Go to the previous one: http://thatblessedhope.ucoz.com/index/0-28
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 Chicago
University, 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 it necessary, 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.”
|