CHAPTER III. INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. I. DEFINITION OF INSPIRATION. By the inspiration of the Scriptures, we mean that special divine influence upon the minds of the Scripture writers in virtue of which their productions, apart from errors of transcription, and when rightly interpreted, together constitute an infallible and sufficient rule of faith and practice. (a) Inspiration is therefore to be defined, not by its method, but by its result. It is a general term including all those kinds and degrees of the Holy Spirit's influence which were brought to bear upon the minds of the Scripture writers, in order to secure the putting into permanent and written form of the truth best adapted to man's moral and religious needs. (b) Inspiration may often include revelation, or the direct communication from God of truth to which man could not attain by his unaided powers. It may include illumination, or the quickening of man's cognitive powers to understand truth already revealed. Inspiration, however, does not necessarily and always include either revelation or illumination. It is simply the divine influence which secures a correct transmission of the truth to the future, and, according to the nature of the truth to be transmitted, it may be only an inspiration of superintendence, or it may be also and at the same time an inspiration of illumination or revelation. (c) It is not denied, but affirmed, that inspiration may qualify for oral utterance of infallible truth, or for wise leadership and daring deeds. We are now concerned with inspiration, however, only as it pertains to the authorship of Scripture. It may help us to understand the meaning of the terms above employed, if we adduce instances of (1) Inspiration without revelation, as in Luke or Acts, Luke 1:1-3; (2) Inspiration including revelation, as in the Apocalypse, Rev. 1: 1, 11; (6) Illumination without inspiration, as in modern preachers, Eph. 2: 20. Some, like Priestly, have held that the gospels are authentic but not inspired. We therefore add to the proof of the genuineness and credibility of Scripture the proof of its inspiration. Other definitions are those of Park: "Inspiration is such an influence over the writers of the Bible that all their teachings which have a religious character are trustworthy:" and of Wilkinson: "Inspiration is help from God to keep report of divine revelation free from error. Help to whom? No matter to whom, so the result is secured. The final result, víz.: the record or report of revelation, this must be free from error. Inspiration may affect one or all of the agents employed." On the idea of Revelation, see Ladd, in Journ. Christ. Philos., Jan., 1883: 156-178; on Inspiration, ibid., Apr., 1883: 225-248. See Henderson on Inspiration (2nd ed.), 58, 205, 249, 303, 310. For other works on the general subject of Inspiration, see Lee, Bannermann, Jamieson, McNaught; Garbett, God's Word Written; Aids to Faith, essay on Inspiration. Also, Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 1: 205; Westcott, Introd. to Study of the Gospels, 27-65; Bib. Sac., 1: 97; 4: 154; 12: 217; 15: 29, 314; 25: 192–198; Dr. Barrows, in Bib. Sac., 1867: 593; 1872: 428; Farrar, Science in Theology, 208; Hodge and Warfield, in Presb. Rev., Apr., 1881: 225-261. II. PROOF OF INSPIRATION. 1. Since we have shown that God has made a revelation of himself to man, the presumption becomes doubly strong that he will not trust this revelation to human tradition and misrepresentation, but will also provide a correct and authoritative record of it. The physician commits his prescriptions to writing; the Clerk of Congress records its proceedings; the State department of our government instructs our foreign ambassadors, not orally, but by dispatches. There is yet greater need that revelation should be recorded, since it is to be transmitted to distant ages; it contains long discourses; it embraces mysterious doctrines. Jesus did not write himself; for he was the subject, not the mere channel, of revelation. His unconcern about the apostles, immediately committing to writing what they saw and heard is inexplicable, if he did not expect that inspiration would assist them. 2. Jesus, who has been proved to be not only a credible witness, but a messenger from God, vouches for the inspiration of the Old Testament, by quoting it with the formula: "it is written;" by declaring that " one jot or one tittle" of it "shall in no wise pass away"; and by calling it "the word of God" which "cannot be broken." Jesus quotes from four out of the five books of Moses, and from the Psalms, Isaiah, Malachi, and Zechariah, with the formula, "it is written"; see Mat. 4: 4, 6, 7; 11: 10; Mark 14 : 27 ; Luke 4: 4-12. This formula among the Jews indicated that the quotation was from a sacred book and was divinely inspired. Jesus certainly regarded the Old Testament with as much reverence as the Jews of his day. He declared that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law" (Mat. 5: 18). He called it "the word of God"; said that "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10: 35) ="the normative and judicial authority of the Scripture cannot be set aside; notice here the idea of the unity of Scripture" (Meyer). Luke 11: 49-"Therefore also said the wisdom of God". The apostles quote the O. T. as God's word (Eph. 4 : 8-ôiò déyei, sc. ô Deós). On the testimony of N. T. writers to O. T. inspiration, see Henderson, Inspiration, 254. 3. Jesus commissioned his apostles as teachers and gave them promises of a supernatural aid of the Holy Spirit in their teaching, like the promises made to the Old Testament prophets. Mat. 28: 19, 20" Go ye teaching... and lo, I am with you". Compare promises to Moses (Ex. 3: 12), Jeremiah (Jer. 1: 5-8), Ezekiel (Ezek. 2 and 3). See also Is. 44: 3 and Joel 2: 28-"I will pour my spirit upon thy seed "; Mat. 10: 7--" as ye go, preach "; 19-" be not anxious how or what ye shall speak"; John 14: 26" the Holy Spirit. . . . shall teach you all things"; 15: 26, 27-"the Spirit of truth.... shall bear witness of me and ye also bear witness" the Spirit shall witness in and through you; 16: 13-" he shall guide you into all the truth' - (1) limitation-all the truth of Christ, i. e. not of philosophy or science, but of religion; (2) comprehension-all the truth within this limited range, i. e. sufficiency of Scripture as rule of faith and practice (Hovey); 17: 8-"the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them"; Acts 1: 4-" he charged them.... to wait for the promise of the Father"; John 20: 21, 22" he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost". Here was both promise and communication of the personal Holy Spirit. Compare Mat. 10: 19, 20-"It shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." See Henderson, Inspiration, 247, 248. 4. The apostles claim to have received this promised Spirit, and under his influence to speak with divine authority, putting their writings upon a level with the Old Testament Scriptures. We have not only direct statements that both the matter and the form of their teaching were supervised by the Holy Spirit, but we have indirect evidence that this was the case in the tone of authority which pervades their addresses and epistles. Statements:-1 Cor. 2: 10, 13-"unto us God revealed them through the Spirit.... Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth "; 11: 23-"I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you"; 12: 8, 28-the Aóyos σopias was apparently a gift peculiar to the apostles; 14: 37, 38-"The things which I write unto you... they are the commandment of the Lord"; Gal. 1: 12 -"Neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ;"' 1 Thess. 4: 2, 8 -"Ye know what charge we gave you through the Lord Jesus . . . . Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you". The following passages put the teaching of the apostles on the same level with O. T. Scripture: 1 Pet. 1: 11, 12-"Spirit of Christ which was in them" [O. T. prophets];-[N. T. preachers] “preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Ghost"; 2 Pet. 1: 21-O. T. prophets "spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost"; 3: 2-"Remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets" [O. T.], "and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles" [N. T.]; 16: " 'Wrest [Paul's Epistles], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." Cf. Ex. 4: 14-16; 7: 1. Implications:-2 Tim. 3: 16-"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable-a clear implication of inspiration, though not a direct statement of it = there is a divinely inspired Scripture. In 1 Cor. 5: 3-5, Paul, commanding the Corinthian church with regard to the incestuous person, was arrogant if not inspired. There are more imperatives in the Epistles than in any other writings of the same extent. Notice the continual asseveration of authority, as in Gal. 1: 1, 2, and the declaration that disbelief of the record is sin, as in 1 John 5: 10, 11. Jude 3- The faith which was once for all (ära§) delivered unto the saints." See Kahnis, Dogmatik, 3: 122; Henderson, Inspiration (2nd ed.), 34, 234; Conant, Genesis, Introd. xiii, note; Charteris, New Testament Scriptures: They claim truth, unity, authority. 5. The apostolic writers of the New Testament, unlike professedly inspired heathen sages and poets, gave attestation by miracles or prophecy that they were inspired by God, and there is reason to believe that the productions of those who were not apostles, such as Mark, Luke, Hebrews, James, and Jude, were recommended to the churches as inspired, by apostolic sanction and authority. The twelve wrought miracles (Mat. 10:1). Paul's "signs of an apostle " (2 Cor. 12: 12) = miracles. Internal evidence confirms the tradition that Mark was the "interpreter of Peter," and that Luke's Gospel and the Acts had the sanction of Paul. Since the purpose of the Spirit's bestowment was to qualify those who were to be the teachers and founders of the new religion, it is only fair to assume that Christ's promise of the Spirit was valid not simply to the twelve but to all who stood in their places, and to these not simply as speakers, but, since in this respect they had a still greater need of divine guidance, to them as writers also. The epistle to the Hebrews, with the letters of James and Jude, appeared in the lifetime of some of the twelve, and passed unchallenged; and the fact that they all, with the possible exception of 2 Peter, were very early accepted by churches founded and watched over by the apostles, is sufficient evidence that the apostles regarded them as inspired productions. As evidences that the writers regarded their writings as of universal authority, see 1 Cor. 1: 2-"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth.... with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place," etc.; 7: 17-"So ordain I in all the churches"; Col. 4: 16—“and when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans"; 2 Pet. 3: 15, 16" our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you." See Bartlett, in Princeton Rev., Jan., 1880: 23-57; Bib. Sac., Jan., 1884: 204, 205. This holds that inspiration is but a higher development of that natural insight into truth which all men possess to some degree; a mode of intelligence in matters of morals and religion which gives rise to sacred books, as a corresponding mode of intelligence in matters of secular truth gives rise to great works of philosophy or art. This theory naturally connects itself with Pelagian and rationalistic views of man's independence of God, or with pantheistic conceptions of man as being himself the highest manifestation of an all-pervading but unconscious intelligence. Morell and F. W. Newman in England, and Theodore Parker in America, are representatives of this theory. See Morell, Philos. of Religion, 127-179-" Inspiration is only a higher potency of what every man possesses in some degree." But we reply that the inspiration of everybody is equivalent to the inspiration of nobody. Francis W. Newman (brother of John Henry Newman), Phases of Faith (= phases of unbelief). Theodore Parker, Discourses of Religion, and Experiences as a Minister. With regard to this theory we remark: (a) Man has, indeed, a certain natural insight into truth, and we grant that inspiration uses this, so far as it will go, and makes it an instrument in discovering and recording facts of nature or history. In the investigation, for example, of purely historical matters, such as Luke records, merely natural insight may at times have been sufficient. When this was the case, Luke may have been left to the exercise of his own faculties, inspiration only inciting and supervising the work. (b) In all matters of morals and religion, however, man's insight into truth is vitiated by wrong affections, and, unless a supernatural wisdom can guide him, he is certain to err himself, and to lead others into error. 1 Cor. 2: 14-Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged "; 10-"But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God." See quotation from Coleridge, in Shairp, Culture and Religion, 114-"Water cannot rise higher than its source; neither can human reasoning"; Emerson, Prose Works, 1: 474; 2: 468-""Tis curious we only believe as deep as we live "; Ullmann, Sinlessness of Jesus, 183, 184. (c) The theory in question, holding as it does that natural insight is the only source of religious truth, involves a self-contradiction;-if the theory be true, then one man is inspired to utter what a second is inspired to pronounce false. The Vedas, the Koran and the Bible cannot be inspired to contradict each other. The Vedas permit thieving, and the Koran teaches salvation by works; these cannot be inspired and the Bible also. Paul cannot be inspired to write his epistles, and Swedenborg also inspired to reject them. (d) It makes moral and religious truth to be a purely subjective thinga matter of private opinion-having no objective reality independently of men's opinions regarding it. On this system truth is what men 'trow'; things are what men 'think '-words representing only the subjective. "Better the Greek áλýðeia='the unconcealed' (objective truth)"-Harris, Philos. Basis of Theism, 182. If there be no absolute truth, Lessing's 'search for truth' is the only thing left to us. But who will search, if there is no truth to be found? See Dix, Pantheism, Introd., 12. (e) It logically involves the denial of a personal God who is truth and reveals truth, and so makes man to be the highest intelligence in the uni verse. The animus of this theory is denial of the supernatural. Like the denial of miracles, it can be maintained only upon grounds of atheism or pantheism. (f) It explains inspiration only by denying its existence; since, if there be no personal God, inspiration is but a figure of speech for a purely natural fact. The view in question, as Hutton in his Essays remarks, would permit us to say that the word of the Lord came to Gibbon, amid the ruins of the Coliseum, saying: "Go, write the history of the Decline and Fall!" But, replies Hutton: Such a view is pantheistic. Inspiration is the voice of a living friend, in distinction from the voice of a dead friend, i. e. the influence of his memory. The inward impulse of genius, Shakespeare's for example, is not properly denominated inspiration. See Row, Bampton Lectures for 1877: 428-474; Rogers, Eclipse of Faith, 73 sq. and 283 sq.; Henderson, Inspiration (2nd ed.), 413-469, 481-490. This regards inspiration as merely an intensifying and elevating of the religious perceptions of the Christian, the same in kind, though greater in degree, with the illumination of every believer by the Holy Spirit. It holds, not that the Bible is, but that it contains, the word of God, and that not the writings, but only the writers, were inspired. This theory naturally connects itself with Arminian views of mere coöperation with God. It differs from the Intuition-theory by containing several distinctively Christian elements: (1) the influence of a personal God; (2) an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit; (3) the Christological character of the Scriptures, putting into form a revelation of which Christ is the centre (Rev. 19: 10). But while it grants that the Scripture writers were "moved by the Holy Ghost" (depóμevo-2 Pet. 1: 21), it ignores the complementary fact that the Scripture itself is "inspired of God" (cóжVEVσTOS-2 Tim. 3: 16). This view was represented in Germany by Schleiermacher, with the more orthodox Neander and Tholuck. See Essays by Tholuck in Herzog, Encyclopædie, and in Noyes, Theological Essays. In England, Coleridge propounded this view in his Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit (Works, 5: 569)- Whatever finds me bears witness that it has proceeded from a Holy Spirit; in the Bible there is more that finds me than I have experienced in all other books put together." [Shall we then call Baxter's "Saints' Rest" inspired, while the Books of Chronicles are not?] See also F. W. Robertson, Sermon I; Life and Letters, letter 53, vol. 1: 270; 2: 143-150-"The other way, some twenty or thirty men in the world's history have had special communication, miraculous and from God; in this way, all have it, and by devout and earnest cultivation of the mind and heart may have it illimitably increased." See also Farrar, Critical History of Free Thought, 473, note 50; Martineau, Studies of Christianity: "One Gospel in many Dialects"; Godet, in Revue Chrêtienne, Jan., 1878; Cremer, Wörterb. d. N. T., 3 Aufl., 369, art.: deó-vevσTOS; also in Herzog, Encyclop., 2 Aufl., 6: 746, 747. Luther's view resembled this; see Dorner, Gesch. prot. Theol., 236, 237. Of American writers who favor this view, see J. F. Clarke, Orthodoxy, its Truths and Errors, 74; Curtis, Human Element in Inspiration; Whiton, in N. Eng., Jan., 1882: 63-72; Ladd, Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, and in Andover Review, July, 1885. With regard to this theory we remark: (a) There is unquestionably an illumination of the mind of every believer by the Holy Spirit, and we grant that there may have been instances in which the influence of the Spirit, in inspiration, amounted only to illumination. Certain applications and interpretations of Old Testament Scripture, as for example, John the Baptist's application to Jesus of Isaiah's prophecy (John 1: 29" Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away [marg. 'beareth'] the sin of the world"), and Peter's interpretation of David's words (Acts 2: 27-"Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption"), may have required only the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit. (b) But we deny that this was the constant method of inspiration, or that such an influence can account for the revelation of new truth to the prophets and apostles. The illumination of the Holy Spirit gives no new truth, but only a vivid apprehension of the truth already revealed. Any original communication of truth must have required a work of the Spirit different, not in degree, but in kind. The Scriptures clearly distinguish between revelation, or the communication of new truth, and illumination, or the quickening of man's cognitive powers to perceive truth already revealed. No increase in the power of the eye or the telescope will do no more than to bring into clear view what is already within its range. Illumination will not lift the veil that hides what is beyond. Revelation, on the other hand, is an unveiling’— the raising of a curtain, or the bringing within our range of what was hidden before. Such a special operation of God is described in 2 Sam. 23: 2, 3-" The spirit of the Lord spake by me, And his word was upon my tongue. The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spake to me"; Mat. 10: 20" For it is |