so many have taken in hand to discuss the others, may not
one be at liberty to discuss this? It is an old question, so old, indeed, as
again in the usual recurrence of thought to have become new. Our fathers
discussed it, it was the great question once upon a time, it was sifted to the
bottom, and a great storehouse of fact, and argument, and illustration has been
left for us to draw upon in a day of need.
For a long while the
enemy’s attack has directed our energies to another part of the field, but
victory there will drive us back here again. The other questions are outside of
the Bible itself, this is inside. They lead men away from the contents of the
book to consider how they came, this brings us back to consider what they are.
Happy the day when the inquiry returns here, and happy the generation which has
not forgotten how to meet it.
1. DEFINITION OF
INSPIRATION
1. Inspiration is
not revelation. As Dr. Charles Hodge expressed it, revelation is the act of
communicating divine knowledge to the mind, but inspiration is the act of the
same Spirit controlling those who make that knowledge known to others. In
Chalmer’s happy phrase, the one is the influx, the other the efflux. Abraham
received the influx, he was granted a revelation; but Moses was endued with the
efflux, being inspired to record it for our learning. In the one case there was
a flowing in and in the other a flowing out. Sometimes both of these
experiences met in the same person, indeed Moses himself is an illustration of
it, having received a revelation at another time and also the inspiration to
make it known, but it is of importance to distinguish between the two.
2. Inspiration is
not illumination. Every regenerated Christian is illuminated in the simple fact
that he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but every such an one is not also
inspired, but only the writers of the Old and New Testaments. Spiritual
illumination is subject to degrees, some Christians possessing more of it than
others, but, as we understand it, inspiration is not subject to degrees, being
in every case the breath of God, expressing itself through a human personality.
3. Inspiration is
not human genius. The latter is simply a natural qualification, however exalted
it may be in some cases, but inspiration in the sense now spoken of is
supernatural throughout. It is an induement coming upon the writers of the Old and New Testaments
directing and enabling them to write those books, and on no other men, and at
no other time, and for no other purpose. No human genius of whom we ever heard
introduced his writings with the formula, "Thus saith the Lord,” or words to
that effect, and yet such is the common utterance of the Bible authors.
No human genius ever yet
agreed with any other human genius as to the things it most concerns men to
know, and, therefore, however exalted his equipment, it differs not merely in
degree but in kind from the inspiration of the Scriptures. In its mode the
divine agency is inscrutable, though its effects are knowable. We do not
undertake to say just how the Holy Spirit operated on the minds of these
authors to produce these books any more than we undertake to say how He
operates on the human heart to produce conversion, but we accept the one as we
do the other on the testimony that appeals to faith.
4. When we speak
of the Holy Spirit coming upon the men in order to the composition of the
books, it should be further understood that the object is not the inspiration
of the men but the books — not the writers but the writings. It terminates upon
the record, in other words, and not upon the human instrument who made it. To
illustrate: Moses, David, Paul, John, were not always and everywhere inspired,
for then always and everywhere they would have been infallible and inerrant,
which was not the case. They sometimes made mistakes in thought and erred in
conduct. But however fallible and errant they may have been as men compassed
with infirmity like ourselves, such fallibility or error was never under any circumstances
communicated to their sacred writings.
Ecclesiastes is a case in
point, which on the supposition of its Solomonic authorship, is giving us a
history of his search for happiness "under the sun.” Some statements in that
book are only partially true while others are altogether false, therefore it
cannot mean that Solomon was inspired as he tried this or that experiment to
find what no man has been able to find outside of God. But it means that his
language is inspired as he records the various feelings and opinions which
possessed him in the pursuit.
This disposes of a large
class of objections sometimes brought against the doctrine of inspiration —
those, for example, associated with the question as to whether the Bible is the
Word of God or only contains that Word. If by the former be meant that God
spake every word in the Bible, and hence that every word is true, the answer
must be no; but if it be meant that God caused every word in the Bible, true or
false, to be recorded, the answer should be yes. There are words of Satan in
the Bible, words of false prophets, words of the enemies of Christ, and yet
they are God’s words, not in the sense that He uttered them, but that He caused
them to be recorded, infallibly and inerrantly recorded, for our profit. In this sense the Bible
does not merely contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God. Of any merely
human author it is the same. This paper is the writer’s word throughout, and
yet he may quote what other people say to commend them or dispute them. What
they say he records, and in doing so he makes the record his in the sense that
he is responsible for its accuracy.
5. Let it be
stated further in this definitional connection, that the record for whose
inspiration we contend is the original record — the autographs or parchments of
Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any
particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no
translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the
infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual
miracle to secure it.
But does this make
nugatory our contention? Some would say it does, and they would argue
speciously that to insist on the inerrancy of a parchment no living being has
ever seen is an academic question merely, and without value. But do they not
fail to see that the character and perfection of the God-head are involved in
that inerrancy?
Some years ago a
"liberal” theologian, deprecating this discussion as not worth while, remarked
that it was a matter of small consequence whether a pair of trousers were
originally perfect if they were now rent. To which the valiant and witty David
James Burrell replied, that it might be a matter of small consequence to the
wearer of the trousers, but the tailor who made them would prefer to have it
understood that they did not leave his shop that way. And then he added, that
if the Most High must train among knights of the shears He might at least be
regarded as the best of the guild, and One who drops no stitches and sends out
no imperfect work.
Is it not with the
written Word as with the incarnate Word? Is Jesus Christ to be regarded as
imperfect because His character has never been perfectly reproduced before us?
Can He be the incarnate Word unless He were absolutely without sin? And by the
same token, can the scriptures be the written Word unless they were inerrant?
But if this question be
so purely speculative and valueless, what becomes of the science of Biblical
criticism by which properly we set such store today? Do builders drive piles
into the soft earth if they never expect to touch bottom? Do scholars dispute
about the scripture text and minutely examine the history and meaning of single
words, "the delicate coloring of mood, tense and accent,” if at the end there
is no approximation to an absolute? As Dr. George H. Bishop says, does not our
concordance, every time we take it up, speak loudly to us of a once inerrant
parchment? Why do we not possess concordances for the very words of other
books?
Nor is that original
parchment so remote a thing as some suppose. Do not the number and variety of
manuscripts and versions extant render it comparatively easy to arrive at a
knowledge of its text, and does not competent scholarship today affirm that as
to the New Testament at least, we have in 999 cases out of every thousand the
very word of that original text? Let candid consideration be given to these
things and it will be seen that we are not pursuing a phantom in contending for
an inspired autograph of the Bible.
2. EXTENT OF
INSPIRATION
1. The inspiration
of scripture includes the whole and every part of it. There are some who deny
this and limit it to only the prophetic portions, the words of Jesus Christ,
and, say, the profounder spiritual teachings of the epistles. The historical
books in their judgment, and as an example, do not require inspiration because
their data were obtainable from natural sources.
The Bible itself,
however, knows of no limitations, as we shall see: "All scripture is given by
inspiration of God.” The historical data, most of it at least, might have been
obtained from natural sources, but what about the supernatural guidance
required in their selection and narration? Compare, for answer, the records of
Creation, the fall, the deluge, etc., found in Genesis with those recently
discovered by excavations in Bible lands. Do not the results of the pick-axe
and the spade point to the same original as the Bible, and yet do not their
childishness and grotesqueness often bear evidence of the human and sinful
mould through which they ran? Do they not show the need of some power other
than man himself to lead him out of the labyrinth of error into the open ground
of truth? Furthermore, are not the historical books in some respects the most
important in the Bible? Are they not the bases of its doctrine? Does not the
doctrine of sin need for its starting point the record of the fall? Could we so
satisfactorily understand justification did we not have the story of God’s
dealings with Abraham? And what of the priesthood of Christ? Dismiss Leviticus
and what can be made of Hebrews? Is not the Acts of the Apostles historical,
but can we afford to lose its inspiration? And then, too, the historical books
are, in many cases, prophetical as well as historical. Do not the types and
symbols in them show forth the
Saviour in all the varying aspects of His grace ? Has not the story of Israel
the closest relation as type and anti-type to our spiritual redemption? Does
not Paul teach this in 1 Corinthians 10:6-11? And if these things were thus
written for our learning, does not this imply their inspiration?
Indeed, the historical
books have the strongest testimony borne to their importance in other parts of
the Bible. This will appear more particularly as we proceed, but take, in
passing, Christ’s use of Deuteronomy in His conflict with the tempter. Thrice
does He overcome him by a citation from that historical book without note or
comment. Is it not difficult to believe that neither He nor Satan considered it
inspired?
Thus without going
further, we may say, with Dr. DeWitt of Princeton, that it is impossible to
secure the religious infallibility of the Bible — which is all the objector
regards as necessary — if we exclude Bible history from the sphere of its
inspiration. But if we include Bible history at all, we must in the whole of
it, for who is competent to separate its parts?
2. The inspiration
includes not only all the books of the Bible in general but in detail, the form
as well as the substance, the word as well as the thought. This is sometimes
called the verbal theory of inspiration and is vehemently spoken against in
some quarters. It is too mechanical, it degrades the writers to the level of
machines, it has a tendency to make skeptics, and all that.
This last remark,
however, is not so alarming as it sounds. The doctrine of the eternal
retribution of the wicked is said to make skeptics, and also that of a
vicarious atonement, not to mention other revelations of Holy Writ. The natural
mind takes to none of these things. But if we are not prepared to yield the
point in one case for such a reason, why should we be asked to do it in
another?
And as to degrading the
writers to the level of machines, even if it were true, as it is not, why
should fault be found when one considers the result? Which is the more
important, the free agency of a score or two of mortals, or the divinity of
their message? The whole argument is just a spark from the anvil on which the
race is ever trying to hammer out the deification of itself.
But we are insisting upon
no theory — not even the verbal theory — if it altogether excludes the human
element in the transmission of the sacred word. As Dr. Henry B. Smith says,
"God speaks through the personality as well as the lips of His messengers,” and
we may pour into that word "personality” everything that goes to make it — the
age in which the person lived, his environment, his degree of culture, his
temperament and all the rest. As Wayland Hoyt expressed it, "Inspiration is not
a mechanical, crass, bald compulsion of the sacred writers, but rather a
dynamic, divine influence over their freely-acting faculties” in order that the
latter in relation to the subject-matter then in hand may be kept inerrant,
i.e., without mistake or fault. It is limiting the Holy One of Israel to say
that He is unable to do this without turning a human being into an automaton.
Has He who created man as a free agent left himself no opportunity to mould his
thoughts into forms of speech inerrantly expressive of His will, without
destroying that which He has made? And, indeed, wherein resides man’s free
agency, in his mind or in his mouth? Shall we say he is free while God controls
his thought, but that he becomes a mere machine when that control extends to
the expression of his thought?
But returning to the
argument, if the divine influence upon the writers did not extend to the form
as well as the substance of their writings; if, in other words, God gave them
only the thought, permitting them to express it in their own words, what
guarantee have we that they have done so?
An illustration the
writer has frequently used will help to make this clear. A stenographer in a
mercantile house was asked by his employer to write as follows: "Gentlemen: We
misunderstood your letter and will now fill your order.” Imagine the employer’s
surprise, however, when a little later this was set before him for his
signature: "Gentlemen: We misunderstood your letter and will not fill your
order.” The mistake was only of a single letter, but it was entirely subversive
of his meaning. And yet the thought was given clearly to the stenographer, and
the words, too, for that matter. Moreover, the latter was capable and faithful,
but he was human, and it is human to err. Had not his employer controlled his
expression down to the very letter, the thought intended to be conveyed would
have failed of utterance.
In the same way the human
authors of the Bible were men of like passions with ourselves. Their motives
were pure, their intentions good, but even if their subject-matter were the
commonplaces of men, to say nothing of the mysterious and transcendent
revelation of a holy God, how could it be an absolute transcript of the mind
from which it came in the absence of miraculous control?
In the last analysis, it
is the Bible itself, of course, which must settle the question of its
inspiration and the extent of it, and to this we come in the consideration of
the proof, but we may be allowed a final question. Can even God Himself give a
thought to man without the words that clothe it? Are not the two inseparable,
as much so "as a sum and its figures, or a tune and its notes?” Has any case
been known in human history where a healthy mind has been able to create ideas
without expressing them to its own perception? In other words, as Dr. A. J.
Gordon once observed: "To deny that the Holy Spirit speaks in scripture is an
intelligible proposition, but to admit that He speaks, it is impossible to know
what He says except as we have His Words.”
3. PROOF OF
INSPIRATION
1. The inspiration
of the Bible is proven by the philosophy, or what may be called the nature of
the case. The proposition may be stated thus: The Bible is the history of the
redemption of the race, or from the side of the individual, a supernatural
revelation of the will of God to men for their salvation. But it was given to
certain men of one age to be conveyed in writing to other men in different
ages. Now all men experience difficulty in giving faithful reflections of their
thoughts to others because of sin, ignorance, defective memory and the
inaccuracy always incident to the use of language. Therefore it may be easily
deduced that if the revelation is to be communicated precisely as originally
received, the same supernatural power is required in the one case as in the
other. This has been sufficiently elaborated in the foregoing and need not be
dwelt upon again.
2. It may be
proven by the history and character of the Bible, i.e., by all that has been
assumed as to its authenticity and credibility. All that goes to prove these
things goes to prove its inspiration. To borrow in part, the language of the
Westminster Confession, "the heavenliness of its matter, the efficacy of its
doctrine, the unity of its various parts, the majesty of its style and the scope
and completeness of its design” all indicate the divinity of its origin. The
more we think upon it the more we must be convinced that men unaided by the
Spirit of God could neither have conceived, nor put together, nor preserved in
its integrity that precious deposit known as the Sacred Oracles.
3. But the
strongest proof is the declarations of the Bible itself and the inferences to
be drawn from them. Nor is this reasoning in a circle as some might think. In
the case of a man as to whose veracity there is no doubt, no hesitancy is felt
in accepting what he says about himself; and since the Bible is demonstrated to
be true in its statements of fact by unassailable evidence, may we not accept
its witness in its own behalf? Take the argument from Jesus Christ as an
illustration. He was content to be tested by the prophecies that went before on
Him, and the result of that ordeal was the establishment of His claims to be
the Messiah beyond a peradventure. That complex system of prophecies, rendering
collusion or counterfeit impossible, is the incontestable proof that He was
what He claimed to be. But of course, He in whose birth, and life, and death,
and resurrection such marvelous prophecies met their fulfillment, became, from
the hour in which His claims were established, a witness to the divine
authority and infallible truth of the sacred records in which these prophecies
are found. — ( The New Apologetic, by Professor Robert Watts, D.D.)
It is so with the Bible. The character of its contents, the unity of its parts,
the fulfillment of its prophecies, the miracles wrought in its attestation, the
effects it has accomplished in the lives of nations and of men, all these go to
show that it is divine, and if so, that it may be believed in what it says about
itself.
A. ARGUMENT FOR THE
OLD TESTAMENT
To begin with the Old
Testament,
(a)(a)consider how the
writers speak of the origin of their messages. Dr. James H. Brookes is
authority for saying that the phrase, "Thus saith the Lord” or its equivalent
is used by them 2,000 times. Suppose we eliminate this phrase and its necessary
context from the Old Testament in every instance, one wonders how much of the
Old Testament would remain.
(b)(b)Consider how the
utterances of the Old Testament writers are introduced into the New. Take
Matthew 1:22 as an illustration, "Now all this was done that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” It was not the
prophet who spake, but the Lord who spake through the prophet.
(c)(c)Consider how
Christ and His apostles regard the Old Testament. He came "not to destroy but
to fulfill the law and the prophets.” Matthew 5:17. "The Scripture cannot be
broken.” John 10:35. He sometimes used single words as the bases of important
doctrines, twice in Matthew 22, at verses 31,32 and 42-45. The apostles do the
same. See Galatians 3:16, Hebrews 2:8,11 and 12:26,27.
(d)(d)Consider what the
apostles directly teach upon the subject. Peter tells us that "No prophecy ever
came by the will of man, but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy
Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, R.V.).
"Prophecy” here applies
to the word written as is indicated in the preceding verse, and means not
merely the foretelling of events, but the utterances of any word of God without
reference as to time past, present or to come. As a matter of fact, what Peter
declares is that the will of man had nothing to do with any part of the Old
Testament, but that the whole of it, from Genesis to Malachi, was inspired by
God.
Of course Paul says the
same, in language even plainer, in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable.” The phrase "inspiration of God” means
literally God-breathed. The whole of the Old Testament is God-breathed, for it
is to that part of the Bible the language particularly refers, since the New
Testament as such was not then generally known.
As this verse is given
somewhat differently in the Revised Version we dwell upon it a moment longer.
It there reads, "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable,” and the
caviler is disposed to say that therefore some scripture may be inspired and
some may not be, and that the profitableness extends only to the former and not
the latter. But aside from the fact that Paul would hardly be guilty of such a
weak truism as that, it may be stated in reply first, that the King James
rendering of the passage is not only the more consistent scripture, but the
more consistent Greek. Several of the best Greek scholars of the period affirm
this, including some of the revisers themselves who did not vote for the
change. And secondly, even the revisers place it in the margin as of
practically equal authority with their preferred translation, and to be chosen
by the reader if desired. There are not a few devout Christians, however, who
would be willing to retain the rendering of the Revised Version as being
stronger than the King James, and who would interpolate a word in applying it
to make it mean, "Every scripture (because) inspired of God is also
profitable.” We believe that both Gaussen and Wordsworth take this view, two as
staunch defenders of plenary inspiration as could be named.
B. ARGUMENT FOR THE
NEW TESTAMENT
We are sometimes reminded
that, however strong and convincing the argument for the inspiration of the Old
Testament, that for the New Testament is only indirect. "Not one of the
evangelists tells us that he is inspired,” says a certain theological
professor, "and not one writer of an epistle, except Paul.” We shall be
prepared to dispute this statement a little further, but in the meantime let us
reflect that the inspiration of the Old Testament being assured as it is, why
should similar evidence be required for the New?
Whoever is competent to
speak as a Bible authority knows that the unity of the Old and New Testaments
is the strongest demonstration of their common source. They are seen to be not
two books, but only two parts of one book. To take then the analogy of the Old
Testament. The foregoing argument proves its inspiration as a whole, although
there were long periods separating the different writers, Moses and David let
us say, or David and Daniel, the Pentateuch and the Psalms, or the Psalms and
the Prophets. As long, or longer, than between Malachi and Matthew, or Ezra and
the Gospels. If then to carry conviction for the plenary inspiration of the Old
Testament as a whole, it is not necessary to prove it for every book, why, to
carry conviction for the plenary inspiration of the Bible as a whole is it
necessary to do the same?
We quote here a paragraph
or two from Dr. Nathaniel West. He is referring to 2 Timothy 3:16, which he
renders, "Every scripture is inspired of God,” and adds:
"The distributive word
‘Every’ is used not only to particularize each individual scripture of the
Canon that Timothy had studied from his youth, but also to include, along with
the Old Testament the New Testament scriptures extant in Paul’s day, and any
others, such as those that John wrote after him. "The Apostle Peter tells us
that he was in possession, not merely of some of Paul’s Epistles, but ‘all his
Epistles,’ and places them, canonically, in the same rank with what he calls
‘the other scriptures,’ i.e., of equal inspiration and authority with the
‘words spoken before by the Holy Prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and
Savior, through the Apostles.’ 2 Peter 3:2,16.
"Paul teaches the same
co-ordination of the Old and New Testaments. Having referred to the Old as a
unit, in his phrase ‘Holy Scriptures,’ which the revisers translate ‘Sacred
Writings,’ he proceeds to particularize. He tells Timothy that ‘every
scripture,’ whether of Old or New Testament production, ‘is inspired of God.’
Let it be in the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Prophets, the Historical Books,
let it be a chapter or a verse; let it be in the Gospels, the Acts, his own or
Peter’s Epistles, or even John’s writings, yet to be, still each part of the
Sacred Collection is God-given and because of that possesses divine authority
as part of the Book of God.”
We read this from Dr.
West twenty years ago, and rejected it as his dictum. We read it today, with
deeper and fuller knowledge of the subject, and we believe it to be true. It is
somewhat as follows that Dr. Gaussen in his exhaustive "Theopneustia” gives the
argument for the inspiration of the New Testament.
(a) The New
Testament is the later, and for that reason the more important revelation of
the two, and hence if the former were inspired, it certainly must be true of
the latter. The opening verses of the first and second chapters of Hebrews
plainly suggest this: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in
time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto
us by His Son *** Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the
things which we have heard.”
And this inference is
rendered still more conclusive by the circumstance that the New Testament
sometimes explains, sometimes proves, and sometimes even repeals ordinances of
the Old Testament. See Matthew 1:22,23 for an illustration of the first, Acts
13:19 to 39 for the second and Galatians 5:6 for the third. Assuredly these
things would not be true if the New Testament were not of equal, and in a
certain sense, even greater authority than the Old.
(b) The writers of
the New Testament were of an equal or higher rank than those of the Old. That
they were prophets is evident from such allusions as Romans 16:25-27, and
Ephesians 3:4,5. But that they were more than prophets is indicated in the fact
that wherever in the New Testament prophets and apostles are both mentioned,
the last named is always mentioned first (see 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians
2:20, Ephesians 4:11). It is also true that the writers of the New Testament
had a higher mission than those of the Old, since they were sent forth by
Christ, as he had been sent forth by the Father (John 20:21). They were to go,
not to a single nation only (as Israel),
but into all the world (Matthew 28:19). They received the keys of the kingdom
of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And they are to be pre-eminently rewarded in the
regeneration (Matthew 19:28). Such considerations and comparisons as these are
not to be overlooked in estimating the authority by which they wrote.
(c) The writers of
the New Testament were especially qualified for their work, as we see in
Matthew 10:19,20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:2; John 14:26 and John 16:13,14. These
passages will be dwelt on more at length in a later division of our subject,
butjust now it may be noticed
that in some of the instances, inspiration of the most absolute character was
promised as to what they should speak the inference being warranted that none
the less would they be guided in what they wrote. Their spoken words were
limited and temporary in their sphere, but their written utterances covered the
whole range of revelation and were to last forever. If in the one case they
were inspired, how much more in the other?
(d) The writers of
the New Testament directly claim divine inspiration. See Acts 15:23-29, where,
especially at verse 28, James is recorded as saying, "for it seemed good to the
Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things.” Here it is affirmed very clearly that the Holy Ghost is the real
writer of the letter in question and simply using the human instruments for his
purpose. Add to this 1 Corinthians 2:13, where Paul says: "Which things also we
speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” or as the margin of the
Revised Version puts it, "imparting spiritual things to spiritual men.” In 1
Thessalonians 2:13 the same writer says: "For this cause also thank we God
without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us,
ye received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the word of God.”
In 2 Peter 3:2 the apostle places his own words on a level with those of the
prophets of the Old Testament, and in verses 15 and 16 of the same chapter he
does the same with the writings of Paul, classifying them "with the other scriptures.”
Finally, in Revelation 2:7, although it is the Apostle John who is writing, he
is authorized to exclaim: "He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit
saith unto the churches,” and so on throughout the epistles to the seven
churches.
C. ARGUMENT FOR THE
WORDS
The evidence that the
inspiration includes the form as well as the substance of the Holy Scriptures,
the word as well as the thought, may be gathered in this way.
1. There were
certainly some occasions when the words were given to the human agents. Take
the instance of Balaam (Numbers 22:38; 23:12,16).It is clear that this self-seeking prophet thought, i.e.,
desired to speak differently from what he did, but was obliged to speak the
word that God put in his mouth. There are two incontrovertible witnesses to
this, one being Balaam himself and the other God.
Take Saul (1 Samuel
10:10), or at a later time, his messengers (1 Samuel 19:20-24). No one will
claim that there was not an inspiration of the words here. And Caiaphas also
(John 11:49-52), of whom it is expressly said that when he prophesied that one
man should die for the people, "this spake he not of himself.” Who believes
that Caiaphas meant or really knew the significance of what he said? And how
entirely this harmonizes with Christ’s promise to His disciples in Matthew
10:19,20 and elsewhere. "When they deliver you up take no thought (be not
anxious) how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour
what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father
which speaketh in you.”
Mark is even more
emphatic: "Neither do ye premeditate, but whatsoever shall be given you in that
hour, that speak ye, for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.”
Take the circumstance of
the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4-11), when the disciples "began to speak with
other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Parthians, Medes, Elamites,
the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia,
Pamphylia, Egypt, in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, the strangers of Rome,
Cretes and Arabians all testified, "we do here them speak in our tongues the
wonderful works of God!” Did not this inspiration include the words? Did it not
indeed exclude the thought? What clearer example could be desired?
To the same purport
consider Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 about the gift of tongues, lie
that speaketh in an unknown tongue, in the Spirit speaketh mysteries, but no
man understandeth him, therefore he is to pray that he may interpret. Under
some circumstances, if no interpreter be present, he is to keep silence in the
church and speak only to himself and to God.
But better still,
consider the utterance of 1 Peter 1:10,11, where he speaks of them who
prophesied of the grace that should come, as "searching what, or what manner of
time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when He testified
beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow, to whom
it was revealed,” etc. "Should we see a student who, having taken down the lecture
of a profound philosopher, was now studying diligently to comprehend the sense
of the discourse which he had written, we should understand simply that he was
a pupil and not a master; that he had nothing to do with originating either the
thoughts or the words of the lecture, but was rather a disciple whose province
it was to understand what he had transcribed, and so be able to communicate it
to others.
"And who can deny that
this is the exact picture of what we have in this passage from Peter? Here were
inspired writers studying the meaning of what they themselves had written. With
all possible allowance for the human peculiarities of the writers, they must
have been reporters of what they heard, rather than formulators of that which
they had been made to understand.” — A. J. Gordon in "The Ministry of the
Spirit,” pp. 173,174.