INSPIRATION. Many objections have been raised against the
them for their task, with their personal idiosyncrasies, their character and temperament, their talents and education, their likes and dislikes, without suppressing their personality. There is one important limitation, however. The Holy Spirit could not permit their sinful nature to express itself.
From all that has been said, it follows that the Bible has a divine and human aspect. This is not equivalent to saying that it has alongside of the divine also a human element. We are not warranted in parcelling the Bible out and assigning portions of it to God and man respectively. The Bible is, in all its parts, both in substance and form, down to the least minutiae, a book that comes from God. At the same time, it was composed, from the beginning to the end, through the instrumentality of man, and bears all the marks of human authorship that are consistent with infallibility. We cannot fully understand the process of inspiration, though certain analogies may help us to realize its possibility. It is a mystery that defies explanation, and must be accepted by faith.
3. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF VERBAL INSPIRATION. Many objections have been raised against the doctrine of verbal or plenary inspiration; and we should never make light of them, but give them due consideration. Some of them have a great semblance of plausibility, such as those that are based on the so-called phenomena of Scripture, such as textual errors, seeming discrepancies, supposedly incorrect and misapplied quotations, dual representations, and doublets. These derive their strength from the supposed fact that a truly scientific theory of inspiration must be based on an inductive study of all those phenomena. But this means that man, instead of accepting the plain teachings of the Bible respecting its inspiration, wants to make out for himself how far the Scriptures are inspired; and this is essentially Rationalistic. We should accept the teaching of the Bible as final on this point, as on every other, and then seek to adjust the phenomena of Scripture to the biblical doctrine of inspiration. And if this seems impossible for the present, we should reveal our faith in waiting patiently for
further light. Let us always remember the words of Dr. Warfield, that "it is a settled logical principle that so long as the proper evidence by which a proposition is established remains unrefuted all so-called objections brought against it pass out of the category of objections to its truth into the category of difficulties to be adjusted to it."
a. There is one point, however, that calls for brief consideration. The assertions that the Scriptures are, in every particular, infallibly inspired, refer only to the autographa, and not, in the same sense, to the manuscripts now in our possession, the present editions of the Bible, and the translations. The original autographa were penned under divine guidance, and were therefore absolutely infallible. But it is not claimed that a perpetual miracle preserved the sacred text from the errors of the copyists. A comparison of the manuscripts clearly reveals the presence of such errors. Now, some infer from this that the inspiration of the Bible has therefore after all very little significance, and does not insure the infallibility of the Scriptures as we possess them. But let us remember that the only conclusion that follows from the facts just mentioned is that, insofar as there are errors of transcription in the present Bible, we are without the Word of God.
The fact remains, however,—and this is very important—that, aside from the comparatively few and relatively insignificant errors, we are in possession of the verbally inspired Word of God. Just what this means may be best inferred from the words of Moses Stuart and Garbett (quoted by Patton), both of whom made a special study of the text of Scripture. Says the former: "Out of some eight hundred thousand various readings of the Bible that have been collected, about seven hundred and ninety-five thousand are of about as much importance to the sense of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures as the question in English orthography is, whether the word honour shall be spelled with a u or without it. Of the remainder, some change the sense of particular passages or expressions, or omit particular words or phrases; but no one doctrine of religion is changed, not one precept is taken away, not one important fact is altered, by the whole
of the various readings collectively taken." And the latter says: "Let every word affected by these variations be put on one side, not as certainly uninspired, but as not being certainly inspired, because it is not certainly identical with the original autographs. It will be quite enough if the verbal inspiration of all the rest be admitted. For this inspired portion, on which variation of reading has not thrown the shadow of a question, contains so entirely every expressive and emphatic word, that the denial of inspiration to the remainder becomes simply negatory, if it be not ridiculous" (Patton, Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 113 f.). In the words of Dr. Patton: "According to our view, an infallible autograph has been perpetuated by the industry of transcribers, and has been changed only in some unimportant details through the mistakes of copyists" (p. 115).
b. Finally, there are many Hermeneutical writers and exegetes, who are decidedly opposed to the a priori of a divine inspiration in their exegetical labors. Immer advances the principle, "that every presupposition which would in any way anticipate the exegetical result is inadmissible." And he contends that the "unconditional belief in the authority and inspiration of Scripture" is such a presupposition (Herm., pp. 92, 93). But:
(1) He himself points out in the sequel that no interpreter can discard all presuppositions. It would seem that he would have to set himself aside, which is impossible. He cannot relinquish his deepest convictions, nor assume an indifferent attitude towards the author whom he seeks to understand. And certainly a Reformed theologian cannot divest himself of the firm conviction, which is not merely a matter of the mind but of the heart, that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.
(2) The presupposition that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and therefore has divine authority, while it gives us the assurance that every part of it is true and that it cannot be self-contradictory, does not, as a rule, determine our exegesis of particular passages one
way or another. It leaves us great freedom of movement and freedom of choice.
(3) It is a remarkable fact that they, who have such conscientious scruples against the presupposition of divine inspiration in their exegetical labors, are often controlled by prepossessions that determine the results of their interpretations to a far greater extent than the doctrine of inspiration would. One of these prepossessions of the present day, productive of much evil and of the subversion of many a Scripture passage, is the theory of evolutionary development as applied to the religion of Israel.
QUESTIONS: Were the organs of revelation inspired only in writing the books of the Bible, or also in their oral teaching? How did the inspiration of the Prophets differ from that of the Apostles? What elements were included in graphical (Kuyper), or transcriptive (Cave) inspiration? How does the inspiration of the writers differ from that of their writings? What is the difference between the inspiration, say, of Shakespeare, and that of David? Was it essential that the inspiration should extend to the very words used? What objections are raised against this doctrine of inspiration?
LITERATURE: Lee, The Inspiration of the Scripture; Bannerman, Inspiration of the Scriptures; H. McIntosh, Is Christ Infallible and is the Bible True? Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration; Orr, Revelation and Inspiration; Patton, Inspiration of the Scriptures; Sanday, Inspiration; Ladd, The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, 2 vols.; Daubanton, De Theopneustie der Heilige Schrift; Kuyper, Hedendaagsche Schriftcritiek; Bavinck, H., Philosophy of Revelation; Girardeau, Discussions of Theological Questions; Grosheide, NieuwTestamentische Exegeze; Honig, Is de Bijbel op Boven-natuurlijke wijze Geinspireerd? Berkouwer, Het probleem der Schriftcritiek; Calvinistic Conference Lectures, 1943, The Word of God and the Reformed Faith; Westminster Seminary Faculty, The Infallible Word.