Inspiration and Interpretation Part 30

[509] Davison on _Prophecy_, p. 192.

[510] Zech. xi. 12, 13.

[511] Is. l. 6.

[512] Ps. xxii. 16. Zech. xiii. 13.

[513] Ps. xxii. 18.

[514] "Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem."--Tertullian _adv. Hermog._, c. 22.

[515] Comp. St. Matth. ii. 20, with the LXX Version of Exod. iv. 19: St.

Matth. iii. 4, with the same version of 2 Kings i. 8: St. Matth. xxvi.

38 with Ps. xlii. 5. St. Luke i. 37, with Gen. xviii. 14,--i. 48, with 1 Sam. i. 11, and with Gen. x.x.x. 13,--i. 50, with Ps. ciii. 17. St. John i. 52, with Gen. xxviii. 12,--&c., &c.

[516] A few examples may prove suggestive to a thoughtful reader:--???d??, in St. Luke ix. 31 and in 1 St. Pet. i.

15:--?p??atast?se?, in St. Matth. xvii. 11, (cf. Mal. iv. 5): s?t??t????, in St. Luke xii. 42, (cf. Gen. xlvii. 12): pa??de?s??, in St. Luke xxiii. 43. The reference is of course always to the _Septuagint_ version.

[517] Ps. xlvi. 4: xlviii. 1, 8: lx.x.xvii. 3. Is. lii. 1: lx. 14. Ezek.

xlviii. Ephes. ii. 19, 20. Phil. iii. 20. Gal. iv. 26. Hebr. xi. 10: xii. 22: xiii. 14. Rev. xxi. 2, 10: iii. 12, &c.

[518] "Scriptores ?e?p?e?st??, de typo disserentes, divinius quiddam ex inopinato pati solent, et ad ant.i.typum vehementiore Spiritus afflatu rapi et elevari. a.s.sertionis hujusce veritas inde constat, quod verba quaedam haud expectata saepius inferant, quae MESSIae vel solum vel aptius quam Illius typo congruant."--Spencer _De Legg. Hebr._, vol. ii. p.

1035. Consider such places as Ps. ii. 6, 7: xli. 9, 10: xlv. 10, 11: lxi. 6: lxxii. 5, 7, 11, 16, 17: lx.x.xix. 29. Gen. xlix. 18. Is. lxi. 1, 2, 3. Zech. vi. 11, 12.

[519] St. Mark xii. 36.

[520] "And their manner of treating this subject when laid before them, shews what is in their heart, and is an exertion of it." Bp. Butler's _a.n.a.logy_, P. II. ch. vi.--See Appendix (C).

[521] Eden's _Sermons_, pp. 192-5.

[522] "With the exception of the still-imperfect science of Geology,"

(says Dr. Pusey,) "the Essays and Reviews contain nothing with which those acquainted with the writings of unbelievers in Germany have not been familiar these thirty years." Even the Apologist for the volume in question a.s.sures us that one who "had looked ever so cursorily through the works of Herder, Schleiermacher, Lucke, Neander, De Wette, Ewald, &c., would see that the greater part of the pa.s.sages which have given so much cause for exultation or for offence in this volume, have their counterpart in those distinguished Theologians."--_Edinb. Rev._, Ap.

1861, p. 480.

[523] Rev. B. Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 374-5.

[524] Rev. B. Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 372, (_bottom_,) 340, 374, &c.

[525] _Minor Works_, vol. ii. pp. 9-10.--"In Christianity, there can be no concerning truth which is not ancient; and _whatsoever is truly new is certainly false_."--Epistle Dedicatory prefixed to Pearson _on the Creed_, p. x.

SERMON VI.[526]

THE DOCTRINE OF ARBITRARY SCRIPTURAL ACCOMMODATION CONSIDERED.

ROMANS x. 6-9.

_"But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise,--'Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into Heaven?' (that is, to bring CHRIST down from above:) or, 'Who shall descend into the deep?' (that is, to bring up CHRIST again from the dead.) But what saith it? 'The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thine heart:' that is, the word of Faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS, and shalt believe in thine heart that G.o.d hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."_

It is quite marvellous in how many different ways different cla.s.ses of professing Christians have contrived to nullify the value of their admission that the Bible is _inspired_. Some would distinguish the inspiration of the Historical Book from that of those which we call Prophetical. Others profess to lay their finger on what are _the proper subjects_ of Inspiration, and what are not. Some are for a general superintending guidance which yet did not effectually guide; while others represent the sacred Writers as subject, in what they delivered, to the conditions of knowledge in the age where their lot was cast. The view of Inspiration which Scripture itself gives us,--namely, that G.o.d _is therein speaking by human lips_[527]; so that 'holy men of G.o.d'

delivered themselves as they were 'impelled,' 'borne along,' or 'lifted up,' (fe??e???) _by the HOLY GHOST_[528];--_this_ plain account of the matter, I say, which converts 'all Scripture' into something '_breathed into by G.o.d_,' (?e?p?e?st??,)[529]--men are singularly slow to acknowledge. The methods which they have devised in order to escape from so plain a revealed Truth, are 'Legion.'

Second to none of the enemies of Holy Writ, practically, are they who deny its depth and fulness. It is only another, and a more ingenious way, of denying the Inspiration of the Bible, to evacuate its more mysterious statements. Those who are for eluding the secondary intention of Prophecy, the obviously mystical teaching of Types, the allegorical character of many a sacred Narrative,--are no less dangerous enemies of G.o.d's Word than those who frame unworthy theories in order to dwarf Inspiration to the standard of their own conceptions of its nature and office. I say, it is only another way of denying the Inspiration of Scripture, to deny what is sometimes called its mystical, sometimes its typical, sometimes its allegorical sense.... And thus,--what with the arbitrary decrees of our own unsupported opinion, or the self-sufficient exercise of our own supposed discernment;--what with our insolent mistrust; or our shortsighted folly and presumption; or, lastly, our coldness and deadness of heart,--our slender appet.i.te for Divine things, which makes us yearn back after Earth, at the very open gate of Heaven;--in one way or other, I repeat, we contrive to evacuate our own admission that the Bible is an inspired Book: we fasten discredit on its every page: we become profane men, like Esau: we despise our birthright.

But the most subtle enemy of all remains yet to be noticed. It is he, who,--finding the plain Word of G.o.d against him: finding himself refuted in his endeavour to fix one intention only on the words of the HOLY GHOST, and _that_ intention, the most obvious and literal one; finding himself refuted even by the express revelation of the same HOLY GHOST, elsewhere delivered;--bends himself straightway to resist, and explain away, that later revelation of what was the earlier meaning. It is a marvellous thing but so it is, that the very man who contended so stoutly a moment ago for the literal meaning of Scripture, _now_ refuses, and denies it. Anything but _that_! If he allows that St.

Matthew, or St. Paul,--yea, or even our Blessed LORD Himself,--are to be _literally_ understood; are severally to be taken to _mean_ what they _say_;--then, Moses and David,--narrative, law, and psalm,--besides their literal meaning, have, at least _sometimes_,--and they _may_ have _always_,--a mystical meaning also. _Under_ the evident, palpable signification of the words, there lies concealed something grander, and deeper, and broader; high as Heaven,--deep as h.e.l.l.

And this supposition is so monstrous an one; seems so derogatory to their notions of the mind of G.o.d;--it is deemed so improbable a thing, that the words of Him, whose ways are not like Man's ways, should span the present and the future, at a grasp;--that He whose "thoughts are very deep," should, with language thereto corresponding, be setting forth CHRIST and His Redemption, while He tells of Patriarchs and Lawgivers,--Judges and Kings,--priests and prophets of the LORD:--I say, it is deemed so incredible a thing that Moses should have written concerning CHRIST, (though our SAVIOUR CHRIST Himself declares that Moses did write concerning Him)[530]; or that the occasional expressions of the Prophets should really contain the far-reaching allusions which in the New Testament are a.s.signed to them; that the men I speak of,--men of learning (sometimes), and of piety too,--will condescend to every imaginable artifice in order to escape the cogency of the Divine statement. St. Paul--was infected with the Hebrew method of interpretation. (It is of course _a.s.sumed_ that this method was essentially erroneous! It is overlooked that our LORD had recourse to it, as well as St. Paul! It is either forgotten, or denied, that the HOLY GHOST, speaking by the mouth of St. Paul, acquiesced in every instance of such interpretation on the part of His chosen vessel!) ...

As for St. Matthew, he addressed his Gospel to the Jews, and therefore reasoned as a Jew would. (St. Matthew's Gospel was not of course intended for the Christian Church! The blessed Evangelist was also deeply learned,--it is of course reasonable to suppose,--in the sacred hermeneutics of the Hebrew Schools!) ... The other Sacred Writers, it is pretended, all wrote according to the prejudices of the age in which they lived.--In all these cases, it is contended that _merely in the way of Accommodation_, is the language of the Old Testament cited in the New. What was said of one thing is transferred to quite another,--to suit the purpose of the later writer; to ill.u.s.trate his reasoning, to adorn or to enforce his statements.... And this brings me to a question of so much importance, that I pause to make a few remarks upon it. In the present discourse, it shall suffice to remark on the doctrine of _Scriptural_ ACCOMMODATION; for which it is presumed that the text, (selected not without reference to the present Sacred Season,) affords ample scope, as well as supplies a fair occasion.

Now, it is not to the _term_ "Accommodation," that we entertain any dislike; but to the _notion_ which it seems intended to convey; and to the _principle_ which we believe that it actually embodies. That the HOLY SPIRIT in the New Testament sometimes accommodates to His purpose a quotation in the Old,--is very often a mere matter of fact. In all those places, for instance, where St. Paul inverts the clauses of a place cited,--there is a manifest accommodation of Scripture, in the strictest sense of the word. When two, three, or more texts, widely disconnected in the Old Testament, are continuously exhibited in the New,--a species of accommodation has, of course, been employed. The same may be said when a change of construction is discoverable. Again, there is accommodation, of course, when narrative,--legal enactment,--or prophecy, is _so exhibited_ that the point of its hidden teaching shall become apparent. Nay, in a certain sense of the word, there is "accommodation," as often as a prophecy, however plain, is applied to the historical event which it purports to foretel. The prophecy may be said,--(with no great propriety indeed, but still, intelligibly,)--to have been accommodated to its fulfilment.--Occasionally, a general promise is made particular,--as in Hebrews xiii. 6; and perhaps _this_ might be called an accommodation of the text to the needs of an individual believer. Yet is it plain that in all these cases '_application_' or '_adaptation_' would be a better word.

But such ways of adducing Holy Scripture, we suspect, are not by any means what is _meant_ by 'Accommodation;' and they do not certainly correspond with the notion which the term is calculated to convey. The place in the Old Covenant, seems, (from the term employed,) to have been forced, against its conscience, as it were, to bear witness in behalf of the New. It has been wrenched away from its natural bearing and intention; and made to accommodate itself,--and, on the part of the writer, quite arbitrarily,--to a purpose, with which it has, in reality, no manner of connexion. This, I say, is the notion which the term "Accommodation" seems to convey.

I am supposing, of course,--(as the opposite school is, of course, supposing,)--_not_ an _ill.u.s.tration_,--which obviously _any_ writer, whether ordinary or inspired, has a right to introduce at will; but a case where the cogency of the argument depends entirely on the place cited. A sudden and unforeseen requirement arose;--nothing entirely fit and applicable occurred to the memory: but by an arbitrary handling of the ancient Oracles of G.o.d,--(altogether illogical and inconclusive indeed, yet ent.i.tled to a certain measure of respectful consideration at our hands, and certainly having a strong claim on our indulgence,)--the later writer saw that he should be able to substantiate his position, or to strengthen his argument, or to prove his point. And he did not hesitate to do so. It is surprising that his hearers or his readers should have accepted his statements, and admitted his reasoning;--very!

But they _did_. And it is for us, the heirs of the wisdom of all the ages, to detect the time-honoured fallacy and to expose it.--This, I say, is the notion which the term "Accommodation" seems calculated to convey; and it is to be feared, _does_ very often represent.

And the introduction of this principle, as already explained, I cannot but regard as the most insidious device of all. It admits fully all that we have elsewhere laboured to establish. It freely grants that Apostles and Evangelists were inspired. But then, it denies that much of what they deliver in the way of interpretation of Scripture, is to be regarded as _real_ interpretation. By a taste for Allegory; by Rhetorical license; on _any_ principle, it seems, _but one_, is the Divine method to be accounted for; and the plain facts of the case to be obscured, or explained away.

Now I _altogether reject_ this principle of arbitrary "Accommodation." I hold it to be a mere dream and delusion. And I reject it on the following grounds:--

1. It is evidently a mere excuse for Human ignorance,--a transparent deceit. Men do not see how to explain, or account for, the apparent license of the Divine method; and so they have invented this method of escape. Most cordially do I subscribe to the opinion expressed by Bishop Bull, in his discussion of the very text which we are now about to consider:--"Atque, ut verum fatear, semper existimavi, allusiones istas, (ad quas confugiunt quidam tanquam ad sacrum suae ignorantiae asylum,) plerumque aliud nihil esse, quam sacrae Scripturae abusiones manifestas[531]."

2. The "theory of Accommodation," (as it is called,) is attended with this fatal inconvenience,--that, (like certain other expedients which have been invented to get over difficulties in Religion,) it altogether fails of its object. For even if we should grant, (for argument's sake,) that some quotations from the Old Testament _can_ be explained on this principle,--so long as there remain others which defy it altogether, nothing is gained by the proposed expedient. Thus, so long as attention is directed to certain of the places in St. Paul's writings already referred to[532], there is certainly _no absurdity_ in adducing them as instances of Rhetorical license. But how can it be pretended that the text whereby St. Paul establishes, (on two distinct occasions,) the right of the Christian Ministry to a liberal maintenance,--with what propriety can it be thought that Deut. xxv. 4 lends itself to such a theory? Those words _seem_,--and, apart from Revelation, might without hesitation have been declared,--to have _nothing at all to do with the matter_[533]! To talk of the "accommodation" of words so eminently unaccommodating, is unreasonable, and even absurd.

3. But, allowing the advocates of this theory all they can possibly require, the result of their endeavours is but to make the Sacred writers ridiculous after all. For it attributes to them a method, which, if it be a _mere_ exhibition of human fancy, often seems to be but a species of ingenious trifling,--scarcely ent.i.tled to serious attention at our hands. There is no alternative, in short, between certain of the expositions which we meet with, being Divine,--and therefore worthy of all acceptation; or Human,--and therefore ent.i.tled to no absolute deference whatever.

4. On the other hand, learned research has. .h.i.therto invariably tended to shew that the meaning claimed for Scripture by an Apostle or Evangelist, _does_ actually exist there. Thus, it has been admirably demonstrated that the Evangelical meaning attributed by St. Matthew, (in the first chapters of his Gospel,) to certain places in the ancient Prophetical Scriptures of the Jewish people, derives nothing but corroboration from the inquiries of Piety and Learning[534].... It is proposed on the present occasion, without pretending to bring to the question any such helps as these, to examine the portion of Holy Scripture already under our notice, with a view to ascertaining what light it will throw on the main question at issue. To this task, I now address myself.

St. Paul's words, from the 6th to the 9th verse (inclusive) of the xth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, present probably, as fair an example as could be desired of what is sometimes called "Accommodation."

To say the truth, I know not an instance of what, _in any uninspired writing_, I should have been myself more inclined to stigmatize as such.

The Apostle begins an affectionate remonstrance with his countrymen by declaring that they "did not understand the Righteousness of G.o.d;" (that is, the Divine method whereby G.o.d wills that we shall be made righteous, by faith _in CHRIST_;) but desired to set up (st?sa?) a righteousness of their own, on the worthless foundation of their own Works[535].

"For," (he proceeds; with plain reference to _what_ "the Righteousness of G.o.d" _is_;)--"_For_ CHRIST is the end" (aim, or object,) "of the Law[536] to every one who hath faith" in CHRIST. St. Paul straightway proceeds, (as his manner is,) to establish this latter proposition. How does he do it? "_For_," (he begins again,)--"Moses describes the nature of the righteousness which proceeds from the Law, when he declares [in Leviticus xviii. 5,] that '_The man who hath done_ the deeds commanded by the Law, shall live thereby.'--But concerning the Righteousness which proceeds from Faith,"--[it was called before, 'the Righteousness of G.o.d,']--"Moses writes as follows[537]:--'Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into Heaven? (that is, to bring CHRIST down:) or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring CHRIST up from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach: because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS, and shalt believe in thine heart that G.o.d raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Here then is a quotation from the x.x.xth chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy,--a quotation introduced in the way of argument, in support of a proposition: the remarkable circ.u.mstance being, that St. Paul adduces the words of Moses with extraordinary license. For first, he omits as many of the Prophet's words as make little for his purpose, while he introduces a very remarkable alteration in some of the words which he retains: amounting to a subst.i.tution of one sentence for another. And next, there is one single word, which he expands into an important phrase; and _that_ merely to suit his own argument. But the strangest thing of all is the interpretation which he delivers of words, which as we have just seen, are partly his own,--partly, the words of Moses: by which interpretation, the most strikingly _Christian_ character is fastened upon sayings p.r.o.nounced by the ancient Lawgiver in the land of Moab, to the Jewish people.--We do further, for our own part, most freely admit, that the place,--as it stands in the Old Testament,--neither at first, nor at second sight, seems to have any such meaning as the Apostle a.s.signs to it. I will remind you of the words in Deuteronomy, by reading the entire pa.s.sage:--"This commandment which I command thee this day, ... is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in Heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to Heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." ... Now, I say, one of ourselves might read this pa.s.sage in the Book of Deuteronomy over a hundred times, and never suspect that Moses, when he so wrote, was writing concerning faith in CHRIST: and yet we have the sure testimony of the HOLY SPIRIT to the fact that he _was_.--The inquiry, "Who shall ascend into Heaven?", signifies, we are told, "Who shall ascend,--_to bring down CHRIST from above_?"--And just so, the other clause, "Who shall descend into the deep?", is declared to be an incomplete expression: the full phrase being,--"Who shall descend,--_to bring up CHRIST[538] from the dead_."

... Now we never desire to see a non-natural sense fastened on the Inspired Word. With Hooker, we "hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that, where a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst." We contend therefore that whereas we have here the explicit a.s.surance that Moses wrote of none other than CHRIST,--though his words do not bear upon them any evidence of the fact,--it is a mere trifling with holy things, to call the fact in question.

Here, however, we shall be reminded that the great Apostle,--though professing to quote,--confessedly argues in part from _his_ own language, which is _not_ the language of Moses. Moses says,--"Who shall go _over the sea_ for us?" (t?? d?ape??se? ??? e?? t? p??a? t??

???a.s.s??;) And since the version of the LXX is what the Author of the Epistle to the Romans follows in this place, it is reasonable to expect that he would adhere to that version, or at least to the sense of that version, in the exhibition of so important a clause as the present.

Whereas, instead of "Who shall go _over the sea_," we find St. Paul writing,--"Who shall _go down into the deep?_" (??? ?ata?seta? e?? t??

??ss??;)--language evidently highly suggestive of the mysterious transaction to which the same St. Paul says it contains a reference[539]; but certainly _not_ the language of Moses. And we shall be reminded that this is not merely phraseology rescued from vagueness, and made definite; but it is the actual subst.i.tution of one thought for another. This is what will be said; and if it be followed up by the a.s.sertion that here, therefore, we have a clear example of Scriptural Accommodation, it might seem, at first sight, impossible to deny the fact.