2. The Bible
plainly teaches that inspiration extends to its words. We spoke of Balaam as
uttering that which God put in his mouth, but the same expression is used by
God Himself with reference to His prophets. When Moses would excuse himself
from service because he was not eloquent, He who made man’s mouth said,
"Now therefore go, and I
will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say” (Exodus 4:10-12).
And Dr. James H. Brookes’ comment is very pertinent.
"God did not say I will
be with thy mind, and teach thee what thou shalt think; but I will be with thy
mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say. This explains why, forty years
afterwards, Moses said to Israel,
‘Ye shall not add unto the word I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought
from it.’ (Deuteronomy 4:2.)”
Seven times Moses tells
us that the tables of stone containing the commandments were the work of God,
and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables (Exodus 31:16).
Passing from the
Pentateuch to the poetical books we find David saying, "The Spirit of the Lord
spake by me, and His word was in my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:1,2).
He, too, does not say,
God thought by me, but spake by me.
Coming to the prophets,
Jeremiah confesses that, like Moses, he recoiled from the mission on which he
was sent and for the same reason. He was a child and could not speak. "Then the
Lord put forth His hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold
I have put My word in thy mouth” (Jeremiah 1:6-9).
All of which
substantiates the declaration of Peter quoted earlier, that "no prophecy ever
came by the will of man, but man spake from God, being moved by the Holy
Spirit.” Surely, if the will of man had nothing to do with the prophecy, he
could not have been at liberty in the selection of the words.
So much for the Old
Testament, but when we reach the New, we have the same unerring and verbal
accuracy guaranteed to the apostles by the Son of God, as we have seen. And we
have the apostles making claim of it, as when Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:12,13
distinguishes between the "things” or the thoughts which God gave him and the
words in which he expressed them, and insisting on the divinity of both; "Which
things also we speak,” he says, "not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” In Galatians 3:16, following the example of
His divine Master, he employs not merely a single word, but a single letter of
a word as the basis of an argument for a great doctrine. The blessing of
justification which Abraham received has become that of the believer in Jesus
Christ. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And
to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
The writer of the epistle
to the Hebrews bases a similar argument on the word "all” in Hebrews 1:8, on
the word "one” in Hebrews 1:11, and on the phrase "yet once more” in Hebrews
12:26,27.
To recur to Paul’s
argument in Galatians, Archdeacon Farrar in one of his writings denies that by
any possibility such a Hebraist as he, and such a master of Greek usage could
have argued in this way. He says Paul must have known that the plural of the
Hebrew and Greek terms for "seed” is never used by Hebrew or Greek writers to
designate human offspring. It means, he says, various kinds of grain. His
artlessness is amusing. We accept his estimate of Paul’s knowledge of Hebrew
and Greek, says Professor Watts, he was certainly a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and
as to his Greek he could not only write it but speak it as we know, and quote
what suited his purpose from the Greek poets. But on this supposition we feel
justified in asking Dr. Farrar whether a lexicographer in searching Greek
authors for the meanings they attached to spermata, the Greek for "seeds,”
would not be inclined to add "human offspring” on so good an authority as Paul?
Nor indeed would they be limited to his authority, since Sophocles uses it in
the same way, and Aeschylus. "I was driven away from my country by my own
offspring” (spermata) — literally by my own seeds, is what the former makes one
of his characters say. Dr. Farrar’s rendering of spermata in Galatians 3:16 on
the other hand would make nonsense if not sacrilege. "He saith not unto various
kinds of grain as of many, but as of one, and to thy grain, which is Christ.”
"Granting then, what we thank no man for granting, that spermata means human
offspring, it is evident that despite all opinions to the contrary, this
passage sustains the teaching of an inspiration of Holy Writ extending to its
very words.”
3. But the most
unique argument for the inspiration of the words of scripture is the relation
which Jesus Christ bears to them. In the first place, He Himself was inspired
as to His words. In the earliest reference to His prophetic office (Deuteronomy
18:18), Jehovah says,"I will
put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak *** all that I shall command
Him.” A limitation on His utterance which Jesus everywhere recognizes. "As My Father
hath taught Me, I speak these things;” "the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a
commandment what I should say, and what I should speak;” "whatsoever I speak
therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak;” "I have given unto
them the words which Thou gavest Me,” "the words that I speak unto you, they
are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63; 8:26,28,40; John 12:49,50).
The thought is still more
impressive as we read of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the God-man. "The
Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel
to the poor;” "He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the
apostles;” "the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto Him;” "these
things saith He that holdeth the seven stars in His right hand;” "He that hath
an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Luke 4:18; Acts
1:2; Revelation 1:1; 2:1,11). If the incarnate Word needed the unction of the
Holy Ghost to give to men the revelation He received from the Father in Whose
bosom He dwells; and if the agency of the same Spirit extended to the words He
spake in preaching the gospel to the meek or dictating an epistle, how much
more must these things be so in the case of ordinary men when engaged in the
same service? With what show of reason can one contend that any Old or New
Testament writer stood; so far as his words were concerned, in need of no such
agency.” — The New Apologetic, pp.67,68.
In the second place He
used the scriptures as though they were inspired as to their words. In Matthew
22:31,32, He substantiates the doctrine of the resurrection against the
skepticism of the Sadducees by emphasizing the present tense of the verb "to
be,” i.e., the word "am” in the language of Jehovah to Moses at the burning
bush. In verses 42-45 of the same chapter He does the Same for His own Deity by
alluding to the second use of the word "Lord” in Psalm 110. "The LORD said unto
my Lord *** If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?” In John 10:34-36,
He vindicates Himself from the charge of blasphemy by saying, "Is it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods, unto whom the
word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the
Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I
said, I am the Son of God?”
We have already seen Him
(in Matthew 4) overcoming the tempter in the wilderness by three quotations
from Deuteronomy without note or comment except, "It is written.” Referring to
which Adolphe Monod says, "I know of nothing in the whole history of humanity,
nor even in the field of divine revelation, that proves more clearly than this
the inspiration of the scriptures. What! Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and
earth, calling to his aid in that solemn moment Moses his servant? He who
speaks from heaven fortifying himself against the temptations of hell by the
word of him who spake from earth?
How can we explain that
spiritual mystery, that wonderful reversing of the order of things, if for
Jesus the words of Moses were not the words of God rather than those of men?
How shall we explain it if Jesus were not fully aware that holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost?
"I do not forget the
objections which have been raised against the inspiration of the scriptures,
nor the real obscurity with which that inspiration is surrounded; if they
sometimes trouble your hearts, they have troubled mine also. But at such times,
in order to revive my faith, I have only to glance at Jesus glorifying the scriptures
in the wilderness; and I have seen that for all who rely upon Him, the most
embarrassing of problems is transformed into a historical fact, palpable and
clear. Jesus no doubt was aware of the difficulties connected with the
inspiration of the scriptures, but did this prevent Him from appealing to their
testimony with unreserved confidence? Let that which was sufficient for Him
suffice for you. Fear not that the rock which sustained the Lord in the hour of
His temptation and distress will give way because you lean too heavily upon
it.”
In the third place,
Christ teaches that the scriptures are inspired as to their words. In the
Sermon on the Mount He said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto
you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Here is testimony confirmed by an oath,
for "verily” on the lips of the Son of Man carries such force. He affirms the
indestructibility of the law, not its substance merely but its form, not the
thought but the word. "One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.”
The "jot” means the yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, while the
"tittle” means the horn, a short projection in certain letters extending the
base line beyond the upright one which rests upon it. A reader unaccustomed to
the Hebrew needs a strong eye to see the tittle, but Christ guarantees that as
a part of the sacred text neither the tittle nor the yod shall perish.
The elder Lightfoot, the
Hebraist and rabbinical scholar of the Westminster Assembly time, has called
attention to an interesting story of a certain letter yod found in the text of
Deuteronomy 32:18. It is in the word teshi, to forsake, translated in the King
James as "unmindful.” Originally it seems to have been written smaller even
than usual, i.e., undersized, and yet notwithstanding the almost infinite
number of times in which copies have been made, that little yod stands there
today just as it ever did. Lightfoot spoke of it in the middle of the
seventeenth century and although two more centuries and a half have passed
since then with all their additional copies of the book, yet it still retains
its place in the sacred text. Its diminutive size is referred to in the margin,
"but no hand has dared to add a hair’s breadth to its length,” so that we can
still employ his words, and say that it is likely to remain there forever.
The same scholar speaks
of the effect a slight change in the form of a Hebrew letter might produce in
the substance of the thought for which it stands. He takes as an example two
words, "Chalal” and "Halal,” which differ from each other simply in their first
radicals. The "Ch” in Hebrew is expressed by one letter the same as "H,” the
only distinction being a slight break or opening in the left limb of the
latter. It seems too trifling to notice, but let that line be broken where it
should be continuous, and "Thou shalt not profane the Name of thy God” in
Leviticus 18:21, becomes "Thou shalt not praise the Name of thy God.” Through
that aperture, however small, the entire thought of the Divine mind oozes out,
so to speak, and becomes quite antagonistic to what was designed. This shows
how truly the thought and the word expressing it are bound together, and that
whatever affects the one imperils the other. As another says, "The bottles are
not the wine, but if the bottles perish, the wine is sure to be spilled.” It
may seem like narrow-mindedness to contend for this, and an evidence of
enlightenment or liberal scholarship to treat it with indifference, but we
should be prepared to take our stand with Jesus Christ in the premises, and if
necessary, go outside the camp bearing our reproach.
4. DIFFICULTIES AND
OBJECTIONS
That there are
difficulties in the way of accepting a view of inspiration like this goes
without saying. But to the finite mind there must always be difficulties
connected with a revelation from the Infinite, and it can not be otherwise. This
has been mentioned before. Men of faith, and it is such we are addressing, and
not men of the world, do not wait to understand or resolve all the difficulties
associated with other mysteries of the Bible before accepting them as divine,
and why should they do so in this case?
Moreover, Archbishop
Whately’s dictum is generally accepted, that we are not obliged to clear away
every difficulty about a doctrine in order to believe it, always provided that
the facts on which it rests are true. And particularly is this the case where
the rejection of such a doctrine involves greater difficulties than its belief,
as it does here.
For if this view of
inspiration be rejected, what have its opponents to give in its place? Do they
realize that any objections to it are slight in comparison with those to any
other view that can be named? And do they realize that this is true because
this view has the immeasurable advantage of agreeing with the plain
declarations of Scripture on the subject? In other words, as Dr. Burrell says,
those who assert the inerrancy of the scripture autographs do so on the
authority of God Himself, and to deny it is of a piece with the denial that
they teach the forgiveness of sins or the resurrection from the dead. No amount
of exegetical turning and twisting can explain away the assertions already
quoted in these pages, to say nothing of the constant undertone of evidence we
find in the Bible everywhere to their truth.
And speaking of this
further, are we not justified in requiring of the objector two things? First,
on any fair basis of scientific investigation, is he not obliged to dispose of
the evidence here presented before he impugns the doctrine it substantiates?
And second, after having disposed of it, is he not equally obligated to present
the scriptural proof of whatever other view of inspiration he would have us
accept? Has he ever done this, and if not, are we not further justified in
saying that it can not be done? But let us consider some of the difficulties.
1. There are the
so-called discrepancies or contradictions between certain statements of the
Bible and the facts of history or natural science. The best way to meet these
is to treat them separately as they are presented, but when you ask for them
you are not infrequently met with silence. They are hard to produce, and when
produced, who is able to say that they belong to the original parchments? As we
are not contending for an inerrant translation, does not the burden of proof
rest with the objector?
But some of these "discrepancies”
are easily explained. They do not exist between statements of the Bible and
facts of science, but between erroneous interpretations of the Bible and
immature conclusions of science. The old story of Galileo is in point, who did
not contradict the Bible in affirming that the earth moved round the sun but
only the false theological assumptions about it. In this way advancing light
has removed many of these discrepancies, and it is fair to presume with Dr.
Charles Hodge that further light would remove all.
2. There are the
differences in the narratives themselves. In the first place, the New Testament
writers sometimes change important words in quoting from the Old Testament,
which it is assumed could not be the case if in both instances the writers were
inspired. But it is forgotten that in the scriptures we are dealing not so much
with different human authors as with one Divine Author. It is a principle in
ordinary literature that an author may quote himself as he pleases, and give a
different turn to an expression here and there as a changed condition of
affairs renders it necessary or desirable. Shall we deny this privilege to the
Holy Spirit? May we not find, indeed, that some of these supposed misquotations
show such progress of truth, such evident application of the teaching of an
earlier dispensation to the circumstances of a later one, as to afford a
confirmation of their divine origin rather than an argument against it?
We offered illustrations
of this earlier, but to those would now add Isaiah 59:20 quoted in Romans
11:26, and Amos 9:11 quoted in Acts 15:16. And to any desiring to further
examine the subject we would recommend the valuable work of Professor Franklin
Johnson, of ChicagoUniversity, entitled "The
Quotations in the New Testament from the Old.”
Another class of
differences, however, is where the same event is sometimes given differently by
different writers. Take that most frequently used by the objectors, the
inscription on the Cross, recorded by all the evangelists and yet differently
by each. How can such records be inspired, it is asked.
It is to be remembered in
reply, that the inscription was written in three languages calling for a
different arrangement of the words in each case, and that one evangelist may
have translated the Hebrew, and another the Latin, while a third recorded the
Greek. It is not said that any one gave the full inscription, nor can we affirm
that there was any obligation upon them to do So. Moreover, no one contradicts
any other, and no one says what is untrue.
Recalling what was said
about our having to deal not with different human authors but with one Divine
Author, may not the Holy Spirit here have chosen to emphasize some one
particular fact, or phase of a fact of the inscription for a specific and important
end? Examine the records to determine what this fact may have been. Observe
that whatever else is omitted, all the narratives record the momentous
circumstances that the Sufferer on the cross was THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Could there have been a
cause for this? What was the charge preferred against Jesus by His accusers?
Was He not rejected and crucified because He said He was the King of the Jews?
Was not this the central idea Pilate was providentially guided to express in
the inscription? And if so, was it not that to which the evangelists should
bear witness? And should not that witness have been borne in a way to dispel
the thought of collusion in the premises? And did not this involve a variety of
narrative which should at the same time be in harmony with truth and fact? And
do we not have this very thing in the four gospels?
These accounts
supplement, but do not contradict each other. We place them before the eye in
the order in which they are recorded.
This is Jesus THE KING OF THE
JEWS
THE KING OF THE JEWS
This is THE KING OF THE JEWS
Jesus of Nazareth THE KING OF THE JEWS
The entire inscription
evidently was "This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews,” but we submit
that the foregoing presents a reasonable argument for the differences in the records.
3. There is the
variety in style. Some think that if all the writers were alike inspired and
the inspiration extended to their words, they must all possess the same style
as if the Holy Spirit had but one style!
Literary style is a
method of selecting words and putting sentences together which stamps an
author’s work with the influence of his habits, his condition in society, his
education, his reasoning, his experience, his imagination and his genius. These
give his mental and moral physiognomy and make up his style.
But is not God free to
act with or without these fixed laws? There are no circumstances which tinge
His views or reasoning’s, and He has no idiosyncrasies of speech, and no mother
tongue through which He expresses His character, or leaves the finger mark of
genius upon His literary fabrics.
It is a great fallacy
then, as Dr. Thomas Armitage once said, to suppose that uniformity of verbal
style must have marked God’s authorship in the Bible, had He selected its
words. As the author of all styles, rather does he use them all at his
pleasure. He bestows all the powers of mental individuality upon His
instruments for using the scriptures, and then uses their powers as He will to
express His mind by them. Indeed, the variety of style is a necessary proof of
the freedom of the human writers, and it is this which among other things
convinces us that, however controlled by the Holy Spirit, they were not mere
machines in what they wrote.
Consider God’s method in
nature. In any department of vegetable life there may be but one genus, while
its members are classified into a thousand species. From the bulbous root come
the tulip, the hyacinth, the crocus, and the lily in every shape and shade,
without any cause either of natural chemistry or culture. It is exclusively
attributable to the variety of styles which the mind of God devises. And so in
the sacred writings. His mind is seen in the infinite variety of expression
which dictates the wording of every book. To quote Armitage again, "I cannot
tell how the Holy Spirit suggested the words to the writers any more than some
other man can tell how He suggested the thoughts to them. But if diversity of
expression proves that He did not choose the words, the diversity of ideas
proves that He did not dictate the thoughts, for the one is as varied as the
other.”
William Cullen Bryant was
a newspaper man but a poet; Edmund Clarence Stedman was a Wall Street broker
and also a poet. What a difference in style there was between their editorials
and commercial letters on the one hand, and their poetry on the other! Is God
more limited than a man?
4. There are
certain declarations of scripture itself. Does not Paul say in one or two
places "I speak as a man,” or "After the manner of man?” Assuredly, but is he
not using the arguments common among men for the sake of elucidating a point?
And may he not as truly be led of the Spirit to do that, and to record it, as
to do or say anything else? Of course, what he quotes from men is not of the
same essential value as what he receives directly from God, but the record of
the quotation is as truly inspired. There are two or three ether utterances of
his of this character in the 7th chapter of 1 Corinthians, where he
is treating of marriage. At verse 6 he says, "I speak this by permission, not
of commandment,” and what he means has no reference to the source of his
message but the subject of it. In contradiction to the false teaching of some,
he says Christians are permitted to marry, but not commanded to do so. At verse
10 he says, "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,” while at
verse 12 there follows, "but to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” Does he
declare himself inspired in the first instance, and not in the second? By no
means, but in the first he is alluding to what the Lord spake on the subject
while here in the flesh, and in the second to what he, Paul, is adding thereto
on the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking through him. In other words,
putting his own utterances on equality with those of our Lord, he simply
confirms their inspiration.
At verse 40 he uses a
puzzling expression, "I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” As we are
contending only for an inspired record, it would seem easy to say that here he
records a doubt as to whether he was inspired, and hence everywhere else in the
absence of such record of doubt the inspiration is to be assumed. But this
would be begging the question, and we prefer the solution of others that the
answer is found in the condition of the Corinthian church at that time. His
enemies had sought to counteract his teachings, claiming that they had the
Spirit of God. Referring to the claim, he says with justifiable irony, "I think
also that I have the Spirit Of God” (R. V.). "I think” in the mouth of one
having apostolic authority, says Professor Watts, may be taken as carrying the
strongest assertion of the judgment in question. The passage is something akin
to another in the same epistle at the 14th chapter, verse 37, where he says,
"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge
that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
Time forbids further
amplification on the difficulties and objections nor is itnecessary, since there is not one that has
not been met satisfactorily to the man of God and the child of faith again and
again. But there is an obstacle to which we would call attention before
concluding — not a difficulty or objection, but a real obstacle, especially to
the young and insufficiently instructed. It is the illusion that this view of
inspiration is held only by the unlearned. An illusion growing out of still
another as to who constitute the learned.
There is a popular
impression that in the sphere of theology and religion these latter are limited
for the most part to the higher critics and their relatives, and the more
rationalistic and iconoclastic the critic the more learned he is esteemed to
be. But the fallacy of this is seen in that the qualities which make for a
philologist, an expert in human languages, or which give one a wide
acquaintance with literature of any kind, in other words the qualities of the
higher Critic, depend more on memory than judgment, and do not give the
slightest guarantee that their possessors can draw a sound conclusion from what
they know.
As the author of "Faith
and Inspiration” puts it, the work of such a scholar is often like that of a
quarryman to an architect. Its entire achievement, though immensely valuable in
its place, is just a mass of raw and formless material until a mind gifted in a
different direction, and possessing the necessary taste and balance shall
reduce or put it into shape for use. The perplexities of astronomers touching
Halley’s comet is in point. They knew facts that common folks did not know, but
when they came to generalize upon them, the man on the street knew that he
should have looked in the west for the phenomenon when they bade him look in
the east.
Much is said for example
about an acquaintance with Hebrew and Greek, and no sensible man will underrate
them for the theologian or the Bible scholar, but they are entirely unnecessary
to an understanding of the doctrine of inspiration or any other doctrine of
Holy Writ. The intelligent reader of the Bible in the English tongue,
especially when illuminated by the Holy Spirit, is abundantly able to decide
upon these questions for himself. He cannot determine how the Holy Spirit
operated on the minds of the sacred penmen because that is not revealed, but he
can determine on the results secured because that is revealed. He can determine
whether the inspiration covers, all the books, and whether it includes not only
the substance but the form, not only the thoughts but the words.
We have spoken of
scholars and of the learned, let us come to names. We suppose Dr. Sanday, of
Oxford, is a scholar, and the Archbishop of Durham, and Dean Burgon, and
Professor Orr, of Glasgow, and Principal Forsyth, of Hackney College, and Sir
Robert Anderson, and Dr. Kuyper, of Holland, and President Patton, of
Princeton, and Howard Osgood of the Old Testament Revision Committee and
Matthew B. Riddle of the New, and G. Frederick Wright and Albert T. Clay, the
archaeologists, and Presidents Moorehead and Mullins, and C. I. Scofield, and
Luther T. Townsend, for twenty-five years professor in the Theological School
of Boston University, and Arthur T. Pierson of the Missionary Review of the
World, and a host of other living witnesses — Episcopalians, Presbyterians,
Congregationalists, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed Dutch.
We had thought John
Calvin a scholar, and the distinguished Bengel, and Canon Faussett, and
Tregelles, and Auberlen, and Van Oosterzee, and Charles Hodge and Henry B.
Smith, and so many more that it were foolishness to recall them. These men may
not stand for every statement in these pages, they might not care to be quoted
as holding technically the verbal theory of inspiration for reasons already
named, but they will affirm the heart of the contention and testify to their
belief in an inspiration of the Sacred Oracles which includes the words.
Once when the writer was
challenged by the editor of a secular daily to name a single living scholar who
thus believed, he presented that of a chancellor of a great university, and was
told that he was not the kind of scholar that was meant! The kind of scholar
not infrequently meant by such opposers
is the one who is seeking to destroy faith in the Bible as the Word of God, and
to substitute in its place a Bible of his own making.
The Outlook had an
editorial recently, entitled "Whom Shall We Believe?” in which the writer
reaffirmed the platitudes that living is a vital much more than an intellectual
process, and that truth of the deeper kind is distilled out of experience
rather than logical processes. This is the reason he said why many things are
hidden from the so-called wise, who follow formal methods of exact observation,
and are revealed to babes and
sucklings who know nothing of these methods, but are. deep in the
process of living. No spectator ever yet understood a great contemporary human
movement into which he did not enter.
Does this explain why the
cloistered scholar is unable to accept the supernatural inspiration of the
scriptures while the men on the firing line of the Lord’s army believe in it
even to the very words? Does it explain the faith of our missionaries in
foreign lands? Is this what led J. Hudson Taylor to Inland China, and Dr.
Guinness to establish the work upon the Congo,
and George Mueller and William Quarrier to support the orphans at Bristol and the Bridge
of Weirs? Is this — the
belief in the plenary inspiration of the Bible the secret of the evangelistic
power of D. L. Moody, and Chapman, and Torrey, and Gipsy Smith, and practically
every evangelist in the field, for to the extent of our acquaintance there are
none of these who doubt it? Does this tell why "the best sellers on the
market,” at least among
Christian people, have
been the devotional and expository books of Andrew Murray, and Miller and
Meyer, and writers of that stamp? Is this why the plain people have loved to
listen to preachers like Spurgeon, and McLaren, and Campbell Morgan, and Len
Broughton and A. C. Dixon and have passed by men of the other kind? It is, in a
word, safe to challenge the whole Christian world for the name of a man who
stands out as a winner of souls who does not believe in the inspiration of the
Bible as it has been sought to be explained in these pages.
But we conclude with a
kind of concrete testimony that of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church of America, and of a date as recent as 1893. The writer is not a
Presbyterian, and therefore with the better grace can ask his readers to
consider the character and the intellect represented in such an Assembly. Here
are some of our greatest merchants, our greatest jurists, our greatest
educators, our greatest statesmen, as well as our greatest missionaries,
evangelists and theologians. There may be seen as able and august a gathering
of representatives of Christianity in other places and on other occasions, but
few that can surpass it. For sobriety of thought, for depth as well as breadth
of learning, for wealth of spiritual experience, for honesty of utterance, and
virility of conviction, the General
Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in America
must command attention and respect throughout the world. And this is what it
said on the subject we are now considering at its gathering in the city of Washington, the capital of
the nation, at the date named:
"THE BIBLE AS WE NOW HAVE IT, IN ITS VARIOUS TRANSLATIONS
AND REVISIONS, WHEN FREED FROM ALL ERRORS AND MISTAKES
OF TRANSLATORS, COPYISTS AND PRINTERS,
(IS) THE VERY WORD
OF GOD, AND CONSEQUENTLY WHOLLY WITHOUT ERROR.”
2. The Bible
plainly teaches that inspiration extends to its words. We spoke of Balaam as
uttering that which God put in his mouth, but the same expression is used by
God Himself with reference to His prophets. When Moses would excuse himself
from service because he was not eloquent, He who made man’s mouth said,
"Now therefore go, and I
will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say” (Exodus 4:10-12).
And Dr. James H. Brookes’ comment is very pertinent.
"God did not say I will
be with thy mind, and teach thee what thou shalt think; but I will be with thy
mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say. This explains why, forty years
afterwards, Moses said to Israel,
‘Ye shall not add unto the word I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought
from it.’ (Deuteronomy 4:2.)”
Seven times Moses tells
us that the tables of stone containing the commandments were the work of God,
and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables (Exodus 31:16).
Passing from the
Pentateuch to the poetical books we find David saying, "The Spirit of the Lord
spake by me, and His word was in my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:1,2).
He, too, does not say,
God thought by me, but spake by me.
Coming to the prophets,
Jeremiah confesses that, like Moses, he recoiled from the mission on which he
was sent and for the same reason. He was a child and could not speak. "Then the
Lord put forth His hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold
I have put My word in thy mouth” (Jeremiah 1:6-9).
All of which
substantiates the declaration of Peter quoted earlier, that "no prophecy ever
came by the will of man, but man spake from God, being moved by the Holy
Spirit.” Surely, if the will of man had nothing to do with the prophecy, he
could not have been at liberty in the selection of the words.
So much for the Old
Testament, but when we reach the New, we have the same unerring and verbal
accuracy guaranteed to the apostles by the Son of God, as we have seen. And we
have the apostles making claim of it, as when Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:12,13
distinguishes between the "things” or the thoughts which God gave him and the
words in which he expressed them, and insisting on the divinity of both; "Which
things also we speak,” he says, "not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” In Galatians 3:16, following the example of
His divine Master, he employs not merely a single word, but a single letter of
a word as the basis of an argument for a great doctrine. The blessing of
justification which Abraham received has become that of the believer in Jesus
Christ. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And
to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
The writer of the epistle
to the Hebrews bases a similar argument on the word "all” in Hebrews 1:8, on
the word "one” in Hebrews 1:11, and on the phrase "yet once more” in Hebrews
12:26,27.
To recur to Paul’s
argument in Galatians, Archdeacon Farrar in one of his writings denies that by
any possibility such a Hebraist as he, and such a master of Greek usage could
have argued in this way. He says Paul must have known that the plural of the
Hebrew and Greek terms for "seed” is never used by Hebrew or Greek writers to
designate human offspring. It means, he says, various kinds of grain. His
artlessness is amusing. We accept his estimate of Paul’s knowledge of Hebrew
and Greek, says Professor Watts, he was certainly a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and
as to his Greek he could not only write it but speak it as we know, and quote
what suited his purpose from the Greek poets. But on this supposition we feel
justified in asking Dr. Farrar whether a lexicographer in searching Greek
authors for the meanings they attached to spermata, the Greek for "seeds,”
would not be inclined to add "human offspring” on so good an authority as Paul?
Nor indeed would they be limited to his authority, since Sophocles uses it in
the same way, and Aeschylus. "I was driven away from my country by my own
offspring” (spermata) — literally by my own seeds, is what the former makes one
of his characters say. Dr. Farrar’s rendering of spermata in Galatians 3:16 on
the other hand would make nonsense if not sacrilege. "He saith not unto various
kinds of grain as of many, but as of one, and to thy grain, which is Christ.”
"Granting then, what we thank no man for granting, that spermata means human
offspring, it is evident that despite all opinions to the contrary, this
passage sustains the teaching of an inspiration of Holy Writ extending to its
very words.”
3. But the most
unique argument for the inspiration of the words of scripture is the relation
which Jesus Christ bears to them. In the first place, He Himself was inspired
as to His words. In the earliest reference to His prophetic office (Deuteronomy
18:18), Jehovah says,"I will
put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak *** all that I shall command
Him.” A limitation on His utterance which Jesus everywhere recognizes. "As My Father
hath taught Me, I speak these things;” "the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a
commandment what I should say, and what I should speak;” "whatsoever I speak
therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak;” "I have given unto
them the words which Thou gavest Me,” "the words that I speak unto you, they
are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63; 8:26,28,40; John 12:49,50).
The thought is still more
impressive as we read of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the God-man. "The
Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel
to the poor;” "He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the
apostles;” "the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto Him;” "these
things saith He that holdeth the seven stars in His right hand;” "He that hath
an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Luke 4:18; Acts
1:2; Revelation 1:1; 2:1,11). If the incarnate Word needed the unction of the
Holy Ghost to give to men the revelation He received from the Father in Whose
bosom He dwells; and if the agency of the same Spirit extended to the words He
spake in preaching the gospel to the meek or dictating an epistle, how much
more must these things be so in the case of ordinary men when engaged in the
same service? With what show of reason can one contend that any Old or New
Testament writer stood; so far as his words were concerned, in need of no such
agency.” — The New Apologetic, pp.67,68.
In the second place He
used the scriptures as though they were inspired as to their words. In Matthew
22:31,32, He substantiates the doctrine of the resurrection against the
skepticism of the Sadducees by emphasizing the present tense of the verb "to
be,” i.e., the word "am” in the language of Jehovah to Moses at the burning
bush. In verses 42-45 of the same chapter He does the Same for His own Deity by
alluding to the second use of the word "Lord” in Psalm 110. "The LORD said unto
my Lord *** If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?” In John 10:34-36,
He vindicates Himself from the charge of blasphemy by saying, "Is it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods, unto whom the
word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the
Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I
said, I am the Son of God?”
We have already seen Him
(in Matthew 4) overcoming the tempter in the wilderness by three quotations
from Deuteronomy without note or comment except, "It is written.” Referring to
which Adolphe Monod says, "I know of nothing in the whole history of humanity,
nor even in the field of divine revelation, that proves more clearly than this
the inspiration of the scriptures. What! Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and
earth, calling to his aid in that solemn moment Moses his servant? He who
speaks from heaven fortifying himself against the temptations of hell by the
word of him who spake from earth?
How can we explain that
spiritual mystery, that wonderful reversing of the order of things, if for
Jesus the words of Moses were not the words of God rather than those of men?
How shall we explain it if Jesus were not fully aware that holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost?
"I do not forget the
objections which have been raised against the inspiration of the scriptures,
nor the real obscurity with which that inspiration is surrounded; if they
sometimes trouble your hearts, they have troubled mine also. But at such times,
in order to revive my faith, I have only to glance at Jesus glorifying the scriptures
in the wilderness; and I have seen that for all who rely upon Him, the most
embarrassing of problems is transformed into a historical fact, palpable and
clear. Jesus no doubt was aware of the difficulties connected with the
inspiration of the scriptures, but did this prevent Him from appealing to their
testimony with unreserved confidence? Let that which was sufficient for Him
suffice for you. Fear not that the rock which sustained the Lord in the hour of
His temptation and distress will give way because you lean too heavily upon
it.”
In the third place,
Christ teaches that the scriptures are inspired as to their words. In the
Sermon on the Mount He said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto
you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Here is testimony confirmed by an oath,
for "verily” on the lips of the Son of Man carries such force. He affirms the
indestructibility of the law, not its substance merely but its form, not the
thought but the word. "One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.”
The "jot” means the yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, while the
"tittle” means the horn, a short projection in certain letters extending the
base line beyond the upright one which rests upon it. A reader unaccustomed to
the Hebrew needs a strong eye to see the tittle, but Christ guarantees that as
a part of the sacred text neither the tittle nor the yod shall perish.
The elder Lightfoot, the
Hebraist and rabbinical scholar of the Westminster Assembly time, has called
attention to an interesting story of a certain letter yod found in the text of
Deuteronomy 32:18. It is in the word teshi, to forsake, translated in the King
James as "unmindful.” Originally it seems to have been written smaller even
than usual, i.e., undersized, and yet notwithstanding the almost infinite
number of times in which copies have been made, that little yod stands there
today just as it ever did. Lightfoot spoke of it in the middle of the
seventeenth century and although two more centuries and a half have passed
since then with all their additional copies of the book, yet it still retains
its place in the sacred text. Its diminutive size is referred to in the margin,
"but no hand has dared to add a hair’s breadth to its length,” so that we can
still employ his words, and say that it is likely to remain there forever.
The same scholar speaks
of the effect a slight change in the form of a Hebrew letter might produce in
the substance of the thought for which it stands. He takes as an example two
words, "Chalal” and "Halal,” which differ from each other simply in their first
radicals. The "Ch” in Hebrew is expressed by one letter the same as "H,” the
only distinction being a slight break or opening in the left limb of the
latter. It seems too trifling to notice, but let that line be broken where it
should be continuous, and "Thou shalt not profane the Name of thy God” in
Leviticus 18:21, becomes "Thou shalt not praise the Name of thy God.” Through
that aperture, however small, the entire thought of the Divine mind oozes out,
so to speak, and becomes quite antagonistic to what was designed. This shows
how truly the thought and the word expressing it are bound together, and that
whatever affects the one imperils the other. As another says, "The bottles are
not the wine, but if the bottles perish, the wine is sure to be spilled.” It
may seem like narrow-mindedness to contend for this, and an evidence of
enlightenment or liberal scholarship to treat it with indifference, but we
should be prepared to take our stand with Jesus Christ in the premises, and if
necessary, go outside the camp bearing our reproach.
4. DIFFICULTIES AND
OBJECTIONS
That there are
difficulties in the way of accepting a view of inspiration like this goes
without saying. But to the finite mind there must always be difficulties
connected with a revelation from the Infinite, and it can not be otherwise. This
has been mentioned before. Men of faith, and it is such we are addressing, and
not men of the world, do not wait to understand or resolve all the difficulties
associated with other mysteries of the Bible before accepting them as divine,
and why should they do so in this case?
Moreover, Archbishop
Whately’s dictum is generally accepted, that we are not obliged to clear away
every difficulty about a doctrine in order to believe it, always provided that
the facts on which it rests are true. And particularly is this the case where
the rejection of such a doctrine involves greater difficulties than its belief,
as it does here.
For if this view of
inspiration be rejected, what have its opponents to give in its place? Do they
realize that any objections to it are slight in comparison with those to any
other view that can be named? And do they realize that this is true because
this view has the immeasurable advantage of agreeing with the plain
declarations of Scripture on the subject? In other words, as Dr. Burrell says,
those who assert the inerrancy of the scripture autographs do so on the
authority of God Himself, and to deny it is of a piece with the denial that
they teach the forgiveness of sins or the resurrection from the dead. No amount
of exegetical turning and twisting can explain away the assertions already
quoted in these pages, to say nothing of the constant undertone of evidence we
find in the Bible everywhere to their truth.
And speaking of this
further, are we not justified in requiring of the objector two things? First,
on any fair basis of scientific investigation, is he not obliged to dispose of
the evidence here presented before he impugns the doctrine it substantiates?
And second, after having disposed of it, is he not equally obligated to present
the scriptural proof of whatever other view of inspiration he would have us
accept? Has he ever done this, and if not, are we not further justified in
saying that it can not be done? But let us consider some of the difficulties.