Chaff and Wheat: A Defense of Verbal Inspiration

The judgments of God fell upon His people, because they listened approvingly to teachers who did not speak according to His word. “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you; they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.” It was this that provoked His righteous displeasure.” Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked. The anger of the Lord shall not return,

until He have executed, and till He have performed the thoughts of His heart: in the

LATTEE DAYS YE SHALL CONSIDER IT PER-FECTLY.”

Is He indifferent to the testimony of those who mislead their followers by their own fancies? “I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.” The knowledge of the divine will, which they claimed to receive in dreams, may have been imparted to others in the most attractive form. Their discourses may have been adorned with all the graces of oratory, with all the beauties of poetry, with all the energy of reason, with all the force of the highest criticism and the broadest culture; but still they had no greater authority than a dream. “The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord” Jer. xxiii. lG-28.

How far the prophets were inspired, who did not tell a dream, but spoke the word of God, and how far we are bound to receive their testimony, can be easily ascertained. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is proi&table for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. Scripture means writing, and the word here employed, graphe, is never used of any writings except the Sacred Scriptures. A writing is composed of words, and therefore the apostle declares that all the words of Scripture are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for teaching.

It is true that the Kevised Version translates it, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching;” and false prophets have taken advantage of this rendering, as friends of the Bible clearly foresaw, and as illustrated in the recent defence of Professor Briggs before his Presbytery, to insinuate that some Scripture is not inspired of God. But the learned chairman of the Revision Committee, defending the new translation, says, “It enunciates the vital truth that every separate portion of the living book is inspired, and forms a living portion of a living organic whole;” and Prof. Gaussen declared that “this last construction would even give more force than the first to the apostle’s declaration.”

It may be well, however, to add that many eminent scholars do not agree with the reading of the Revised Version. The American Bible Union translates it, “All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for teaching.” McKnight translates it, “The whole Scripture is divinely inspired, and is profitable for teaching.” Dr. Young, author of the Analytical Concordance of the Bible, translates it, “Every wi’iting is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching.” Rotherham translates it: “Ev-ERY Scripture is God-breathed, and profitable unto instruction.” The Emphatic Diaglott translates it, “All Scripture, divinely inspired, is indeed profitable for teaching.” J. N. Darby translates it, “Every Scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching.” Even the Unitarian Version by Dr. Noyes, Professor in Harvard University, translates it, “All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for teaching.”

The word is, being in italics, does not of course belong to the original, and the question arises, where shall it be placed? Shall we read with the Authorized Version, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable,” or wdth the Revised, “Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable?” Against the latter there are four insuperable objections. First, it separates between two adjectives that are immediately connected in the Greek by the conjunction and, so closely connected indeed that if one is a predicate, the other is necessarily a predicate also. Thcopnusios kai ophelimos, God-inspired and profitable — by what rule of grammar can anyone insert is between these adjectives?

Second, the apostle never could have written such a useless truism as to assert that “every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable.” The mind instantly and instinctively recognizes that, and does not need a divine revelation to teach a self-evident fact. Who would think of saying that “every loaf of pure bread is also good for food?”

Third, the translators of the Revised Version flatly contradict themselves. Here we have the phrase, xcisa graphe thcopnusios kai ophelimos, which they render, “Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable.” But in another passage, where the same verb is left out, we have pania gumna kai teirakeelismena, which the Authorized Version renders, “all things are naked and opened,” and the Kevised renders in the same way; “all things are naked and laid open.” If the translators of the latter had been consistent, they would have rendered it, “all things naked are also laid open.”

Fourth, they cannot plead the necessity of translating pasa graphe “every Scripture,” because it is in the singular number, for they translate pas oikos, which is also singular, “all the house,” Acts ii. 36. We may assume, therefore, that the old rendering is the best, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God;” and rejoice in the assurance that the writing and very words were under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

But we are by no means left to the testimony of one witness to prove the verbal inspiration of the original Scriptures. It is affirmed more than two thousand times, and as Robert Haldane truly says, “Nothing can be more clearly, more expressly, or more precisely taught in the Word of God. And while other important doctrines may be met with passages of seeming opposition, there is not in the language of the Scriptures one expression that even appears to contradict their plenary and verbal inspiration.”

“For the prophecy came not in old time [margin, at any time] by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Pet. i. 21. The Revised renders this, “No prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost.” If the will of man was left to select the language in which revelation is clothed, the evidence of the apostle is not true, for he says, “no prophecy ever came by the will of man,” and he also declares that holy men of God spake, not thought, but spake, employed words, “had utterance from God,” as Alford renders it, being moved, or borne along, by the Holy Ghost.

Turning then to the Old Testament, and accepting its threefold division, recognized by our Lord Himself, into the law of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, we ask what do the men whom God used to make known His truth say of their inspiration? Moses tells us that Jehovah sent him with a message to Pharaoh and to the enslaved Israelites, and that he recoiled from the dangerous and disagreeable service, exclaiming, “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?” God did not ask, who hath made man’s mind, but man’s mouth? “Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou phalt say.” Ex. iv. 10-12.

Keep reading