General Suggestions: Laws of Interpretation, Etc.
We now add some general remarks, intended to be suggestive especially as to the principles upon which biblical studies should be pursued; and we lay down certain obvious laws of interpretation and canons of criticism.
I. The Bible is imperial in source, divine in authority, original in contents, and infallible in teaching. But it abounds in mysterious truths, and is often paradoxical iii state77ient.
Both the mystery and the paradox are necessary features of the Word of God, as the Book itself concedes. But it does not follow that what we cannot solve is insoluble or absurd. Deut. xxix. 29. I Cor. ii. 1 1.
II. Apparent discrepancies are inseparable from the Word of God.
The iiatuial universe abounds in inscrutable mysteries and seemini contradictions. Nature is the arena of perpetual conflict. With all the undeniable evidences of design, there are occasional monstrosities; and, side by side with proofs of benevolence in the Creator, there arc gigantic forms of disaster and destruction.
So in the Bible. The Trinity and Unity of Godhead; the Sovereignty of God and the freedom of man; the Divine Immutability and the promises to praying souls; — paradoxes like these inhere in the nature of God and of divine truth, and in the limited faculty and knowledge of man.
That God ever began to be is impossible and inconceivable; yet that God had no beginning is equally an inscrutable mystery, for how did He ever reach the present stage of His existence! If an Eternity is already passed, why may not an Eternal future reach its end? Whoever attempts to think on such themes will soon learn that there are limits to human reason. The idea of succession must not enter into our conception of Eternity; yet, of duration without succession we cannot now conceive.
III. We must settle the limits of Inspiration.
Much of the Word of God consists of simply an inspired narrative, in which all that Inspiration covers or guarantees is the accuracy and veracity of the record. This principle seems to us so obvious, that, like an axiom, it needs only a statement. One may give a most exact and truthful account of what has taken place, while disapproving the whole transaction which is recorded. We must therefore in every case notice the atithorship and authority of all statements or sentiments found in the sacred book.
‘’’’Verbal Inspiration” is to some persons a very obnoxious term, but when it is properly understood we see no ground of objection to it. It means only this, as we use it: that the Inspiring Spirit guided, guarded and governed the very latiguage in which God’s thought was expressed by holy men, who not only thought, but “spake diS they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Who is there that holds every word of the Bible to be in the same sense, inspired? When Satan says, *’ Ye shall not surely die; “when Job and his three friends discuss the problem and philosophy of evil; when the blind man, whose eyes were opened by Christ, argues with the Pharisees; when, in a word, the Bible narrates human events or records human utterances in which God is not represented either as acting or speaking through man, inspiration covers only the essential accuracy of the narrative. But when God directs a course to be pursued, or himself guides an utterance, the sanction of His infallible authority is thus given. We are not unduly jealous that ‘* degrees of inspiration” be disallowed, provided that the lowest degree of inspiration shall guard infallibility. For without this the Bible becomes simply the best of books; and loses all its divine character as the final court of appeal — the Judge which, when wit and wisdom fail, ends the strife. Men crave, and will have, a final arbiter.
We are more and more impressed with the exactness and accuracy of Scripture. When, for instance, Matthew records the direct fulfilment of a specific prediction he says: “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by tJie prophet;’’ but when he refers to Christ’s hailing from Nazareth, he says: “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,’’ (plural) “He shall be called a Nazarene” — for not in the writings of any one prophet, but rather in the drift of all prophecy is this forecast found. And so, on the day of Pentecost, Peter does not say, then ld.<=> fid filled XldX which was spoken by the prophet Joel; “but,” this is that zvhich was spoken “— for, although the outpouring of Pentecost finds its only explanatio7i in Joel, the fiilfilmeyit of that prophecy is yet to come, when the Spirit, then poured out on all disciples, shall be” poured out upon -dW flcsJiy
Two Greek words arc translated ‘’ speech,” “discourse” or ‘’saying,” (/oyoc, pwa) yet only 07ie (/.oync) IS cvcr applied to Christ. If God did not guide the words used, why were such distinctions so carefully preserved? And this is but one case out of hundreds familiar to any Bible student. There are ‘’ concepts” of God which no existing Greek words could express, and a new nomenclature had to be created, or new meanings attached to formerly existing words. The New Testament must have a glossary of its own; for a classical dictionary would not suffice. The more deeply we immerse ourselves in the study of the original Scriptures, the more will the divine choice of words impress us.
There are certainly five passages of Scripture which may be cited as giving no uncertain sound on the subject of ‘’Verbal Inspiration.” (Compare Heb. xii. 27, John x. 34-36, Gal. iii. 16, Gal. iv. 9, and John viii. 58.) In the first, the argument turns on the significance of a ^xxi’^Q: phrase; in the second, on the inviolability of a single zvord] in the third, on the use of a singular, instead of a plural niifuber; in the fourth, on the passive, instead of the active, voice of a verb; and in the fifth, on the use of the present, instead of the past, tense of the verb. Taking the five together, we are taught that “the Scripture must not be broken,” so far as to change di phrase, a wordy the nuiiihcr of a noun, or the voice or tense of a verb. If that is not verbal inspiration — a divine oversight extending not only to “concept,” but to language — our ‘’ scholarship” is entirely at fault, and we are glad that it is!
Of course, no inspiration can be claimed, in any such sense, for the various translations or versions of the original Scriptures. Human language is but a mirror or camera, before which we place the Word of God, to catch its reflection or image. The reflection or image will be imperfect, just so far as the mirror, or the camera, with its lenses and sensitive plates, is imperfect; yet for all practical purposes, these translations and versions are as faithful and accurate reproductions as the reflected image and the photographic likeness, which are but the ‘’ counterfeit presentments” of the man, and not the man himself; and such translations do not seriously mislead any candid reader.
IV. The Inspiration of Scripture must certainly secure inerrancy and infallibility; otherwise every man is at liberty to determine for himself what he accepts or rejects.
Some who deny the inerrancy of Scripture, concede that these ‘’ errors are all in the circumstantials, and not in the essentials.” But who shall decide what are ‘^ essentials “and what “circumstantials?” As a huge door turns upon a very small hinge, stupendous events hang upon what is seemingly insignificant. In God’s universe there are no little things. If we admit errors in the original Scriptures, any modern Jehudi may, with his penknife, cut out from the sacred scroll whatever he pleases; and on the *’ authority “of his reason, and perhaps, of his” church,” decide that the exscinded part belongs not to “essentials” but to ‘’circumstantials.”
Current popular phraseology which is known to be scientifically inaccurate, may find its way into the Bible simply as a prevailing idiom of speech. It is common to speak of the “Battle of Bunker Hill,” though every reader of our history knows that Breed’s Hill was the actual scene of the battle. The phrases “rising and setting sun,” “dew descending” from heaven, etc., though found in the Word of God, argue no essential error, because these current forms of speech, — the “language of appearances” — are universal even where known to be scientifically inaccurate.
Each apparent error in the Word of God must be accounted for by itself. Many errors may be traced to sources already indicated, and possibly some we may not now be able to trace. But to admit the principle that the “scriptures abound in errors, inaccuracies, mistakes and immoralities” is to destroy the value of the Bible as the Word of God.
V. We must come to the study of the Word of God with clear a7id discriminating minds.
1. Our tests must be sensible, rational tests.
In Heb. vi. 18, we are told that it is “impossible for God to lie.” Jkit again we are told in Matt. xix. 26, that “with God all things are possible.” There is no contradiction. It is only the silly caviller who cries out, “God cannot be omnipotent, because He cannot lie.” This is no limitation of God’s power; for power can be tested only within the proper sphere and range of power. The impossibility of God’s lying is not a physical but a moral impossibility, and if the same impossibility existed in some cavillers, such a dishonest objection and disingenuous argument would never have been brought forward.
2. We must use sanctified common
sense.
54 STUMBLliVG STONES REMOVED
God knows all men, omniscicntly; yet He says of Abraham, ‘’ Now, I know that thou fearest God,” etc., as though it were a new discovery. Gen. xxii. 12. Here He means that He had verified, by experiment, Abraham’s faithfulness; it was an eventual knowing. So when God is said to have “remembered Noah” (Gen. viii. i), it is not implied that He had ever forgotten him; but there is indicated and recorded an active remembrance, evinced in what He did to bring Noah again out of the ark in safety.
3. In studying the Divine anger against sin, we must beware of attributing to God a merciless severity, because He judicially destroys the ungodly.
Mercy to others sometimes makes severity to offenders the only course compatible with either justice or love to the universe at large. Chief Justice Hale said, “When I am tempted to be merciful to offenders, let me remember that there is also a mercy due to my country.” Prince Eugene never pardoned certain offenders, whom the Duke of Marlborough generally dealt with leniently. But it was found on comparison of records that, with all his laxity, the duke had been compelled to hang many more such offenders than the prince, because the duke’s laxity encouraged such to hope for immunity from penalty. We must beware of ujircgencratc notions of benevolence,
4. We must learn to distingruish between what is liferal and what is spiritual.
Many difificulties arise from confusion here: on the one hand we may literalize what is to be spiritually interpreted, or we may spiritualize what is to be literally understood.
For example, “Israel,” “Zion,” and “the church” are often used by us as though they were equivalent expressions. Paul draws in i Cor. x. 32, a distinction which, if always borne in mind, will greatly assist in Bible study: “The Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God” are the three factors, never to be confounded in the study of the Word.
When we are told to “call no man your father upon earth” (INIatt. xxiii. 9), to understand this literally would be to forbid any child to address his father as such! When we are told, “swear not at all” (Matt. v. 34), literally construed, this would forbid an “oath for confirmation” in a court of justice. Paul writes (i Tim. vi. 16), that God “only hath immortality;” does he mean that the human soul, the angels, and even the Lord Jesus, are not immortal? When, in Rom. xvi. 27, we read of “God only wise,” are we to infer that there is no such thing as a wise man?
Annihilationists argue from the phrase in Ps. xxxvii. 9, 34, that” evil doers shall be cut off’’ (karath), that they are lxXQ.xly .o pcrisJu But this same word is used of Messiah — Dan. ix. 26.
Cardinal Bellarmine argued from two texts, John xxi. 16, “feed my sheep,” and Acts x. 13, ‘’rise — kill and eat,” that the successors of Peter, the Roman Pontiffs, have a double duty — to feed true believers and to kill heretics. Why did he not go to the full length of his literalism, and insist that the popes should ‘’ eat “the heretics they ‘’ kill?” (See Haley, 280).
V. We must discriminate between a part and tJie zvJiole. A part neither includes nor excludes all the rest which belongs to the complete form.
Take for example the Inscription on the Cross. The full form was this:
‘’THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH,
THE KING OF THE JEWS.”
Of these ten words, Mark records five, Luke seven, Matthew and John, each, eight; but no two evangchsts give either the whole inscription, or select the same words from the whole. To assume that any one intends to give the whole inscription will of course make harmony impossible; but to assume that each gives so much, and such a part, of the whole as suits the precise object of his narrative, relieves the various accounts from all antagonism or inaccuracy.
VI. Exceptions do not invalidate a ruhy they rather prove it. This is a common canon of all criticism, and has numerous applications to the contents of Scripture.
VII. Hypotheses may be of great value y in unlocking mysteries and obscurities, and settling doubts.
It has long been an established law of all scientific inquiry, that, wherever a supposition meets all the facts of a given case and removes all objections, it may be safely adopted as the solution. Kepler sought to find the true theory of the universe, and applied eighteen successive hypotheses before he discovered the Harmonic Laws. His final hypothesis answered all conditions, like a perfectly fitting key in a lock, and it was admitted as the true solution of planetary orbits, etc. Upon the basis of a mere supposition the old Ptolemaic theory of the universe was finally overturned and the true nature of planetary motion discovered.
In the study of Scripture truth, let us not be driven from a satisfactory hypothesis which serves as an explanation, because our adversaries clamor for ‘’ positive “or ‘’mathematical” proofs. The burden lies with them, to prove the hypothesis untenable and the solution unsatisfactory.
VIII. The fact, the nature and the tcses of Paradox in Scripture, should be carefully noted.
A Paradox is an apparent contradiction where real harmony exists; a seeming absurdity which is still a fact, or a truth. The famous ‘’Hydrostatic” and “mechanical” paradoxes will illustrate this principle.
There are in Scripture three sorts of paradoxes.
I. The Proverbial. Proverbs xxvi. 4, 5.
“Answer a fool, according to his folly;” “Answer not a fool according to his folly.”
The reconciliation is plain: there are cases in which a course, proper at other times, is unwise. A fool may ask a question, to answer which may be to identify one’s self with his folly: again he may ask a question, to answer which may be to show him his folly.
2. The Doctrinal.
Philippians ii. 12, Work out your own salvation, for it is God which zvorketh in you both to will and to do.
No man can conic to me except the Father draw him:
Ye will not conic to me, etc. John vi. 44; v. 40.
3. The Prophetical.
Isaiah liii. abounds in these — there are in this chapter at least twelve:
Christ was a Root out of dry ground, yet fruitful; Christ was without form or beauty, yet God’s elect Servant; Christ was despised and rejected, yet the accepted Messiah; Christ was the Suffering and Dying, yet Living Saviour; Christ was without generation, yet having numerous Seed; Christ was making grave with the wicked, yet with the rich; Christ was in adversity, yet in prosperity; Christ was defeated and despoiled, yet conquering and despoiling; Christ was cut off in the midst of days, yet prolonging his days; Christ was condemned himself, yet satisfying many, etc., etc.