SCRIPTURAL AUTHORSHIP. From the preceding, it is quite clear
Ghost teacheth." Here the apostle clearly refers to the individual words as words taught by the Holy Spirit, and the double expression adds strength to his statement.
(2) When the Lord calls Jeremiah to his difficult task, he says: "Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth." Since He exercised such special care as to the words in which Jeremiah brought his revelations to Israel, the presumption is that He exercised similar care with respect to the words in which the prophet gave those revelations a permanent form for all future generations.
(3) According to John 10:33, the Jews were offended, because as they said, Jesus was making himself God. In answering this charge, Jesus appeals to a word of Scripture, viz., Ps. 82:6, where judges are called gods, and at the same time points to the fact that Scripture cannot be annulled, but has incontestable authority. Since He bases his argument on the use of a single word, it is implied that every word has divine authority.
(4) In Gal. 3:16, Paul founds his whole argument on the use of a singular rather than a plural. This argument of the apostle has been attacked on the ground that the Hebrew word to which he refers cannot be used in the plural to denote posterity. Cf. Gen. 13:15. But this does not destroy the validity of his argument, for the writer of Genesis might have used another word or expression in the plural. And even if it did, the passage would still prove that Paul believed in the inspiration of the individual words.
2. RELATION OF THE DIVINE AND THE HUMAN IN SCRIPTURAL AUTHORSHIP. From the preceding, it is quite clear that a double factor, the divine and the human, operated in the production of the Bible; and now the question arises concerning how the two were related to each other in the composition of the books of the Bible. To put the question in a more concrete form: Were the human writers merely as a pen in the hand of God? Were they simply amanuenses, who wrote what God dictated? Was their own
personality suppressed when the Spirit of God came upon them and directed them to write what He desired? Were their memory and imagination, understanding and judgment, desires and will inactive when they were moved by the Holy Spirit? To all such questions there can be but one answer in view of the data of Scripture.
a. The human authors of the Bible were not mere machines, nor even amanuenses. The Holy Spirit did not abridge their freedom, nor destroy their individuality. The following proofs seem decisive on this point:
(1) In many cases, the authors investigated beforehand the matter of which they intended to write. Luke tells us in the proem of his Gospel that he had done this; and the authors of the books of Kings and Chronicles repeatedly refer to their sources.
(2) The writers often gave expression to their own experiences, as Moses did in the opening and closing chapters of Deuteronomy, and Luke, in the last half of the Acts of the Apostles. The Psalmists sang of their personal sin and of the pardoning grace received; of the dangers that surrounded them and their wonderful deliverances.
(3) Many of the biblical books have an occasional character. Their composition was prompted by external circumstances, and their character determined by the moral condition and the religious status of the original readers. In the New Testament, this applies particularly to the Epistles of Paul, Peter, and Jude, but also, though in a lesser degree, to the other writings.
(4) The various books are characterized by a striking difference in style. Alongside of the exalted poetry of the Psalms and the Prophets, we have the common prose of the Historians. Side by side with the pure Hebrew of Isaiah, we have the Aramaising language of Daniel, the dialectical style of Paul, as well as the simple diction of John.
b. It is perfectly evident, therefore, that the Holy Spirit employed the writers of the Bible just as they were, and as He himself had prepared