REVEALS THE GREATEST DIVERSITY. There are several
divisions, viz., that of the grace of God in Jesus Christ for the redemption of sinners. They show us the bud of the divine promises gradually opening into a beautiful flower. The coming Christ casts his shadows before him, and finally appears in person.
d. The collective quotations of Scripture also point to its unity. New Testament writers often illustrate or support some particular truth by quoting from several Old Testament books, and thereby reveal their conviction that these are of equal divine authority. We find an example of this in Rom. 3:10–18, where Paul quotes Eccles. 7:20; Ps. 14:2, 3; 5:10; 140:4; 10:7; Isa. 59:7, 8; Ps. 36:2. For other examples, cf. Heb. 1:5–13; 2:6–8, 12, 13. In connection with the first, Turpie says: "This quotation, then, made up of these several passages, gives us an example of a combined quotation; and, as it is preceded by 'according as it is written,' makes known that the different writings from which they were taken—viz., Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Isaiah— are equally Scripture, and stand on the same level. If their statements were of different values, why place them all together?" (The New Testament View of the Old, p. 33).
e. More indirectly, the unity of Scripture is proved by the significant fact that the New Testament authors, in quoting from the Old Testament, occasionally alter the passages quoted somewhat, or apply them in a sense that is not apparent in the Old Testament. This can hardly be defended, except on the presumption that the Holy Spirit is, in the last analysis, the author of the whole Bible, and naturally had the right to quote and apply his own words as He saw fit.
2. ALONGSIDE OF THIS UNITY, HOWEVER, THE BIBLE ALSO REVEALS THE GREATEST DIVERSITY. There are several distinctions that should be borne in mind in the interpretation of Scripture.
a. The distinction between the Old and New Testament. These differ in the following particulars:
(1) As to contents. The Old Testament contains the promise; the New Testament, the fulfillment. The former points forward to the coming of Christ, and leads up to him; the latter takes in him its startingpoint, and looks back upon his completed sacrifice as the atonement for the sin of the world. The Old Testament is the bud, the New Testament, the flower; or, as Augustine expressed it: "The New Testament lies hid in the Old, the Old lies open in the New."
(2) As to form. The Old Testament is prophetical, while the New is apostolical. The symbolical element, which is very prominent in the former, is reduced to a minimum in the latter. Moreover, the divine factor is far more prominent in the Old Testament than in the New. The human authors of many Old Testament books are not known, and in the Prophets they are often, as it were, submerged in the divine author. Moreover, the Holy Spirit acts upon them from without. In the New Testament, on the other hand, the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, and operates on the apostles from within. The divine factor is largely lost to sight.
(3) As to language. The Old Testament is written in the Hebrew language, with the exception of some parts of Daniel and a few verses in Jeremiah and Ezra, while the New Testament is written in Hellenistic Greek.
b. The distinction between the various books of the Bible. The fact that the Holy Spirit employed prophets and apostles, with their personal idiosyncrasies, with their natural talents and their acquired knowledge, in an organic way, naturally gave rise to great diversity. Each author gave his book a certain definite stamp. Each one developed his own thoughts in a distinctive way, presented them as occasion demanded, and expressed them in a characteristic style. There is a great difference, for instance, between Isaiah and Jeremiah, between Paul and John. They do not all have the same vocabulary, nor write the same style. Their writings do not have the same historical setting, and do not present the truth from the same point of view. Each book of the Bible has an individual character.
c. The distinction between the fundamental forms of God's revelation:
(1) God embodied His revelation partly in the form of historical narratives. It is of the utmost importance to bear in mind that the historical facts narrated in the Bible also form an essential part of the divine revelation, and should be interpreted as such.
(2) Again, God made known his will in part, by means of didactical writings or discourses. In the Old Testament, we find these especially in the Law and in the Chokmah literature while in the New Testament they are found in the parables and discourses of the Saviour, and in the Epistles.
(3) Then, too, He has given us an insight into the mysteries of His council through prophecy. This interprets the ways of God in the past, reveals His will for the present, and opens up bright vistas in the future for the consolation of the people of God.
(4) Finally, He also revealed himself in poetry, in which we listen to strains as of a mighty orchestra. Dr. Stuart Robinson says beautifully: "Notes from the stricken chords of the heart of God lead the strain, and notes from all the stricken chords of the human soul answer in responsive chorus."
QUESTIONS: Is the Bible a planned book? If so, in what sense? Why does it constitute an organic rather than a mechanical unity? What connecting links are there between the Old and the New Testaments? What accounts for the fact that in our day the diversity rather than the unity of the Bible is emphasized? Why should the interpretation proceed, first of all, on the assumption that the Bible is a unity? Why must it also take account of its diversity?
LITERATURE: J. Monroe Gibson, The Unity and Symmetry of the Bible; A. Saphir, The Divine Unity of Scripture; Grosheide, De Eenheid der Nieuw-Testamentische Gods-openbaring; Turpie, The New Testament View of the Old; Bernard, The Progress of Doctrine.