The Holy Spirit as the Interpreter of Scripture

Perhaps there is no function assigned to the Holy Spirit more important for us to understand than that by which He assures to the church a profound and correct Interpretation of Scripture. According to the teaching of the apostle Peter (than whom no man was more experimentally qualified to speak on the subject, seeing that he had often been rebuked for his impetuous treatment of divine utterances), “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation;” and the reason which he gives for this is philosophically satisfactory, viz., as the prophecy did not come by the will of man it cannot be fully comprehended and explained by the intellectual power of man. In this case man was an instrument in receiving and pronouncing the word, and he must be an Instrument also in the study and mastery of Its ‘meaning. As holy men of God were moved by the Holy Ghost to speak, so they must be moved by the Holy Ghost to feel and understand, the divine orach. Yet above all other books the Bible calls for exposition; its very form sets at naught the laws of literary structure, whilst all Its problems and questionings have about them the solemn yet fascinating vvcIrJncss ky an unknown origin and purpose. Its

The Holy Spirit as the Interpreter of Seriptitre. 79

preface is simply — “In the beginning- God,” and its epilogue is a curse on the man who takes away aught of its sacred store. Between these extremes, so appropriate yet so startling, is found the apostolic caution not to enclose for sellish uses any portion of the freehold meant for the whole world. The very fact that a protest is entered against the narrowness and insufficiency of “private interpretation” should beget a deeper confidence in the divinity and consequent pureness of the revelation. On the other hand what becomes of the right of private judgment? Can it be maintained without extorting from the holy word mistaken sanctions of personal crotchets or sectarian hobbies? Are unholy men to be turned promiscuously into the Book, and told to get out of it such advantages as they may suppose themselves to find? Is it so, or otherwise? This is a delicate inquiry, demanding treatment that shall in its human aspect be austerely reverent.

It is evident that the inevitable and most serious perils attending “private interpretation” constitute an unanswerable argument against it, as its e:Nercise is commonly understood. Yes; the perils are inevitable as well as most serious, for in the first instance attention must of course be fixed on the letter, and the letter brings up instantly some of the most vexatious difficulties arising out of secondary interpretation, that is secondary in point of value and importance. There is, if one may so put it, a battle of grammars as well as a battle of doctrines, and by the very nature of the case it is but a small minority of mankind that can take an enlightened and helpful part in such a controversy. Think of the intellectual training that is needful, the self-control, the patience, the thorough acquaintance with comparative philology, and the inexplicable sympathy A(^ feels the meaning it cannot see. But turn untrained and spiritually incompetent men into a literature of which In its original form they are wholly ignorant, and who does not see that the results must be at once critically absurd and spiritually calamitous? Unfortunately the only man who does not see this is the man whose pride is wounded by the suggestion that there is some difference between a literal form and a spiritual meaning, and the consequence of his humiliation is that he repeats his errors with the greater emphasis, and proclaims that his most sacred rights are threatened or denied. Then there is the certain danger of fixing attention upon isolated passages, and so setting up denominations and schools upon texts, which bei-ng torn from the vital body of evidence, are perverted and exaggerated to the point of impiety, — the worst sort of Impiety, too, namely the sort which sets aside common sense and literary rectitude under the pretence of superior sanctity and more humble faith. Is there a single monstrosity In the religious world that does not defend itself by some stray line of scripture, which if compared with other testimony, and read In the light of Jesus Christ’s method of quotation — “it is written aztiin” — would assume another meanlnof, and probably tend In an opposite direction? Can we wonder that such partial interpretation is forbidden in Scripture itself, and that the Bible prays to be protected from the ravages of bigoted and ignorant men? That the Bible exposes itself to such ravages is obviously in its favour, as suggesting that it is not cunningly fabricated and defended as a work of literary art, but that it comes upon the world as a living and generous revelation of spiritual truth addressed to the attention of the whole human family throughout all the ages of its progress, and so addressed (for there is a question of manner as well as of matter) as to challenge the most careful and unselfish thoughtfulness on the part of those who receive it. Given a God to find out what degree and quality of revelation He will grant, and no human mind would ever indicate such a book, as to structure and method, as the Bible. What dramatic action, rapidity of movement, brokenness of style, and apparent incoherence of plan! What little things are exaggerated, what obscure names are preserved, what trivial incidents are magnified! Stones enough, but where is the altar? Life in profusion, but how does It individualise itself into friendship, sympathy, and benediction ‘i In proportion to the life that Is Infused into any work would seem to be its exposure to variety and keenness of criticism. Insipid books soon find the way into oblivion, but books that have life compel the world to read them even though the reading lead to anger and hostility A painted portrait offers more points of attack than a photograph though the subject be the same; necessarily so; there Is more life In the one than in the other; the sun is said to be a faithful

G painte*”, but that is not an unquestionable statement, — the Gun cannot get at the soul; only soul can paint soul, only life can delineate life, man can see his shadow anywhere, but where can he see Jiiinselff As the portrait will excite more criticism than the photograph, so the living man will, by a glance or an attitude, a tone or a smile, elicit a thousand remarks which the most brilliant painting could never have suggested. So much for the subtle illimitableness of life! Is it just to determine the character of a man by a single feature of his personality, — a feature detached and viewed apart? We should then have one estimate founded upon his stature, another upon his voice, a third upon his mien, a fourth upon his face, and so on according to the fancy of each observer, and yet we should, amidst all this variety, have little or no idea of the man himself: we should still require an estimate which recognised the relation of the parts to the whole and distinguished the incidental from the vital and inseparable. So in the work of Biblical interpretation, — there must be an eye that can take in the whole landscape and a judgment which can allow for distance, light, and colour.

How, then, to realise these conditions and to brinof them to bear? And especially how to do so as not to deprive any man of his Bible by shaming him into the consciousness of utter inability to read what he has hitherto prized as the plainest and wisest of books. He will not, as he ought not, give up the Bible easily; and probably he will insist on the right of privat(- judgment, and in a moment of jealous anger may

The Holy Spirit as the Interpreter of Scripture, “i

claim equality of power with his teacher or friend. But such vehemence will be misspent if directed against the present argument, inasmuch as it has no felonious intent upon any man’s Bible or upon the rights of any man’s conscience. The question is, How to make the most of the Bible; how to get at its proper spiritual meaning; and how to express its revelations in the daily behaviour of life? Is every man qualified to interpret and decide the purpose of the Scriptures? From the point of view of this argument, interpretation is the resulr. of spiritual preparedness, and spiritual preparedness is the work of the Holy Ghost. A reader going to the Bible in a self-sufficient and self-dependent spirit will narrow and dishonour it by private interpretation, and probably bring from its perusal nothing higher than a crotchet; but going to it in another spirit he may see it and know it as a revelation from heaven.

What, then, is that other spirit y It is so specifically defined by an apostle as to prevent all doubt of its meaning; it is “the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind,” and this spirit is the direct gift of God! He who is thus qualified can make no vital mistakes in the interpretation of Scripture; whilst he who has. every other qualification but this will never apprehend the genius and purpose of the Bible. So, instead of taking the book from its humblest reader, this argument would make it doubly his, and enrich him with the most comforting promises throughout its perusal. This qualification will give a man so just an estimate of his own powers as will save him from meddlinof with thinofs which are too hiah for him, and will move him with so enliijhtened and gracious a charity as will guard him from the self-exaggeration which expresses itself in illiberal censure or contemptuous distrust. Under the iniluence of a “sound mind” he will remember that there are some things in the Bible which are not meant to be determinately interpreted, and thus he will escape the vexation which follows abortive efforts to explain and understand every mystery; “the spirit of love” will dictate large and generous interpretations of difficulties; and “the spirit of power” will liberate him from the bondacje and hardness of the mere letter. It may be worth while to vary the wording of so important a doctrine, if haply we may set it in a clearer light. Given, then, a man who approaches the Bible in a “spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind,” and the following results will certainly attend his reading: first of all, he will carefully distinguish between what is particular and what is universal, because his whole manhood will be enlarged and elevated according to the grandeur of the occasion; in the next place, he will be dispossessed of every desire to propagate theories of his own, and so to strain and debase the Bible into an ex parte witness; and in the third place, he will be so completely under the dominion of “the spirit of love” as to be saved from the persistent and impious self-conceit which is the very mainspring of ungenerous and demoralising zealotry. He will go to the Bibli n quest of Cod; he will go to il in a spirit of self-The Holy Spirit as the Ititerpreter of Scripture. 85

control; he will read it that he may find a Gospel, not that he may confirm a creed. The right of private judgment will thus be held in the interests of humanity, and the private reader will, in the best sense, become a public interpreter. Under these conditions let every man have the Bible for his own use, for he cannot forget that it is the book of God and the charter of the world.

Undoubtedly each reader will have his favourite passages, — texts to which he will turn in danger or sorrow with special expectation, and promises which wall seem to have been expressly written for his personal use. This is natural and unavoidable; it is even useful and edifying, as showing the illimitableness, the variety, the infinite adaptation and sufficiency of biblical doctrine and counsel. It is thus that each reader reprints the Bible, and that each life repronounces, with individual emphasis and unction, the righteous commandment and the tender promise. Still, this legitimate privacy of enjoyment and sense of invincible security is happily compatible with all that is claimed on behalf of the universality of the Bible. It should be borne in mind that the divine promise of satisfaction in all spiritual inquiries is independent of accidental, technical, or arbitrary conditions, and is made to rest solely upon the spiritual temper and purpose of the inquirer. In this respect the Bible is wholly unlike all other books. Letters can be interpreted by letters; but here is a book in the reading of which literary instruments can give but secondary and imperfect help; — a book which says — ‘You must read me through your hearts if you would see all the fulness of any meaning. A few proofs will show the scope and quality of the whole evidence. “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at My word.” “Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Such conditions are in happy consonance with the genius of any revelation meant for the use of the whole world; everything that is merely national, temporary, casual, or adventitious is ignored, and a great human condition, independent of place and time, is asked for by the merciful and condescending God, — “the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise,” — the things of the spiritual kingdom are hidden from the wise and prudent, and are revealed unto babes; so it seemed good in the Father s eyes.

We shall never be able to dispense with literal criticism in reading and interpreting the holy oracles, simply because they are made known to us through a literal medium; but probably we have yet to receive the profoundest commentary upon those oracles, because we have yet to attain the spiritual purity and sensitlv.eness necessary to their fullest apprehension. What is true of the written commentary is true also of the oral exposition. Preachinof will underoo modifications which some of the elders would have deemed startling, and perhaps

more than startling. It will have to throw off everything narrow and technical, and to speak the universal love in the universal language. It is not unkind to say that the pulpit, here and there at least, is marked by a smart trickery infinitely out of place, and truly pitiable, in this matter of biblical interpretation. Probably the inspired writers would be shocked could they know how their utterances are broken up into what are called “texts,” and what hothouse forcing there is in makinof a little text o-row in one hour into a lono discourse. No doubt a good deal could be said about the botany of a single blade of grass, but the flock is starving whilst the green pastures are interdicted by the fluent but most unshepherdly botanist. Text-beating is most irreligious work, and / woefully thriftless as to pastoral service. Clever, no doubt, — showing skill in word-twisting and literary legerdemain, thus making vulgar people wonder how the preacher can find so much in a vessel so small, — but no more. An impious cleverness,

leading away from interpretations profound, beneficent, wise, such as restore the soul and magnify the excellence of truth, into critical nibbling, and into rhetorical clamour- where one cannot hear the little sense on account of the great noise. Spiritual interpretation is directed differently. It is not so much textual as biblical, — that is, pervaded by the very life and purpose of truth, and in harmony with the whole plan of the universe. Great expositors will be less anxious that their hearers should listen to a discourse upon a particular sen-, tence, than that they should comprehend the meaning” of a whole epistle. Who thinks of orivine out the epistle to the Galatians as his text, or the Acts of the Apostles, or the gospel by John? Would this be inconvenient? ‘Probably so; yet (and this is the point of the suggestion) it is possible to go through the parts /;/ the spirit of the whole, as it is lamentably actual that the whole is often slurred as if it were a chaos of unrelated /ir/^’. Will it be arbitrary to insist that the part can be thoroughly understood only in the light of the whole? To hesitate to say so, is to save the feeling of preachers who, through no irreverence or idleness, may have spent the most of a public lifetime in seriously dishonouring the Bible in the very act of preaching from many of its texts.

It may be asked, How far is an expositor of the Scriptures at liberty to depend upon the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the public interpretation of the word? No categorical answer ought to be given to an inquiry like this, in which there is probably more implied than is expressed; still, the inquiry is of the first importance as bearing upon ministerial responsibility and Christian edification. We must recognise the diffcrcn.cc between

Interpretation and Utterance. Interpretation may come slowly; in some cases it may be the reward of patient diligence, in others it may come suddenly and startlingly. Interpretations are often given in the course of silent, devout, expectant reading, and, from our point of view, this would seem to be the natural application of the divine method; yet the Holy One of Israel must not be limited, nor His pleasure be questioned or thwarted by the obstinacy of man. To go into the pulpit and stand there avowedly waiting for inspiration to understand the word would seem to be but one remove (if indeed it be so much) from the most impious affectation; that, surely, would be to limit the Holy One of Israel under pretence of magnifying His power. A written revelation Implies by the very terms that it may be considered and pondered In quietness; it is already in existence; it is within reach; it is by its very nature an appeal to devout regard; why wait for public circumstances under which to inquire into its import? If, on the other hand, the question relate to Utterance rather than to interpretation, the reply may be fairly modified. Life itself is not the same thing alike under private and public conditions; it admits of expansion, of electrical sympathy, of subtle combination with the living elements and Influences around It, and under high excitement it will surprise itself by the ‘/ariety and Intensity of its emotions. All this may come without any suggestion of what is know n as divine inspiration; it is rather human inspiration.

man quickening man as iron sharpeneth iron. It may, however, have its counterpart and complement in the direct action of the Holy Ghost upon the intellectual and spiritual faculties; and where that action supervenes there will almost certainly be enlarged power of sympathy and expression. It cannot, other things being equal, be an offence to the Holy Spirit to ask Him for extemporaneous utterance that shall reach the hearts cf the congregation, — a very different thing, be it observed, from literary expression, sentences meant for a book, paragraphs measured and numbered for printing. There is an utterance which belongs to the speaker and not to the writer, an urgent, rapid, percussive, and living utterance, that cannot be printed. In the very hour of duty such utterance shall be given by the Holy Ghost to the faithful and honest servant. But ought not a minister to prepare his sermon? There we come upon a difficulty, — the difficulty of sermonising, writing and speaking by the hourglass, and running the risk of artificialisinc;- the divinest life. Preachine so soon becomes an art, a craft, a profession. A sermon is so measurable, so cold, so little, as commonly understood, only a mouthful, a hollow word perhaps, an uncertain sound may be. Yet what should it be y A stream of life, love, light, — the very blood of the heart, the very divinity of life. To talk of “preparing” it, is to run a great risk of talking insanity, and yet, as generally thought of, what can be easier than to “prepare” a sermon!

Will it be unduly bold on the part of a writer to give counsel to — what oug-ht to be the greatest of all men — the Christian preacher? The advice would be, not that he should prepare his sermon, but that he should prepare himself. His exegesis he has of course prepared in secret; he has meditated upon it in the night-watches, and prevented the day by an eager desire to know it still more perfectly; he knows what things new and old he has in the treasury, and as for his searching of the Scriptures, he has dug in them as for choice silver and stones of great price. So far the preparation has been honest, full, even jealous less aught should have failed in the minuteness of detail; but as to verbal expression, what if he should have left it to the inspiration of the moment? Were it a question of mere phraseology there is no reason why he might not have prepared it in secret; but it is phraseology with a difference: it is phraseology plus, and what that phis is no man can determine exhaustively. Perhaps it is most fitly expressed by the word life, — that word being a compound of such terms as sympathy, rapport, adaptation, responsiveness. When the preacher knows his subject, and clearly apprehends the line upon which his thought is to proceed, it may show a trustful and humble spirit on his part to depend upon the Holy Ghost for the gift of suitable and efficient utterance. But may he not write, so to speak, to the dictation of the Holy Ghost.’^ He would be a bold r.ian who would answer such an inquiry in the negative; yet he might be reverent and wise in hesitating (considering the pecuHar vocation of the pulpit) to answer it in the affirmative. “But may the preacher not stumble, blunder, or utterly fail? May he not be disquieted and indeed disabled by the fear of man? How deplorable that it should be so!” Such a suggestion is certainly not without foundation in natural reason, yet the “deplorableness” which is deprecated is not without mitigation when viewed in a proper light. It is out of weakness that good men are made strong; it is by their falling that they learn lessons which are denied to the proud and the strong; it is by the very earthenness of the vessel that the excellence of the power is often vindicated and magnified, — so these human stammerings and down-breaks may not be so deplorable as was supposed. “But to fail in the pulpit — to come to a standstill!” Painful no doubt, but not at all necessary as a consequence of depending upon the Holy Ghost. It is human fear, not human piety, that suggests the collapse and shame. But what IS failure f What is success f There may be a misapprehension and a misapplication of terms in such a discussion. “A preacher has read his discourse with unbroken fluency: that Is success;” so it may be said, but the opinion may be unsound notwithstanding Its positiveness. The fluent reader may have failed. He may not have linguall’ stumbled, and yet he may have spiritually broken down, and grieved the Spirit of God. His breakdown was not towards earth but towards heaven

The Holy Spirit as the Interpreter of Scripture. 93

to man he was a hero much applauded and flattered; to God and the angels what if he was a coward and a hireling much pitied and wept over! “Failure” is a word often wantonly used in the church, greatly to the grief of honest workers and godly souls. But supposing what is usually called “failure,” under the conditions demanded by this argument, who is it that has failed? Man? God? Having strict regard to the conditions Insisted upon in this contention, it was certainly not man that failed, and therefore we must leave the blasphemy of the alternative answer to those who can utter it. One thing only we must ask to be borne in mind, namely that there is a success which is failure, there is a failure which is success. Given the- kind and degree of dependence upon the Spirit of God indicated above, and probably there may be great changes in the form or mode of public ministration. Sermons may be less artistic, language may be less ornate or polished, appeals may be more abrupt and penetrating, methodical propriety may be disorganized, the pulpit may cease to be a refrigerator: great changes of many sorts may take place, — amongst the rest the Lord Himself may come to His holy temple as in these latter days He seldom comes, and the eloquent orator may be silent before Him. In the olden time the word came very brokenly, but did it not come with wonderful power? Did not the “babbler” arrest the attention of the world and force new themes upon its reluctant consideration? We shall be told that times .have changed, and that the education and intelligence of the age must be addressed. Herein, then, tlic distinctiveness of the preacher Is In danger of being lost, and instead of standing alone, in a noble and awful solitude as to method and claim, he may become but one of a crowd, — he may become weak as other men. The philosophical lecturer, the academician, the travelling elocutionist, the Christian preacher, each has his manuscript and each his private art. Where is the ancient distinctiveness? Where the voice of the Lord, the background of eternity, the momentum of infinitude, all the old signals of a direct representation of the Invisible and Everlasting? Preaching should never lose its distinctiveness; it should stand apart; all coalitions it should avoid as unholy and unequal. When It tampers with the mean idolatries of the common arts, it goes astray from the Cross, and sells its power to the enemy; It does not adapt itself to the age, it allows the age to take its crown and to despoil its power. But what If others imitate the preacher, and rival him in his peculiar vocation? Let them try. Their imitation will be tle highest compliment; but beyond imitation they can never go. The servant of the Lord will for ever hold a secret entirely his own; his method may easily be borrowed, but his fire is hidden where thieves cannot break through and steal.

As for this Interpreter of the book and Inspirer of the ministry, He is to be had for asking. “If )e then, being evil, know how to give good gifts anto your children; how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit unto them that ask Him?” The very sublimity of simplicity! “Ye have not because ye ask not, or because ye ask amiss.” Who can tell the fesult were. every man resolutely, with all love and zeal, to pray for a double portion of the Spirit of God?