The Preacher with His Bible
Ihe inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is now one of the commanding themes of discussion.
One cannot discourse on preaching without touching at least upon flie outlines of this great subject, because it is just now the central point of theological controversy; and yet I somewhat hesitate even to touch upon it, because there is not sufificient space for the proper and exhaustive treatment of the theme.
In the first place, as to the definition of inspiration, I doubt very much whether it is best even to attempt it, for no attempt is ever made in the Word of God. We may learn in the Scripture what is the effect of inspiration on the Word and on the faith of the believer, but, as with faith itself, there is no proper definition of inspiration. Several things, however, are obvious:
First, that in the Word of God it is God that speaks rather than man (see 2 Pet. i. 20, 21). The Holy Scripture is here declared to be not of private interpretation. Notice the Greek — the expression means “loosing, liberation,” and is sometimes applied to the emerging of the chrysalis from its shell. This loosing out of mystery is not of man, but of God. It is no human undoing when the truth emerges out of the darkness. Paul in I Cor. ii. 13, teaches that God controls the utterance as well as the conception. “Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” or expressing spiritual conceptions by spiritual terms.
The theory that God inspired the concept and not the words will not answer. Burke has wisely said, as to the words in a sentence, that every word is one of the feet upon which the sentence walks, and that to shorten or to lengthen a word or even to change its place in a sentence, may be to divert the course of the whole sentence. Wordsworth says that “language is the incarnation of thought.” intimating that it bears the same relation to thoufrht that the body does to the spirit, not only its vehicle but its means of expression and exhibition. Everyone knows that the most honest reporter may not give proper expression to the conceptions of one whose address or sentiments he undertakes to represent; and in all critical cases we insist that, after “an interview,” we shall see what has been written, and examine the forms of expression lest they do injustice to our thought. Dr. John Hall of New York said to me of Dr. Briggs that he was himself the principal contradiction of, his own theory. When he delivered his famous inaugural address at the assumption of his new chair in a well-known theological seminary, he was taken to task for the sentiments which he there expressed, and he and his friends defended his position on the ground that his concept was all right but his language was misunderstood and misconstrued. Dr. Hall says, if a man cannot express his own ideas so as to be understood, how much less could he express the ideas of Almighty God unless God exercised oversight over his language.
There are, with regard to this question of “verbal inspiration,” or the oversight of the very words of Scripture, five important and significant passages in the Word of God: Heb. xii. 27; Gal. iv 9; John viii. 58; John X. 34-36; Gal. iii. 16. If these passages are examined, it will be seen that in the first instance the argument turns on one phrase, “yet once more.” In the second, on .lq passive voice rather than the active voice of a verb. In the third, on the present rather than the past tense. In the fourth, on the inviolability of a single word; and in the fifth, on the retention of the singular number of a noun rather than the plural. Taking the five passages together, they teach us that, to alter or omit a phrase, change the voice or mood or tense of a verb, change a single word or even the number of a noun, is to break the Scriptures; and if this does not come close to verbal inspiration, then I am no judge.
Secondly, the prophets did not in many cases understand their own utterances. See I Pet. i. 10-12, where we are told that, in prophesying the sufferings of Christ and the glory that is to follow, they themselves searched to know what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify. This precludes the possibility that prophecy or pietliction could have been merely a sagacious guesswork, however wisely conducted and with however much intelh’gence. It entirely banishes that modern theory that we find in George Adam Smith’s first volume on Isaiah, in which the nature of inspiration under the old covenant is made to consist of a revelation or supposed revelation of great principles of God’s moral government, such as that Israel, as God’s witnesses must be saved, and yet iniquity as such must be punished; and that in connection with this there was a sagacious, accurate observation and study of the men and events of the prophet’s own period; and that on the basis of these two he was enabled to construct the predictions as to the future of his people. This is a common method, quite too frequent with so-called scholars and higher critics, of practically eliminating from prophecy the supernatural element. It may satisfy the critics, but it can scarcely satisfy the conditions of prophecy. How shall we account for predictions of which the Spirit of God declares that those who wrote them did not understand them, but were transmitting them to us that they without us should not be made perfect?
Thirdly, inspiration is more than illumination. Illumination is dependent upon the attestation of internal consciousness; but inspiration is dependent upon the external attestation of miracle and fulfilled prediction. Illumination can be certified only to the illumined man; inspiration may be certified to the hearer and reader.
I’ourthly, inspiration demands infallibility; otherwise we have no final court of arbitration and appeal. There is no
“Judge to end the strife.
When wit and wisdom fail.”
We all need these final standards to settle disputed questions, as in weights and measures; as in the correction of our watches by chronometers, and chronometers by God’s clock of the ages, which never fails of coming to the exact second with its index hand, at the exact time.
Fifthly, the written Word, like the living Word, consists of a body antl a soul. As the body of Christ was conceived in the womb of the Virgin, but by the power of the Holy Ghost, so the written Scriptures are conceived in the womb of the human intellect, but by the power of the Spirit of God.
The narrative in Daniel, about the man’s handwriting on the wall of the King’s palace, is a fine illustration of inspiration. We do not dispute the human hand that does the writing, but we claim that the writing is God’s writing; and that when it is written no man can add thereto or subtract therefrom; and all that we then need is the interpreter to come and read and explain the writing as the Holy Spirit shall enlighten his experienced soul to do. So in each case there is an immaculate conception and a true incarnation of the mind and spirit of God.
Sixthly, we have no hesitation in admitting that inspiration is an incomprehensible mystery. Compare John iii. 8, where the Spirit is compared to the wind, invisible, incomprehensible, indispensable, independent of man’s will, irresistible in its action, yet indisputable in its operations. Even so the Spirit of God in the Scriptures may be described by the same terms.
Note, however, the following discriminations:
First, of course inspiration is claimed only for the original dociunents. It is granted that errors may occur in copying; intentional and unintentional changes; those designed by officious scribes, and those which are careless and accidental. Some changes undoubtedly have occurred, and in some cases it has been discovered that changes in letters are due to the overlapping of different characters, both in the Greek and in the Hebrew, one pressing against the other and leaving its impression upon the other. In this way “of” has been changed into “cot,” the contraction for which is f, the cross-mark on the Q leaving its impression on the o. All the punctuation marks, the italicized words, the varieties of rendering, the imperfcctness of translation, are the work of man, and whatever fault is found in connection with them cannot be charged to the original document. We set up the Scriptures in the original before the mirror of modern language and we get a reflection in that mirror. The reflection may be more or less perfect, but the reflection is sufificicntly adequate for the purpose for lliich it is to be employed, like the reflection of one’s own face in a glass.
2. Secondly, inspiration is properly claimed for the 5r;///;//r;//j wliencvcr God speaks or acts or approves r but only for the record, and not the sentiments, where simply a narrative is given without direct or indirect signs of God’s approbation. We claim inspiration for the sentiments, first of all, where God Himself is the speaker. Secondly, where the prophets profess and claim to speak in His name. Thirdly, where Christ refers to utterances as inspired, quoting from the Old Testament, the Psalms, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, etc.
We cannot claim such inspiration for the sentiment or the conceptions expressed: First, where, manifestly, error is taught, as when Satan or evil men are speaking; or godly men, under manifestly a wrong and carnal feeling. No one claims that Abraham was inspired in lying about Sarah; or that Paul was inspired when he said “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall” — which may have been a case of intemperate anger, for Christ said under the same circumstances very meekly and mildly, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, whysmitest thou me?” In such cases we have simply a record of events without any hint, direct or indirect, of Divine sanction.
The question may properly arise as to how far certain recorded events bear the impress of Divine approbation. Where ungodly people speak, or godly people speak without Divine authority, it is no irreverence to raise the question of inspiration, Peter, in the first chapter of Acts, in the choice of Matthias as an Apostle, may have been officious, not waiting for the pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit of God, and so venturing to fill the apostolic gap without Divine direction. The woman of Samaria did not necessarily in her conversation with Jesus speak the words of God; we have a record of her conversation, but there is no hint that her sentiments were inspired. And so of Job and his three friends, and even Elihu; their utterances pertain to a narrative which, as a narrative is inspired, but all the sentiments of which may not be the sentiments of God, and some of which sentiments are even repudiated when God Himself speaks.
Again, where no sanction is ivi plied, it is not an irreverence to question inspiration. The plan of Ecclesiastes is obvious. Solomon is represented as conducting an experiment on scientific principles, having roj’al resources with which to conduct it; and he acknowledges, before the book is concluded, the failure of his experiment, and the necessity of introducing a Divine factor in order to the explanation of human enigmas and the solution of the problems of life. If this plan of the book be a true plan, then many of the utterances of Solomon, as a disappointed man under the failure of his experiments, while they represent the true state of mind in him may not represent a Divine conclusion; the plan of the book, therefore, must determine with us how far the sentiments of Solomon, expressed there, are to be taken as reflecting the Divine mind. So with regard to Solomon’s Song. The most satisfactory scheme of this poem is that of Godet, and others, which constructs the book on somewhat this plan: Solomon seeks to allure, and to lead into his royal harem, a young maiden who is betrothed to a poor shepherd; Solomon surrounds her with all manner of inducement, which she repels and resists that she may return to her true lover. If we accept this scheme of the poem, many of the sentiments of Solomon’s song will become the seductive utterance of worldly allurement, while others become the reply of God’s true believer to all these seductions. It is quite plain that the classification of the separate utterances of this Love Song will depend on the party to whom we attribute them. The question will then be, who in each case is the speaker, and whether the speech is the product of carnal or of spiritual desire. It is here that a reverent criticism may do a Bible student the highest benefit, in helping him to a correct and spiritual apprehension of the Divine plan in the sacred writings. It would be a useful thing to take a copy of the Bible ami go through it from beginning to end, marking it with some reference to such utterances and sentiments as are manifestly- an expression of the Divine mind, and indicating those portions of the Scriptures which are guaranteed only as accurate narratives of events.
Thirdly, an adequate philosophy of inspiration is not needful. Human wisdom often begins as a mere vassal with regard to the Holy Scriptures, then it aspires to be a consort, and finally becomes a usurper, arrogant in tone and insolent in assumptions and professions. But the word still survives, as in the motto of the W’aldensian Church, Trittiutur viallci, ronaiict iiuus — .lc mallets or hammers are broken, but the anvil still stands. The Word of God survives all the attacks and assaults of its foes, because of inherent and unalterable value and inspiration. It does not always follow that there is no reason for that which is found in the Word, because no reason is apparent. Fourthly, no doubt there is a progress of doctrine in the Holy Scriptures. A prominent theological instructor has said, and the statement is a shocking one, that “immoralities are commended and commanded in the Bible.” This we utterly deny. It is true that sometimes they are recorded, as in the case of Lot and his daughters; that sometimes they are permitted for a time, as was the system of polygamy and also of divorce under the administration of Moses. They are sometimes regulated with reference to their immediate amelioration and ultimate abolition. Sometimes they are “winked, at” because of the ignorance and incapacity of men as to the understanding and conception of a high ideal. And sometimes they are not properly immoralities at all because the light was inadequate, and on the measure of light depends the measure of human responsibility. To know and not to do constitutes the great aggravation of sin. For instance, as to what are called the imprecatory Psalms, there was almost no conception in the ancient Hebrew mind of the purpose of God as to the conversion of the race; and hence, those who were outside of the Hebrew Church were looked upon even b)’ the most spiritual and pious as simply so many obstacles to the progress of the truth. Indeed they were such, and the prayer for their utter defeat and destruction was the natural and only possible pra)’er with devout souls, zealous for God and His truth, to whom it had not been revealed that God had a higher ultimate purpose in the salvation of other nations. It is supposable that in the millennial age there may be an unfolding of some truths which now are unknown by us, or most dimly perceived. Such new revealings of truth might change the character even of some of our prayers.
Fifthly, I feel bound to add that the scientific accuracy of the Word of God is a singular attestation of its inspiration.* Here we have the oldest extant book, reaching beyond the period of authentic history into
* This is so important a subject that I have given to it a separate treatment in another volume, “Many Infallible Proofs,” to which I must refer the reader.
the age of fable, when there was no accurate science, when astronomy was astrology and chemistry, alchemy; and yet not one of those absurdities which found their way into all the other “sacred books,” and the writings of even such philosophers as Plato and Aristotle, found their way into the sacred book of God!
The Bible is not, and ought not to be, a scientific book. It is primarily and principally a revelation of moral and spiritual truth. It leaves science for man to explore, and he is to reach its certainties through experiments and blunders. It leaves the human intellect to attain knowledge on such subjects by a law of development. The Word of God could not treat scientific subjects without diverting man’s attention to side issues. And yet, when scientific matters are incidentally referred to, an elastic, flexible phraseology is used which, without either contradicting or revealing scientific facts, hides within its form of expression a germ of truth, which expands to fit the dimensions of future discoveries. Take for example the word “expanse;” translated “firmament,” in Genesis. No Hebrew word could have been selected by a modern scientist better describingthc actual nature of the expanse between earth and sky which was not then understood!
Observe that not one well established fact of science is found to be absolutely unreconcilable with the explicit teaching of Scripture. The eighty theories of French infidels, which less than a century ago threatened to demolish the Word of God, have been exploded — every one of them — and the Word still stands, like Gibraltar’s Rock.
On the other hand, let Txxxy candid student compare the Bible teachings as to Creation with the ancient absurdities of Hindu cosmogony on one hand, and the discoveries of geology on the other. Let him note the order of created life, and see how it tallies exactly with the discoveries of comparative anatomy — advancing from fish to reptile, reptile to bird, bird to mammal, and mammal to man! Compare Ps. cxix. 33 with the physiological fact about the heart of the staghound, the fleetest animal in the chase, etc.
Let the astronomer tell us how Jeremiah was led (xxxiii. 22) to describe the host of stars as equally countless with the grains of sand, although Hipparchus and Ptolemy both counted and catalogued the stars as not much exceeding 3000; and, let us remember that, until Galileo turned his primitive telescope heavenward, the first idea of the countless host of stars never dawned on the human mind.
Job xxxviii. contains more scientific hints than all uninspired literature up to the fifteenth century.
As to natural philosophy, how was Moses led to describe the creation of light as by a fiat — “Let light be, and light was!” Everything else is “made,” but light is commanded to shine. And who taught David that light is visible music, and inspired him to use the very word to describe the vibrations of light that was applied to the vibrations of a musical chord? Compare Ps. lxv. 8, xix. 1-6, and Job xxxviii. 7. Tyndall and Huxley might envy such accuracy of language to describe the latest discoveries!
Who taught Job, long before Galileo, that the atmosphere had weigJit (Job xxviii. 25)? Who led Solomon to hint that the capricious winds have their circuits (Eccles. i. 6) and that the highest parts of the earth are the oldest (Prov. viii. 26)?
Who tausfht Solomon that the ant has in too THE DIVINE ART OF PREACHING.
the brain only ray matter, and so is wisest of all animals (Prov. vi. 6-8); and that there is a cistern or receptacle, and a fountain or impulsive ventricle, in the heart, and that the blood is pumped up through the veins to be discharged again, as water by a wheel at a spring in the Orient (Eccles. xii. 1-12)? Cosmogony, comparative anatomy, ethnology, astronomy, chemistry, natural philosophy, geology, entomology, physiology and psychology, paleontology and archaeology — these and other kindred sciences come with their latest discoveries to the Holy Oracle, and God points them to words written a hundred years, perhaps a thousand years, before authentic history began to be written, or science had its true birth; and yet in those words are found the germs of all modern scientific discoveries and knowledge.