-- C. The inspiration according to the Scriptures.
Rott. Bredée 1884. Dr. A. Kuyper, De Schrift het woord Gods, Tiel 1870. ld.
De hedend.
Scripture criticism, Amst.
1881.
Toorenenbergen, Bijdragen tot de verklaring, toetsing en ontwikkeling van de leer der Herv. Kerk, 1865, bl. 9 v. L. Gaussen,
Theopneustie ou inspiration plénaire des S. Ecritures 1840. ld. Le Canon des S. Hon. 1860. J. H. Merle d'Aubigné, L'autorité des
Ecritures 1850. A. de Gasparin, Les écoles du doute et l'école de la foi 1853. Philippi, Kirchl. Glaub. 3e Aufl. 1883 1 125 f. Vilmar, Dogm. herausgeg. von Piderit, Gutersloh 1874 I 91 f. W. Rohnert, Die
Inspiration der H. Schrift u. ihre Bestreiter, Leipzig 1889. Koelling, Die Lehre von der Theopneustie, Breslau 1891. Henderson, Divine
Inspiration 1836. Rob. Haldane, The verbal inspiration of the old and new test. Edinb. 1830. Th. H. Horne, An introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the holy scriptures, 2nd ed. London 1821 4 vols. vol. I. Eleazar Lord, The plenary inspiration of the holy
Scripture, New-York 1858,'9. W. Lee, The inspiration of holy Scripture, its nature and proof. 3rd ed. Dublin 1864. Hodge, System.
Theol. i 151. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. I 61 B. Warfield, The real problem of inspiration, Presb. and Ref. Rev. Apr. 1893 p. 177-221. W. E.
Gladstone, The impregnable rock of holy Scripture, 2 ed. London 1892.
C. The inspiration according to the Scriptures.
9. The Old Testament provides the following important moments for the doctrine of inspiration: a) the prophets know themselves to be called by the Lord at a certain moment in their lives, Exod. 3; 1 Sam.
3; Isa. 6; Jer. 1; Ezek. 1-3; Am. 3:7, 8, 7:15. The calling often went against their own wishes and desires, Ex. 3; Jer. 20:7; Am. 3:8, but Yahveh has been too strong for them. The conviction among Israel was general, that the prophets were messengers of God, Jer. 26:5 ,
7:15, begotten and sent by Him, Jer. 29:15 ; Deut. 18:15; Num. 11:29; 2 Chron. 36 : 15, His servants, 2 Kings 17 : 23, 21. : 10, 24:2 ; Ezra
9:11 ; Ps. 105:15 etc., standing before him, 1 Kings 17 : 1; 2 Kings 3 :
14, 5 : 16. b) They are aware, that Yahveh has spoken to them, and they have received from Him the revelation. He teaches them what
they shall speak, Ex. 2 : 12 ; Deut. 18 : 18, puts the words in their mouths, Num. 22 : 38, 23 : 5; Deut. 18 : 18, speaks to them, Hos. 1 :
2; Hab. 2 : 1; Zech. 1 : 9, 13, 2 : 2, 7, 4 : 1, 4, 11, 5 : 5, 10, 6 : 4; Num.
12 : 2, 8; 2 Sam. 23 : 2; 1 Kings 22 : 28. Especially the formula is used: thus saith the Lord, or: the word of the Lord came to me, or: word, divine speech, אם: part, pass, the spoken word of Yahveh. All the Old Test. Scripture is full of this expression. Time and again prophetic speech is introduced by it. Yahveh is even introduced each time speaking in the first person, Jos. 24:2; Isa. 1:1, 2, 8:1, 11; Jer. 1 vs. 2, 4, 11, 2:1, 7:1 ; Ezek. 1:3, 2:1; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Am. 2:1 etc.
Actually, it is Yahveh who speaks through them, 2 Sam. 23:1, 2, who speaks through their mouths, Ex. 4: 12, 15; Num. 23 : 5, through their service, Hagg. All their words are covered by the authority of Yahveh. c) This awareness is so clear and firm with the prophets, that they even indicate the place and time where Yahveh spoke to them and distinguish between times when He did and did not speak to them, Isa. 16:13, 14; Jer. 3:6, 13:3, 26:1, 27:1, 28 :1, 33:1, 34:1, 35:1,
36:1, 49:34; Ezek. 3:16, 8:1, 12:8 ; Hagg. 1:1 ; Zech. 1 : 1 etc. And in doing so this consciousness is so objective, that they clearly distinguish themselves from Yahveh; He speaks to them, Isa. 8 : 1, 51
: 16, 59 : 21; Jer. 1 : 9, 3 : 6, 5 : 14; Ez. 3 : 26 etc., and they listen with their ears and see with their eyes, Isa. 5:9, 6:8, 21:3, 10, 22:14, 28:22;
Jer. 23:18, 49:14; Ezek. 2:8,3:10, 17,33:7,40:4, 44:5; Hab. 3:2, 16; 2 Sam. 7:27; Job 33:16, 36:10, and take in the words of Yahveh, Jer.
15:16; Ezek. 3:1-3. d) Hence they make a sharp contrast between what God has revealed to them and what comes from their own hearts, Num. 16:28, 24:13; 1 Kings 12:33; Neh. 6:8; Ps. 41:6, 7. They charge the false prophets precisely that these speak from their own hearts, Ezek 13 : 2, 3, 17; Jer 14 : 14, 23 : 16, 26; Isa 59 : 13, without being sent, Jer. 14:14, 29:9; Ezek. 13:6, so they are lying prophets,
Jer. 23:32; Isa. 9:14; Jer. 14:14, 20:6, 23:21, 22, 26, 31, 36, 27:14; Ezek. 13:6 v.; Mic. 2:11; Zeph. 3:4; Zech. 10 : 2 and being soothsayers, Isa. 3:2; Mich. 3: 5 v. Zech. 10:2; Jer. 27:9, 29:8; Ezek.
13 : 9, 12, 21 : 26, 28, 34; Isa. 44: 25. König II 163-167. Herzog2 16,726. e) The profetes are finally aware, speaking or writing, not their own word but the word of the Lord. Besides, the word was not
revealed to them for themselves, but for others. They had no freedom to hide it. They had to speak, Jer. 20:7, 9 ; Exod. 3, 4; Ezek. 3; Amos
3:8; Jonah, and thus did not speak according to human favor or calculation, Isa. 56:10; Mic. 3:5, 11. That is why they are prophets, speakers in Yahveh's name and of His word. And in this they know that they must give what they have received, Deut. 4:2, 12 ': 32 ; Jer.
1: 7, 17, 26 :2, 42 : 4; Ezek. 3: 10. And from a similar urge the writing of the prophets may and must also be derived. The literal texts, where a command to write is given, are few, Ex. 17:14, 24:3, 4, 34:27;
Num. 33:2; Deut. 4:2, 12:32, 31:19; Isa. 8:1, 30:8; Jer. 25:13, 30:1, 36:2, 24, 27-32; Ezek. 24:1; Dan. 12:4; Hab. 2:2, and apply only to a very small portion of the O. T. Scriptures. But the written record is a later, yet necessary stage in the history of prophecy. Many prophecies were certainly never spoken but were meant to be read and pondered. Most of them have been carefully, even artistically, edited and already show by their form that they were destined for writing. The recording of the divinatory statements was guided by the thought that Israel could no longer be saved by deeds, that now and in distant generations the service of Yahveh had to be carried on by word and reasonable conviction, Kuenen, Prof. I 74, II 345 f) They started writing because they wanted to address others than just those who could hear them. There would be nothing humiliating for the prophets if they had recorded the received word as literally as possible. But the revelation continued also in the moment of theopneustics and modified and completed the earlier revelation, and it was thus freely reproduced. But that is precisely why the prophets demand the same authority for their written word as for the spoken word. Even the interjections of the prophets between the actual words of Yahveh, e.g., Isa. 6, 10 : 24-12 : 6, 31 : 1-3, 32, or the working out of a word of Yahveh by the prophet, 52 : 7-12, 63 : 15-64
: 12, make no exception to this. The transition from the word of Jahveh to the word of the prophet and vice versa is often so sudden, and both are so intertwined e.g. Jer. 13:18 f., that separation is not possible. They have the same authority, Jer. 36:10, 11,25: 3. Isaiah calls 34: 16 his own recorded prophecies the Book of Yahveh. g) The prophets do not derive their revelation from the law. Although the
extent of the Torah cannot be determined from their writings, the prophecy presupposes a Torah. All prophets stand on the basis of a law; they and their opponents stand on a common foundation. They all presuppose a covenant made by God with Israel, a gracious election of Israel, Hos. 1:1-3, 6:7, 8:3; Jerem. 11 : 6 v., 14 : 21, 22 :9,
31 : 31 v. ; Ezek. 16:8 v. ; Isa. 54 : 10, 56:4,6, 59:21. The prophets have not been the creators of a new religion, of an ethical monotheism, Kuenen, Prof. II 335 v. The relation of Yahveh to Israel was nimmeral to that of Kamos to Moab, Kuenen, Godsd. of Israel I 222. The prophets never mention such a contrast between their religion and that of the people. They acknowledge that the people have been guilty of idolatry almost throughout the ages; but they always and unanimously consider this to be infidelity and apostasy, and assume that the people knew better. They cling to the same revelation, the same theory, with the people. They speak out of the conviction that they have in common with the people the same service of God, that Yahveh has chosen and called them to His service. Therein they find their strength, and therefore they judge the people by the relationship that exists between them and Yahveh by right. 6:4, 8 ; Isa. 63 : 11 ; Jer. 7 : 25 etc., König, Die Hauptprobleme der altisr. Religionsgeschichte 1884 S. 15 f. 38 f. Torah not only denotes instruction from God in general, but is more-often the name for the pre-existing, objective revelation of Yahveh, Isa. 2:3; Mich.
4:2; Am. 2:4; Hos. 8 : 1, 4:6; Jer. 18 : 18; Ezek. 7:26; Zeph. 3 : 4. The covenant of God with Israel, on which basis the prophets stand with all the people, naturally includes all kinds of statutes and rights, and the prophets therefore repeatedly speak of commandments, Isa.
48:18; Jer. 8:13, statutes Isa. 24:5; Jer. 44:10,23; Ezek. 5:6,7, 11:12, 20, 18:9, 17, 20:11 v., 36:27, 37:24; Am. 2:4; Zech. 1:6; Mal. 3:7, 4:4; rights, Ezek. 5: 7, 11 : 12 etc. This Torah must have contained the doctrine of the unity of Yahveh, of His creation and government of all things, the prohibition of idolatry, and other religious and moral commandments, as well as all kinds of ceremonial (Sabbath, sacrifice, purity, etc.) and history (creation, exodus from Egypt, covenant, etc.) elements. There may be a difference in the scope of the Torah before prophethood, but the relationship between law and
prophets cannot be reversed without coming into conflict with the whole history of Israel and the nature of prophethood. The prophet under Israel was, as it were, die lebendige Stimme des Gesetzes und der Vermittler seiner Erfüllung (Staudenmaier). The most negative critics see themselves forced to accept the personality of Moses and his monotheism, the stay in Egypt, the exodus, the conquest of Canaan etc. as historical, although in their criticism of the Pentateuch they lack any basis for this, cf. e.g. Smend, Lehrb. der altt. Eel. S. 13 f. h) It is a priori probable, that with a people so long acquainted with the art of writing, Herzog2 13, 689 f., the law will also have existed long ago in written form. In Hos. 8 :12 this also seems to have been expressed, Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Proph. 21 f.
König, Der Offenbarungsbegriff II 333 f. This Torah had authority among Israel from the beginning. Nothing is known of doubt or dispute. Moses occupied a wholly unique place among all the prophets, Ex. 33 : 11; Num. 12 : 6 - 8; Deut. 18 : 18 ; Ps. 103 : 7, 106 :
23 ; Isa. 63 : 11 ; Jer. 15 : 1 etc. He stood to Yahveh in a special relationship; the Lord spoke to him as a friend to his friend. He was the Mediator of the Old Testament. Everywhere the law attributes to itself a divine origin. It is Jahveh, who through Moses gave Israel the Torah. Not only the ten words of Ex. 20 and the book of Ex. 21-23, but also all other laws are derived from God's speaking to Moses. At every moment in the laws of the Pentateuch the formula: The Lord said or spoke to Moses. Every chapter almost begins with it, Ex. 25:1,
30:11, 17, 22, 31:1, 32:9, etc.; Lev. 1:1, 4:1, 6:1, etc.; Num. 1:1, 2:1, 3:44, 4:1, etc.; and Deut. And Deutronomy will give nothing but what Moses spoke to the children of Israel, Deut. 1:6, 2 : 1, 2, 17, 3 :
2, 5 : 2, 6 : 1 etc. i) The historical books of the O. T. were all written by prophets and in prophetic spirit, 1 Chron. 29 : 29 ; 2 Chron. 9 : 29,
34 : 20etc. The prophets not only repeatedly refer in their speeches and writings to the history of Israel, but they are also the ones who have preserved it, edited it and passed it on to us. But they do not intend in any way to give us a true and connected account of the destiny of the people of Israel, as other historians strive to do. The prophets, too, in the historical books of the Old Testament, set themselves on the foundation of the Torah and consider and describe
the history of Israel from its standpoint. 2 : 6-3 : 6 ; 2 Kings 17 : 7-23, 34-41. The historical books are the commentary in facts of the covenant of God with Israel. They are not history in our sense, but prophecy, and are to be judged by a different standard than the history books of other nations. Their purpose is not to give us an accurate knowledge of Israel's history, but to help us understand
God's revelation, His thought and His counsel in Israel's history. The prophets are always proclaimers of the word of Yahveh, both when they look back into history and when they look forward into the future. j) Finally, the poetic books in the narrow sense, which are included in the canon, all have a religious-ethical character just like the other O. T. writings. They presuppose God's revelation as their objective basis and show the elaboration and application of this revelation in the various situations and relationships of human life.
The Preacher outlines the vanity of the world without and in opposition to the fear of the Lord. Job deals with the problem of the righteousness of God and the suffering of the pious. The Proverbs portrays true wisdom in its application to the rich life of man. The Song of Songs sings of the depth and power of love. And the Psalms, in the mirror of the experiences of the pious, show us God's manifold grace. Under Israel, lyrical and didactic poetry entered into the service of the revelation of God. According to 2 Sam. 23 : 1-3, David, the lovely one in songs of Israel, spoke by the Spirit of Yahveh and his word was on his tongue. k) As the various writings of the O. T. came into being and became known, they were also recognized as authoritative. The laws of Yahveh were laid in the sanctuary, Ex. 25 :
22, 38 : 21, 40 : 20 ; Deut. 31 : 9, 26 ; Jos. 24 : 25 v. ; 1 Sam. 10: 25.
The poetic products were kept, Deut. 31 : 19 ; Jos. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18; the Psalms were collected early for the purpose of worship, Ps.
72:20; of the Proverbs, the men of Hezekiah prepared a second collection, Spr. 25:1. The prophecies were widely read; Ezekiel knows
Isaiah and Jeremiah; later prophets refer to the previous ones.
Daniel, cap. 9:2 has already a collection of prophetic writings, to which Jeremiah also belonged. In the post-exilic congregation the authority of the law and prophecies is established, as Ezra, Haggai and Zechariah clearly show. Jesus ben Sirach highly values law and
prophets, cap. 15:1-8, 24:23, 39 : 1 v. ; cap. 44-49. In the preface his grandson mentions three parts, into which the Scriptures are divided. The LXX contains several apocryphal writings, but these themselves testify to the authority of the canonical books, 1 Macc.
2:50; 2 Macc. 6:23; Wis. 11:1, 18:4; Baruch 2:28 ; Tob. 1:6, 14 : 7 ; Jesus Sir. 1:5, 17 : 12, 24 : 23, 39 :1, 46 : 15, 48 : 25 etc. Philo quotes only canonical books. The fourth book of Ezra cap. 14 : 18-47 has the division into 24 books. Josephus, c. Ap. 1, 8, counts 22 books in three parts. Omnium consensu was the Old Testament canon of Philo and Josephus equal to ours, G. Wildeboer, Het ontstaan van den Kanon des O. V. 1889 bl. 126 v. 134. Strack in Herzog2 7, 429.
10. This canon of the Old Testament possessed for Jesus and the apostles, as well as for their contemporaries, divine authority. This is clear from the following data: a) the formula, with which the O. T. is quoted in the N., is different but always proves, that for the writers of the N. T. the O. T. is of divine origin and carries a divine authority.
Jesus sometimes quotes a place from the O. T. by the name of the writer, e.g., of Moses, Mt. 8:4, 19:8 ; Mk. 7:10; John 5:45, 7:22;
Isaiah, Mt. 15:7; Mk. 13:14; David, Mt. 22:43; Daniel, Mt. 24:15, but many times also quotes with the formula: it is written, Mt. 4:4 v.,
11:10; Luke 10 v. 26; John 6:45, 8:47, or: Scripture says, Mt. 21:42; Luke 4:21; John 7:38, 10:35, or also to the auctor primarius, i. e. God or the Holy Spirit, Mt. 15:4, 22:43, 45 , 24:15 ; Mk. 12:26. The Evangelists often use the expression: that which was spoken by the prophet, Mt. 1:22, 2:15, 17, 23, 3:3 etc. or by the Lord or by the Holy
Spirit, Mt. 1 vs. 22, 2:15; Luke 1:70; Acts 1:16, 3:18, 4:25, 28:25. John usually quotes by den auctor secundarius, cap. 1 : 23, 46, 12:38. Paul always speaks of the Scriptures, Hom. 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2; Gal.
4:30; 1 Tim. 5 : 18 etc., which is sometimes even presented entirely personally, Gal. 3 : 8, 22, 4 : 30 ; Com. 9 : 17. The letter to the Hebrews mostly mentions God or the Holy Spirit as auctor primarius, 1:5 f., 3:7, 4:3, 5, 5:6, 7:21, 8:5, 8, 10:16, 30, 12:26, 13:5.
This way of quoting teaches clearly that the Scriptures of the O. V. for Jesus and the apostles were composed of different parts and came from different writers, but nevertheless formed one organical whole,
which God said had an author. b) Several times this divine authority of the O. T. Scriptures is also spoken and taught definitely by Jesus and the apostles, Mt. 5:17; Luke 16:17, 29; John 10:35; Bom. 15 : 4; 1
Pet. 1 : 1012; 2 Pet. 1:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16. Scripture is a unity, which cannot be broken or destroyed either in its entirety or in its parts. In the last cited text the translation: every tlieopneust Scripture is also useful, is pressed by the objection, that then after ωφέλιμος thepraedikatet<mr could not have been missing, Hofmann, Weiss, u.
Erf. I 43. The transposition: every writing, in general, is theopneous and useful, is by the nature of the case excluded. Thus there remains only one choice between the two translations: all Scripture, or: every
Scripture, n. 1. which is included in τα ίερα γςαμματα, v. 15, is theopneous. In practical terms this gives no difference, and in view of such places as Mt. 2:3; Hd. 2:36; 2 Cor. 12 vs. 12; Eph. 1:8, 2:21, 3:15;
Col. 4:12; 1 Pet. 1:15; Jak. 1 :2 it seems that πας without an article could also mean whole anyway. c) Neither Jesus nor the apostles are critical of the contents of the O. T., but they accept them completely and without reservation. In all parts, not only in the religious-ethical statements or in those places in which God Himself speaks, but also in its historical components, the Scriptures of the O. T. are unconditionally recognized by them as true and divine. Jesus, for example, regards Isaiah 54 as coming from Isaiah, Mt 13:14; Ps 110 from David, Mt 22:43, the prophecy of Daniel quoted in Mt 24:15, and attributes the Law to Moses, John 5:46. The historical accounts of the O. T. are repeatedly cited and unconditionally believed, e.g., the creation of man, Mt. 19:4, 5; Abel's murder, Mt. 22:35; the flood,
Mt. 24:37-39; the history of the patriarchs, Mt. 22:32, Jn. 8:56; the destruction of Sodom, Mt. 11:23, Luk. 17:28-33; the burning bush,
Luk. 20:37; the serpent in the wilderness, Jn. 3:14; the manna, Jn.
6:32; the history of Elijah, Luk. 4:25, 26; Naaman, ib, Jonah, Mt.
12:39-41 etc. d) Dogmatically, the O. T. is for Jesus and the apostles' sedes doctrinae, fons solutionum, πααης αντιλογίας πέρας. The O. T. is fulfilled in the New. It is several times so represented, as if everything had been done for the purpose of fulfilling the Holy
Scriptures, iva πληρω&ν) το ρηϋ-ετ, Mt. 1:22 and passim, Mk. 14:49, 15:28; Luk. 4:2, 24:44; Jn. 13:18, 17:12, 19:24, 36; Hd. 1:16; Jn. 2:23
etc. Down to small details this fulfillment is noted, Mt. 21:16; Lu.
4:21, 22:37 ; Jn. 15:25, 17:12, 19:28 etc.; all that was done to Jesus was written down beforehand in the O. T., Lu. 18:31-33. Jesus and the apostles justify their conduct and prove their doctrine each time with an appeal to the O. Test, Mt. 12 : 3, 22 : 32 ; John 10 : 34 ; Com.
4 ; Gal. 3 ; 1 Cor. 15 etc. And this divine authority of Scripture extends so far before them, that even a single word, yea a tittle and iota is covered by it, Math. 5 : 17, 22 : 45; Luke 16 : 17 ; John 10 : 35 ;
Gal. 3 : 16. e) Nevertheless, the O. T. in the N. T. is usually quoted after the Greek translation of the LXX. The writers of the N. T., writing in Greek and for Greek readers, generally used the translation which was known to them and accessible to them. I)he quotations can be divided into three groups according to their relation to the Hebrew text and to the Greek translation. In some texts there is a deviation from the LXX and agreement with the Hebrew text, e.g. Mt. 2: 15, 18, 8: 17, 12: 18-21, 27: 46; Joh. 19: 37;
Rom. 10: 15, 16, 11: 9; 1 Cor. 3: 19, 15: 54. In others there is inverse agreement with the LXX and deviation from the Hebr., e.g. Mt. 15:8,
9; Hd. 7:14, 15:16, 17; Eph. 4:8; Heb. 10:5, 11:21, 12:6. In a third group of quotations there is more or less significant deviation both from LXX and Hebr. text, e.g. Mt. 2:6, 3 : 3, 26 : 31; Jn. 12 : 15,13 :
18; Rom. 10 : 6-9; 1 Cor. 2 : 9. It should also be noted that some of the books of the O. T. viz. Ezra, Neh., Ob., Nah., Zeph., Esth., I'red. and Hoogl. are never quoted in the N. T.; that although no apocryphal books are quoted, yet in 2 Tim. 3:8; Heb. 11:34 v,; Jude 9 v. 14 v., names and facts are mentioned which do not occur in the O.
T.; and that several times Greek classics are also quoted, Acts 17:18; 1 Cor. 15:33; Tit. 1:12. f). As for the material use of the O. T. in the N.
T., here too there is great difference. Sometimes the quotations serve to prove and confirm some truth, e.g. Mt. 4:4, 7, 10, 9:13, 19:5, 22:32;
Jn. 10:34; Acts 15:16, 23:5; Rom. 1:17, 3:10 v., 4:3, 7, 9:7, 12, 13, 15, 17, 10:5; Gal. 3:10, 4:30; 1 Cor. 9:9, 10:26; 2 Cor. 6:17. Very often the O. T. is quoted as proving, that it had to be and is fulfilled in the N. T.
T. was to be fulfilled and has been fulfilled; either in a literal sense, Mt. 1:23, 3:3, 4:15, 16, 8:17, 12:18,' 13:14, 15, 21:42, 27:46; Mk. 15:28;
Luke 4:17ff; John 12:38; Acts 2:17, 3:22, 7:37, 8:32, etc., either in a
typical sense, Mt. 11:14, 12:39 v., 17:11; Luk. 1:17 ; John 3:14, 19:36 ; 1 Cor. 5:7, 10:4 ; 2 Cor. 6:16 ; Gal. 3:13, 4:21; Heb. 2:6-8, 7:1-10, etc.
Moremany times the quotations from the O. T. serve simply to clarify, explain, admonish, comfort, etc., e.g., Luk. 2:23; Jn. 7 : 38;
Hd. 7:3, 42; Bom. 8:36; 1 Cor. 2:16, 10:7; 2 Cor. 4:13, 8:15, 13:1; Heb.
12:5, 13:15 ; 1 Pet. 1:16, 24, 25, 2:9. In this use we are often surprised by the sense in which the N. T. writers find in the text of the O. T.; so especially in Mt. 2 : 15, 18, 23, 21 :5, 22 : 32, 26 : 31, 27 : 9, 10, 35;
John 19:37; Acts 1:20, 2:31; 1 Cor. 9:9; Gal. 3:16, 4:22 f.; Eph. 4:8 f.; Heb. 2:6-8, 10:5. This exegesis of the Old Testament in the N.T. suggests to Jesus and the Apostles that a word or phrase can have a much deeper meaning and scope than the writer suspected or placed in it. This is also often the case with classical writers. No one would think that Goethe, when writing his classical poetry, had everything in mind that is now found in it. Hamerling, in his Epilog an die
Kritiker, Poet. Werke, Tiel Campagne I 142 f. expressed this clearly.
With Scripture this is even more the case, since, according to the conviction of Jesus and his Apostles, it has the Holy Spirit as auctor primarius and bears a teleological character, cf. also Valet on, Theol.
Stud. 1887 aflev. 6. Theremin, Die Beredsamkeit eine Tugend S. 236.
Not in those few places above mentioned only, but throughout the conception and interpretation of the O. Test, the N. Test, is carried by the idea that the Tsraelite has its fulfillment in the "Christian. The whole oeconomy of the O. V. with all its institutions and rights and' in all its history points to the dispensation of the N. Covenant. Not Talmudism, but Christianity is the rightful heir to the treasures of salvation promised to Abraham and his seed. Litt, on the O. T. in the N. T., Glassius, Philologia Sacra, ed. 6a 1691. Surenhusius, Βίβλος καταλλαγης, in quo sec. vet. theol. hebr. formulas allegandi et modos interpretandi conciliantur loca V. T. in N. T. allegata, Amst. 1713. J.
Hoffmann, Demonstr. evang, per ipsum scripturarum consensum in oraculis ex V. T. in N. allegatis, Tub. 1773-81. Th. Randolph, The prophecies and other texts cited in the New Test. compared with the Hebr. Original and with the Sept, version, Oxf. 1782. Dr. H. Owen,
The modes of quotation used among the evangelical writers explained and vindicated, Lond. 1789. F. H. Horne, An introduction
to the critical study and knowledge of the holy Script. 4 vols. Lond.
1821 II 356-463. C. Sepp, The doctrine of the N. T. over the Holy Scriptures of the O. V. 1849. Tholuck, Das A. T. im N. 6th Aufl. 1877.
Eothe, Zur Dogm. 184 f. Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfiillung im alt. u. n. Test. 1841. E. Haupt, Die altt. Citate in den vier Evang. 1871.
Kautzsch, De V. T. locis a Paulo allegatis, 1869. E. Böhl, Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit Jesu 1873. Id. Die altt. Citate im N. T.
1878. K. Walz, Die Lehre der Kirche von der Schrift nach der Schrift selbst gepriift, Leiden 1884. Kuenen, The Profeten II 199 v. Caven,
Our Lords testimony to the Old Test. Presb. and Eef. Eev. July 1892.
A. Clemen, Der Gebrauch des A. T, im N. 1893. Kuyper, Encycl. II 378 v. Hans Vollmer, Die altt. Citate bei Paulus usw, Freiburg 1895.
11. For the inspiration of the N. T. we find in the writings of the apostles the following data : a) Jesus' testimony is regarded throughout the N. T. as divine, true, infallible. He is the Logos, who declares the Father, John 1:18, 17:6; ό μαρτνς ó πιΰτος και άλη&ινος,
Rev. 1:5, 3:14 ; cf. Isa. 55:4, the Amen, in whom all the promises of God are yes and amen, Rev. 3:14; 2 Cor. 1:20. There has been no deceit, όολος, in His mouth, 1 Pet. 2:22. He is the Apostle and High
Priest of our confession, Heb. 3 : 1 ; 1 Tim. 6 : 13. He does not speak "κ των ίόιων, like Satan who is a liar, John 8 : 44. But God speaks through Him, Heb. 5 : 1. Jesus is sent by God, Joh. 8:42 and speaks nothing but what He has seen and heard, Joh. 3 : 32. He speaks the words of God, Jn. 3 : 34, 17 : 8 and gives witness only to the truth, 5 :
33, 18 : 37. Therefore his testimony is true, John 8: 14, 14: 6, confirmed by the testimony of God himself, 5: 32, 37, 8: 18. Not only is Jesus ethically holy and without sin, John 8: 46, but intellectually he is without error, lie or deceit. It is absolutely true that Jesus did not work in the field of science in the narrow sense. He came to earth to explain the Father to us and to accomplish His work. But the inspiration of Scripture, about which Jesus speaks, is not a scientific problem but a religious truth. If He erred in this, He erred on a point which is most closely related to religious life, and He can no longer be recognized in religion and theology as our highest prophet. The doctrine of ׳divine authority of Scripture forms an important
component in the words of God, which Jesus proclaimed. This infallibility, however, was not an extraordinary, supernatural gift to Jesus; not a donum gratiae and not an actus transiens, but habitus, nature. If Jesus had written something, He would not have needed the special assistance of the Holy Spirit. He did not need inspiration as an extra-ordinary gift, because He received the Spirit in moderation, John 3:34, was the Logos, John 1:1, and the fullness of God dwelt in Him bodily, Col. 1:19, 2:9. b) Jesus, however, left us nothing in writing, and He Himself passed away. So He had to see to it that His true testimony was presented to mankind in an unadulterated and pure form. For that purpose He chose the Apostles. The apostleship is an extraordinary office and a very special service in Jesus' church. The Apostles were given to Him by the Father. 17: 6, chosen by Himself, John 6: 70, 13: 18, 15: 16, 19, and prepared and trained by Him in various ways for their future task. That task was that they should act as witnesses later on, after Jesus' passing away, Luke 24: 48; John 15: 27. They had been earand eyewitnesses of Jesus' words and works; they had seen the word of life with their eyes and touched it with their hands, 1 Jn 1:1, and now had to bring this testimony about Jesus to Israel and to the whole world, Mt 28:19 ; Jn 15:27, 17:20 ; Rev 1:8. But all men are liars, God alone is true, Rom. 3:4. The apostles too were incapable of this witnessing task. They were not the actual witnesses. Jesus only uses them as instruments. The real witness, who is faithful and true as He Himself is the Holy Spirit. He is the Spirit of truth, and will testify of Jesus, John 15: 26, and the apostles can only act as witnesses after and through Him, John 15: 27. This Spirit is therefore promised and given to the apostles in a special sense, Mt. 10 : 20 ;
Jn. 14 : 2G, 15 : 26, 1(5: 7, 20 : 22. Especially Joh.14 : 26 teaches this clearly. The Holy Spirit ύπομνηβει νμας nance a tinov νμιν. He will take the youth with their persons and gifts, with their memory and judgment, etc., into His service. He will add to the revelation materially nothing new, which is not already contained in Christ's person, word, and work, for He takes everything from Christ and makes the apostles in that respect alone mindful and thus leads them into all the truth, John 14:26, 16:13, 14. And this witness of the Holy
Spirit through the mouth of the apostles is the glorification of Jesus, John 16:14, just as Jesus' testimony was a glorification of the Father,
17:4. c) Equipped with that Spirit in a special sense, John 20:22; Acts 1:12; and 2:12. 20:22; Acts 1:8; Eph. 3:5, the apostles also act as public witnesses after Pentecost, Acts 1:8, 21, 22, 2:14,32, 3:15,
4:8,20,33, 5:32, 10:39,51, 13:31. The meaning of the apostolate lies in testifying about what they have seen and heard. That is what they have been called and trained for. From that they derive their authority. That is what they call themselves to in the face of opposition and resistance. And God again attaches His seal to their testimony by signs and wonders, and spiritual blessing, Mt. 10:1, 9;
Mk. 16:15ff; Rev. 2:43,3:2, 5:12-16, 6:8, 8:6ff, 10:44, 11:21, 14:3, etc.; 15:8, etc.; and so on, 15:8, etc. The apostles are from the beginning, jure suo, the leaders of the Jerusalem congregation, they have authority over the believers in Samaria, Acts 8:14, visit the churches,
Acts 9:32, 11:22, take decisions in the Holy Spirit, Acts 15:22, 28, and enjoy a generally recognized authority. They speak and act by the power of Christ. And although Jesus nowhere gave an express command to write down his words and deeds - only in the Rev. 1:11,
19, etc. - the apostles speak in their writings with the authority of Christ. - The Apostles speak with the same authority in their writing; writing is a special form of witness. Also writing, they are witnesses of Christ, Lu. 1:2; John 1:14, 19:35, 20:31, 21:24; 1 John 1:1-4; 1 Peter
1:12, 5:1; 2 Peter 1:16; Heb. 2:3; Rev. 1:3, 22:18, 19. Their testimony is faithful and true, John 19:35; 3 John 12. d) Among the apostles,
Paul again stands alone. He sees himself called to defend against the Judaizers his apostolate, Gal. 1-2; 1 Oor. 1:10-4:21; 2 Cor. 10-13. He maintains in the face of that opposition, that he was set apart from his mother's body, Gal. 1:14; was called an apostle by Jesus Himself,
Gal. 1:1; saw Jesus Himself personally, 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8; was delighted with revelations and visions, 2 Cor. 12; Rev. 26:16; received from Jesus Himself His Gospel, Gal. 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:12; Eph. 3: 2-8, and therefore as much as the other apostles is an independent and reliable witness, especially among the Gentiles, Acts 26:16; also His apostleship is confirmed with miracles and signs, 1 Cor. 12:10, 28;
Hom. 12:4-8, 15:18, 19; 2 Cor. 11: 23 v.; Gal. 3:5; Heb. 2:4; and with
spiritual blessing, 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 11:5, etc. He is therefore aware that there is no other gospel but his, Gal. 1:7; that he is faithful, 1 Cor.
7:25; has the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 7 :40; that Christ speaks through him, 2 Cor. 13:3; 1 Cor. 2:10, 16; 2 Cor. 2:17, 5:23; that he proclaims
God's word, 2 Cor. 2:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; even in the expressions and words, 1 Cor. 2:4, 10-13; and not only when he speaks but also when he writes, 1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16; 2 Thess. 2 : 15, 3 : 14. Like the other apostles, Paul acts several times with apostolic authority, 1 Cor.
5; 2 Cor. 2:9, and gives binding commands, 1 Cor. 7:40; 1 Thess. 4:2, 11; 2 Thess. 3 : 6-14. And he does appeal once or twice to the judgment of the congregation, 1 Cor. 10:15, but not in order to subject his statement to its approval or disapproval, but on the contrary to be justified by the conscience and judgment of the congregation, which also has the Spirit of God and the anointing of the Holy One, 1 John 2:20. 2 : 20, to be justified by the conscience and judgment of the church, which also has the Spirit of God and the anointing of the Holy One. Paul makes himself so little dependent on the judgment of the congregation that he says in 1 Cor. 14:37 that if anyone thinks he is a prophet and has the Spirit, it will come out in his acknowledgment that what Paul writes is the Lord's command. e)
These writings of the apostles had authority from the very beginning in the churches where they were known. They soon became widespread and thus acquired more and more extensive authority,
Acts 15:22ff; Col. 4:16. The Synoptic Gospels show such a close affinity, that the one must have been wholly or partly known to the other. Judas is known to Peter, and 2 Peter 3:16 already knows many of Paul's letters and puts them on a par with the other Scriptures.
Gradually translations of N. T. writings came to be read in the church, Just. M. Apol. 1 : 67. In the first half of the second century these must have already existed, Papias at Euseb. H. E. 3 : 39. Just.
M. Apol. 1 : 66, 67. A dogmatic use is already made of them by Athenagoras, de resurr. c. 16, who there proves his reasoning with 1
Cor. 15 : 33; 2 Cor. 5 : 10. And Theophilus, ad Autol. 3 :4 cites texts from Paul with the formula, όιόασκει, κελεύει ό ϋ-ειος λογος.
Irenaeus adv. haer. 3, 11, Tert, ad Prax. 15 and others, the Peschitto and the fragment of Muratori establish it beyond all doubt, that in
the 2nd half of the 2nd century most of the writings of the N. T. had canonical authority and enjoyed with the books of the O. V. an equal dignity. About some books, James, Judges, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, there remained differences, Euseb. H. E. 3 : 25. But the reservations against these antilegomena became less and less in the 3rd century.
And the Synod of Laodicea in 360, of Hippo Regius in 393, and of Carthage in 397 were also able to take up these anti-legomena and close the canon. These decisions of the church were not an arbitrary and authoritarian act, but merely codification and registration of the law, which had long existed in the congregations with regard to these writings. The canon was not formed by a decision of councils. Canon non uno quod dicunt actu ab hominibus, sed paulatim a Deo animorum temporumque rectore, productus est, Loesch er at Herzog2 7, 424. In the important struggle of Harnack and Zahn about the history of the N. T. canon, Harnack undoubtedly puts too one-sided an emphasis on the concepts, divinity, infallibility, inspiration, canon, on the formal establishment of the dogma of the N. T. Scriptures. Long before this took place in the 2nd half of the 2nd century, the N. T. Scriptures had come to be universally recognized as authoritative through the authority of the Apostles, the reading in the congregation, etc. Zahn rightly draws attention to this inner process. Verg, over deze strijd Koppel, Stud. u. Krit. 1891, les
Heft, and Barth, Neue Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1893, les Heft, f.) Which principles have led the congregation, both under the Old and New
Testament, in this recognition of the canonicity of the O. and N. T. writings, cannot be determined with certainty. The apostolic origin cannot have been decisive because Mark, Luke and Hebrews were also included. Nor does the recognition of canonicity have its basis in the fact that there were no other writings about Christ, because Luke
1: 1 mentions many others, and according to Irenaeus adv. haer. 1 :
Nor can the principle of canonization lie in its size and importance, for 2 and 3 John are very small ; nor in the familiarity of the writers,
Mark, Luke, with the apostles, for letters of Clement and Barnabas were not included ; nor in its originality, for Matthew, Mark, and Luke ; Ephesians and Colossians ; Judas and 2 Petr. are one
dependent on the other. Nothing else can be said, but that the recognition of these writings without any agreement, took place automatically in all churches. With a few exceptions, the writings of the O. and N. T. were immediately, from their inception, accepted in their entirety, without a word of doubt or protest, as holy, divine writings. The place and time where they were first accorded authority is indeterminable. The canonicity of the books of the Bible is rooted in their existence. They have authority of themselves, jure suo, because they are there. It is the Spirit of God who guided their writing and brought them to recognition in the church. Harnack, D.
G. I 304 f. 318 f. Wildeboer, The Origin v. d. Kanon des O. V. 107 v.
Reuss, Gesch. des N. T. § 298 f. Herzog2 art. Kanon. W. Lee, The Inspiration of holy Scripture, 3rd ed. Dublin 1864 p. 43.
12. The result of this examination of the teaching of Scripture concerning itself may be summed up in this, that it holds and publishes itself to be the word of God. The expression word of God or word of the Lord has various meanings in Scripture. Often it denotes the power of God by which He creates and sustains all things, Gen.
1:3; Ps. 33:6, 147:17, 18, 148:18; Bom. 4:17; Heb. 1:3, 11:3. Next, so is called the. special revelation, by which God makes something known to the prophets. In the O. T. the expression in this sense occurs almost on every page; each time it is said there: the word of the Lord came to pass. In the N.T. we find it in this sense only in John 10:35; the word no longer takes place and does not come from above or from outside to the prophets a single time; it has taken place in Christ and remains. Furthermore, the word of God means the content of revelation; then there is the word or words of God, in addition to the rights, laws, commandments and statutes given to Israel, Ex. 9: 20, 21; Richt. 3 : 20 ; Ps. 33 : 4, 119 : 9, 16, 17 etc. Isa.
40:8 ; Rom. 3:2 etc. In the N. Test, such is called the Gospel, which was revealed by God in Christ and proclaimed by the apostles, Lu.
5:1; John 3:34, 5:24, 6:63, 17:8, 14,17; Acts 8:25, 13:7; 1 Thess. 2:13 etc. It is not improbable that the name word of God is used a few times in Scripture to refer to the written law, i.e. a part of Scripture,
Ps 119:11, 105. Schultz, Grundriss der ev. Dogm. 4 f. In the N.T. such