The Great Doctrines of the Bible Part 32

It will be in order here to note briefly various theories of inspiration; for it must be known that all students do not agree as to the degree of inspiration that characterized the writers of the Scripture. When a man says, "I believe in the inspiration of the Bible," it will be quite in place in these days to ask him what he means by inspiration. Following are some of the views of inspiration held at the present day.

a) Natural Inspiration.

This theory identifies inspiration with genius of a high order. It denies that there is anything supernatural, mysterious, or peculiar in the mode of the Spirit's operation in and upon the Scripture writers. It claims that they were no more inspired than were Milton, Shakespeare, Mahomet, or Confucius.

Such a theory we absolutely reject. For if such be the character of the inspiration possessed by the Scripture writers, there is nothing to a.s.sure us that they were not liable to make the same errors, to teach the same false views of life, to give expression to the same uncertainties concerning the past, the present, and the future as did these s.h.i.+ning lights of mere human genius.

When David said, "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was in my tongue," he meant something more than the prayer which forms the gem of _Paradise Lost._ When Isaiah and his brethren said, "Thus saith the Lord," they claimed something higher than that they were speaking under the stirrings of poetic rapture. When Paul said to the Corinthians, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth (1 Cor. 2:13)," he used the language to which you will find no parallel in the literature of mere human genius. And no man of candor or intelligence can pa.s.s from the writings even of the unapproachable Shakespeare into the perusal of the Bible without feeling that the difference between the two is not one simply of degree, but of kind; he has not merely ascended to a loftier outlook in the same human dwelling, but he has gone into a new region altogether. There is a certain "unknown quality" in this Book which clearly distinguishes it from all others; and if we may take its own explanation of the matter, that unknown quality is its divine inspiration.

b) Universal Christian Inspiration, or Illumination.

According to this theory, the inspiration of the Bible writers was the same as has characterized Christians of every age; the ordinary Christian of to-day is inspired as much as was the Apostle Paul.

If this be the true view, there seems to be no plausible reason why a new Bible should not be possible to-day. And yet no individual, however extreme his claims to inspiration may be, has even ventured such a task.

c) Mechanical, or Dynamic Inspiration. (See Verbatim Eeporting, page 198.)

This theory ignores the human instrumentality in the writing of the Scriptures altogether, and claims that the writers were pa.s.sive instruments mere machines, just as insensible to what they were accomplis.h.i.+ng as is the string of the harp or lyre to the play of the musician.

How, then, do we account for the differences in style of the various writers, the preservation of their individualities, their idiosyncrasies?

It seems evident that Scripture cannot be made to harmonize with the application of this theory.

d) Concept, or Thought Inspiration.

This theory claims that only the concepts, or thoughts, of men were given by inspiration. It will be examined more fully later. Concept Inspiration is opposed by

e) Verbal Inspiration.

Here it is claimed that the very words of Scripture were given by the Holy Spirit; that the writers were not left absolutely to themselves in the choice of words they should use. (See page 204.)

f) Partial Inspiration.

The favorite way of expressing this theory is, "The Bible _contains_ the Word of G.o.d."

This statement implies that it contains much that is not the Word of G.o.d, that is, that is not inspired. A serious question at once arises: Who is to decide what is and what is not inspired? Who is to be the judge of so vital a question? What part is inspired, and what part is not? Who can tell?

Such a theory leaves man in awful and fatal uncertainty.

g) Plenary, or Full, Inspiration.

This is the opposite of Partial Inspiration. It holds all Scripture to be equally inspired, as stated on page 200. It bases its claim on 2 Tim. 3:16.

The Revised Version translation of 2 Tim. 3:16 is erroneous. The reader might infer from it that there is some Scripture that is not inspired.

If Paul had said, "All Scripture that is divinely inspired is also profitable, etc.," he would virtually have said, "There is _some_ Scripture, _some_ part of the Bible, that is _not profitable, etc.,_ and therefore is not inspired." This is what the spirit of rationalism wants, namely, to make human reason the test and judge and measure of what is inspired and what is not. One man says such and such a verse is not profitable to him, another says such and such a verse is not profitable to him; a third says such and such is not profitable to him. The result is that no Bible is left.

Is it possible that anyone need be told the flat and sapless tautology that all divinely-inspired Scripture is _also_ profitable?

Paul dealt in no such meaningless phrases. The word translated _also_ does not mean _also_ here. It means _and._ Its position in the sentence shows this.

Again, the Revised rendering is shown to be openly false because the revisers refused to render the same Greek construction elsewhere in the same way, which convicts them of error.

In Hebrew 4:13 we read: "All things are naked and laid open before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." The form and construction of this verse is identical with that of 2 Tim. 3:16. Were we, however, to translate this pa.s.sage as the revisers translated the pa.s.sage in Timothy, it would read: "All naked things are also open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." All naked things are also open things! All uncovered things are also exposed things!

There is no _also_ in the case.

Again, 1 Tim. 4:4: "Every creature of G.o.d is good and nothing is to be rejected." According to the principles the revisers adopted in rendering 2 Tim. 3:16, this pa.s.sage would read: "Every good creature of G.o.d is also nothing to be rejected."

The Greek language has no such meaningless syntax. The place of the verb _is,_--which must be supplied,--is directly before the word "inspired," and not after it.

The great rationalistic scholar, DeWette, confessed candidly that the rendering the revisers here adopted cannot be defended. In his German version of the text, he gave the sense thus: "Every sacred writing, i.e., of the canonical Scriptures, is inspired of G.o.d and is useful for doctrine, etc." Bishops Moberly and Wordsworth, Archbishop Trench, and others of the Revision committee, disclaimed any responsibility for the rendering. Dean Burgon p.r.o.nounced it "the most astonis.h.i.+ng as well as calamitous literary blunder of the age."

It was condemned by Dr. Tregelles, the only man ever pensioned by the British government for scholars.h.i.+p.

In accordance with this weight of testimony, therefore, we hold to the rendering of the Authorized Version, and claim that all Scripture is equally and fully inspired of G.o.d.

4. THE CLAIMS OF THE SCRIPTURES TO INSPIRATION.

That the writers of the Scriptures claimed to write under the direct influence of the Spirit of G.o.d there can be no doubt. The _quality_ or _degree_ of their insspiration may be called into question, but surely not the _fact_ of it. Let us examine the testimony of the writers themselves.

a) The Claims of Old Testament Writers to Inspiration. (We use the word Inspiration here as including Revelation.)

Compare and examine the following pa.s.sages:

Exod. 4:10-15--"And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant; but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?

Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee; and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth, and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do."

Deut. 4:2--"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your G.o.d which I command you."

Jer. 1:7-9--"But the Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces; for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth." Also Ezek. 3:4; Micah 3:8.

These are but a few of the many pa.s.sages in which the inspiration of the writers is affirmed and claimed.

Note further that the words "G.o.d said" occur ten times in the first chapter of Genesis. It is claimed that such expressions as "The Lord said," "The Lord spake," "The word of the Lord came," are found 3,808 times in the Old Testament. These writers, claiming to be the revealers of the will of G.o.d, almost always commenced their messages with the words, "Thus saith the Lord." That they were not deceived in their claims is evident from the minuteness and detail as to names, times and places which characterized their messages, and from the literal fulfillment of these oracles of G.o.d.

b) The Claims of the New Testament Writers to Inspiration.

It is worthy of note here to observe that inspiration is claimed by New Testament writers for Old Testament writers as well as for themselves. Read and compare the following pa.s.sages:

2 Pet. 1:20, 21--"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of G.o.d spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

1 Pet. 1:10, 11--"Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."

Acts 1:16--"Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." Acts 28:25--"And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers."

1 Cor. 2:13--"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."

1 Cor. 14:37--"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

1 Thess. 2:13--"For this cause also thank we G.o.d without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of G.o.d which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of G.o.d, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."