(Pages 7-36)
BIBLICAL
DOGMATICS
Milton
S. Terry, D.D.
Professor
of Christian Doctrine in Garrett Biblical Institute
ă1907
By, Eaton & Mains.
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2
Sources of Biblical Dogmatics
1. The Bible a Priceless Treasury.
The main sources of biblical doctrine are the canonical scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments. The writers of these remarkable books were all of them
offspring of Abraham, who was of old time called out from his far Eastern
country and kindred to become a great nation and a blessing to all the families
of the earth (Gen. 12:1-3). These people and their sacred writings hold a unique
place in the history of mankind. In the more ancient times the sons of Abraham
were called Hebrews; later they were also called Israelites; and after their
restoration from Babylonian captivity they were more commonly called Jews,
because most of the survivors of that exile were of the tribe and kingdom of
Judah. There came unto them time and again the assurance that they were to be a
peculiar possession of God above all other peoples of the earth, “a kingdom of
priests, and a holy nation,” destined to be a light among the nations to make
known the salvation of God to the ends of the earth (Exod. 19:6; Deut. 7:6; Isa.
49:6). According to Jesus, in John 4:22, “the salvation is from the Jews,” and
Paul’s conception of the chief advantage of the Jews was in the fact that “they
were intrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2). If there be any truth in the
common saying that the Romans have been preeminent in teaching the world its
highest ideals of government and law, and that the Greeks have excelled in art
and philosophy, it may as surely be maintained that the Hebrew nation has been
the recipient and custodian of the purest religion and the most profitable
scriptures known among men. We accordingly accept the canonical books of the two
Testaments as a priceless deposit of religious truth, exceedingly profitable and
altogether sufficient for doctrine and for instruction in the revelations of
God.
2. Trammels of Old Tradition. But
the precious truths of these scriptures have been largely obscured and deprived
of their real force and authority by the traditions of men. The early Christian
Church inherited from the Jewish synagogue a vast accumulation of conjectures
touching the origin of the sacred books, and the nature of their inspiration;
and this harmful leaven of erroneous and misleading conceptions has been working
through all the Christian centuries. The rabbinical exegesis ran into a
cabalistic juggling with the text of Scripture, and was speedily followed by the
almost equally fantastic allegorical methods of the Alexandrian school of
biblical interpreters, from Philo the Jew to Origen the learned Christian
father. In spite of the wholesome reaction of the school of Antioch the
mischievous assumptions and the mystic methods of the allegorical treatment of
Scripture have persisted until quite modern times, and may be found in some
places even to this day. Along with the old rabbinic and allegorical exegesis
there was also begotten a theory of biblical inspiration, which in course of
time has taken to itself such qualifying terms as verbal, inerrant, and
infallible. It has affirmed that the sacred writers were impassive instruments
in the hands of God, and that every word and letter of the Bible were
supernaturally dictated by the omniscient Spirit.(1)
This strange fiction of mistaken reverence for the letter of Scripture has
tended to a materialistic and sentimental bibliolatry, and has fostered the most
absurd mental aberrations. The extravagant claims of the old Jewish rabbis, and
the mystic vagaries of mediaeval cabalists, were paralleled by the declaration
of the Helvetic creed of 1675 that “the Hebrew original of the Old Testament is
inspired of God not only in its consonants, but in its vowels and the vowel
points.” The allegorical interpretation itself was in part an effort to get rid
of the obvious difficulties of inerrant verbal inspiration, and also to account
for the recorded immoralities of the patriarchs which such a strained view of
Scripture seemed to sanction.
3. Reaction and Changes of View.
The common sense and intelligence of men have for long time been revolting from
this distorted handling of the Scriptures. The author of 2nd Peter (3:16) speaks
of Paul’s epistles, and also the other scriptures, as having been stretched on
the rack and twisted over a windlass (_______) by the ignorant errorists of his
time. Such a torturing of a multifarious body of religious literature is sure,
sooner or later, to provoke reaction, and such intellectual reactions have too
generally been led by men of a rationalistic and iconoclastic spirit. We
naturally feel that this ought not so to be; and yet history has often shown
that iconoclasts may indirectly serve the cause of truth. If they but stimulate
men to a remonstrance against aged abuses, to an exposure of unsound and
misleading methods, and to the adoption of more tenable beliefs, their very
extravagances may help the infirmities of less bold reformers. But changes of
opinion on a wide scale and modification of old beliefs are not made suddenly.
They usually require several generations to make the necessary discoveries and
adjust the results of faithful investigation.
4. Other Sacred Bibles. One of the
most important discoveries of the last century is the number of other
collections of literature held sacred by the adherents of divers ethnic
religions of the world. The Chinese classics, as revised and enlarged by the
wisdom of Confucius, have an authority in the civilization and worship of the
millions of Eastern Asia that is notably comparable with that of the Hebrew
scriptures among the Jewish people. The Kojiki of the old Shinto cult in Japan
presents another example that is worthy of comparison. The ancient Vedas of
India command a reverence among millions of the Hindus as great as any Jew or
Christian ever evinced for the Bible of his faith. The Tripitaka of the
Buddhists, the Avesta of the ancient Mazdeans and the modern Parsecs, the Koran
of the Mohammedans, and sundry other collections of sacred literature hold a
similar high place in the estimation of other religionists. For in several of
these ethnic books claims of miraculous inspiration are made even more
extravagant than those of verbal. dictation and literal inerrancy. Among some of
the Mohammedans it is held that the Koran is not a human production, but existed
from eternity in the essence of God; and some Brahmans put forth similar
declarations respecting their ancient Vedas. Acquaintance with these other
bibles of the world, and with the remarkable claims put forth in their honor,
have admonished us to be more cautious in making assertions about our Holy Bible
which are not clearly demonstrable.
5. Limits of the Biblical Canon.
Another fact which scientific research has compelled us to acknowledge is the
uncertainty of the limits of our canonical scriptures. Faithful historical
inquiry nowhere finds that God himself, or Jesus Christ, or any duly accredited
person or company of men, has ever settled once for all the exact extent of
either the Old Testament or the New. Some of the New Testament writers quote
from apocryphal writings with as much respect as they do from Moses and the
prophets, and many of the early Christian fathers not only do the same thing but
they also call those apocryphal books “holy Scripture.” The Greek and Roman
Catholic Churches accept the Old Testament Apocrypha as an integral part of the
inspired canon. The lists of canonical books found in the writings of Melito,
Origen, and other early Christian writers, and those indorsed by the Councils of
Laodicea and Hippo, vary in details, and they represent at most only the
opinions of men of fallible judgment, no more competent to determine such a
question than the painstaking historical students of our day. There is little
room to doubt, however, that the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament, as they
are now everywhere acknowledged, were accepted as Holy Scriptures by the Jews at
the beginning of the Christian era. Josephus specifies them as five books of
Moses, thirteen books of the Prophets, and four others containing hymns to God
and prescribed rules of life for men.(2)
These make in all twenty-two books, according to the number of letters in the
Hebrew alphabet; but Josephus nowhere names all the books, or gives us to
understand how he condensed our present thirty-nine into twenty-two. It is also
a fact not to be overlooked that in the first century of our era the Jewish
rabbis were yet discussing the canonicity of Ecclesiastes, Esther, and the Song
of Songs.(3) So little weight had
these Talmudic discussions of the rabbinic schools of Palestine with the
Alexandrian Jews that they freely admitted into their collection of scriptures
the books which we now call Apocrypha. The early Christian fathers appear to
have accepted the Alexandrian rather than the Palestinian canon, and, as we have
said, the Greek and Roman Churches have followed their example in spite of the
lists of more limited collections approved by various Church councils. But even
could it be shown that the limits of the Old Testament were fixed by Ezra: or by
Christ and his apostles, where shall we find equal authority for the several
books of the New Testament? It is matter of ancient record that the epistles of
James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, the Apocalypse of John, and the
epistle to the Hebrews were in the early times regarded by some as spurious, and
were long disputed.(4) But while
these facts disclose the uncertainty of the limits of the canon, as fixed by any
unquestionable authority, it must also be observed that over the acceptance of
the great majority of the books no serious question has ever arisen; and while
some of the apocryphal books are of obviously inferior value, it may be said of
all of them, canonical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphical, that they contain
much that is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for
instruction in righteousness”; and it would make no serious difference in
results if we should include them all in our sources of biblical dogmatics. In
fact, on doctrines not a few we find it necessary to consult these apocryphal
sources for information touching the religious opinions of the Jews current at
the time these books were written. The book of Tobit, as well as the book of
Esther, furnishes us with a noteworthy side-light upon the Jewish life and
thought of its time, and the historian of Judaism might well deplore its loss.
On the other hand, no important truth of our Christian religion would be
invalidated or imperiled if we should omit from our sources of doctrine not only
all the apocryphal writings, but also the books of Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of
Songs, Chronicles, James, Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, and the
Apocalypse, for the canonicity of most of these, as we have observed, was much
questioned in the ancient times. There is, moreover, a convenience in the use of
the more limited canon, and it seems preferable to confine our sources of
doctrine to the scriptures of the Old Testament which are accepted alike by
Jews, Greek and Roman Catholics and Protestants, and to the New Testament as
commonly received by the Greek, Roman, and Protestant Churches.
6. Other Traditions Questioned.
Other traditions of the Jewish synagogue touching the authorship of certain
books have also been challenged by modern criticism. A well-known passage in the
Talmud assumes to answer the question, “Who wrote the Old Testament books?” That
answer, given in the footnote,(5)
is a fair specimen of oracular dogma prevalent in the old rabbinic schools. Its
value is to be estimated by comparison with scores of similar deliverances found
among the teachings of the Gemara. The entire statement is obviously a set of
rabbinical conjectures, made at a time when the origin and history of the books
named were as uncertain to these Jews as they are to us. The strange idea that
David wrote the Psalms by the aid of Adam, Melchizedek and Abraham, and that the
men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, is sufficient to disparage the entire
tradition and to divest it of all historical value. And yet this old and
worthless statement of conjectures, repeated in substance by generations of
biblical commentators, has been allowed to go unchallenged so long, that when we
now call attention to its obscurity and want of corroborating evidence some
people show alarm, and imagine that we are “attacking” the Scriptures
themselves. A careful study of the Bible evinces the fact that many of the Old
Testament books are anonymous, while the traditional authorship of others is
heavily discounted, if not disproved, by the internal witness of the books
themselves. The Psalms are not all ascribed to David, and the book of Proverbs
contains at least seven different collections, some of them made long after the
time of Solomon. Moreover, the titles of many psalms and the superscriptions and
subscriptions of some books and portions of books appear to have no more value
than the chapter-headings inserted in the “authorized” English version of 1611.
Some books long supposed to have come from one writer are found on closer
examination to be composite, and this noteworthy feature of books both canonical
and apocryphal appears also in most of the religious books of other nations. It
ought, therefore, to be no disturbing element in our search for the truth
embodied in these ancient books to be apprized of all the facts and features of
their origin, so far as such facts can now be ascertained. The books themselves
remain precisely what they always have been since they were canonized for
religious uses, and the results of continuous searching criticism only serve to
present them to us in a clearer light.
7. Variety of Compositions. Another
fact brought into prominence by modern research is the remarkable variety of
compositions embodied in the scriptures of the two Testaments. There are
fragments of very ancient Hebrew song imbedded sometimes in the midst of
historic annals; there are sundry collections of odes and proverbs, dramas
wrought out in artificial form, alphabetical poems, orations of fervid
eloquence, biography of romantic interest, genealogies of tedious length,
theocratic history and narratives of many persons and of events of which we
possess no other record; there are the oracles of prophecy and the gospel
memoirs, unlike any other literature known; the New Testament epistles are
unique, and the gospel of John is a monument of Christian thought which
persistently confounds the hostile criticism of the centuries. All these
writings taken together exhibit also a wealth and variety of rhetorical
qualities unsurpassed in other comparable collections of religious literature.
There are enigmatical sayings, riddles, fables, parables, allegories, types,
symbols, and apocalyptic pictures set in exquisite idealistic form, and often
adorned with the most beautiful and forceful figures of speech. It is easily
seen now that all portions of this extensive and various body of scripture are
not of equal value. Compositions of such great diversity of character and scope,
many of them separated from each other by centuries, could not and should not be
expected to escape the most searching criticism. The original texts are in many
cases corrupt, so that we are at a loss to know precisely what the ancient
writer said. Had the biblical writings, like certain well-known inscriptions,
been originally graven in the enduring rock with a stylus of iron (comp. Job
19:24), there might have been less ground for dubious questioning; but they were
at first inscribed in perishable manuscripts, and they have been copied by many
different hands through successive generations, and a comparison of the various
copies and of the several versions shows that they have suffered by way of
numerous omissions, interpolations, and verbal changes.
8. Three Divisions of the Hebrew Canon.
The three well known divisions of the Hebrew canon--the Law, the Prophets, and
the Writings--appear to have been made some time before the beginning of our
era. They are mentioned in Luke 24:44, as "the law of Moses, and the prophets,
and the psalms," and in the prologue of Ecelesiasticus as "the law, and the
prophets, and the other books of our fathers." All printed copies of the Hebrew
Bible show this arrangement of the Palestinian canon. The first five books are
called the Law of Moses; the books of the Prophets are separated into two
classes, the earlier and the later, the first class embracing Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings, the second the more oracular books of Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets. All the other books of the Old Testament
belong to the third division called Kethubim, i.e., Writings. By some of
the Greek and Latin fathers and by many later writers this third section was
called the Hagiographa, i.e., Holy Writings. The book of Psalms is
divided into a pentateuch, each section ending with a doxology; and the Jews
have a saying that Moses gave five books of law, and David gave five books of
psalms; the law is the word of Jehovah to his people, and the psalms are the
responsive word of his people to Jehovah. But the critical study of both
these pentateuchs has resulted in a prevalent belief that Moses was no more the
author of the one than was David of the other. On this question of criticism,
however, the last word has not yet been said, and is not likely to be for years
to come.
9. The New Testament Canon.
The books of the New Testament canon are
fewer in number than those of the Old, and would fill less than one third the
number of pages, but as sources of Christian doctrine they are very far in
advance of the Hebrew scriptures, for they embody the teachings of the Lord
Jesus who has fulfilled the law and the prophets, and is the Mediator of a new
and better covenant. The three synoptic gospels occupy the first and
highest position in this canon, for they contain a remarkably simple and uniform
account of the best established traditions of what Jesus said and did, as they
were first reported by those "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2). This oral testimony, which doubtless entered
largely into the first preaching of the gospel by the apostles, found its way at
an early date into numerous written narratives out of which our first three
gospels appear to have been compiled. It
is now commonly believed that Mark's gospel is the oldest of the three, and,
according to Papias (about A.D. 130), it is in substance what Mark remembered of
the things said or done by Christ as they were personally communicated to him by
Peter. Papias also says that Matthew wrote out a collection of the
sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew language, which others translated and interpreted
as they were able.(6)
That Hebrew (or Aramaic) original is lost, and we do not know just how much
of it has been preserved in translation in our present Greek gospel according to
Matthew. The date of Matthew and also that of Luke, are quite uncertain, and
each of these gospels has recorded words and works of our Lord which are not
reported elsewhere. The gospel according to John is so different in its style
from the Synoptics that its date and authorship form one of the most
persistently disputed problems of New Testament criticism. Those who maintain
its genuineness concede that the style and contents are probably due to the
mystic temperament of the writer and the advanced age at which he wrote. Long
residence in a center of Greek literary activity, and half a century of thinking
and speaking repeatedly of personal memories of his beloved Lord, would very
naturally color a mystic apostle's manner of reporting his testimony "that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31).
The Acts of the apostles is from the
author of the third gospel, and furnishes a most important history of the
beginnings of the Christian community, and of the preaching and ministry of the
first apostles, especially of Peter and Paul. The epistles of Paul to the
Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians bear the most indisputable marks of
genuineness and are among the earliest writings of the New Testament. The other
Pauline epistles have been repeatedly questioned, especially the so called
Pastoral epistles; but they are all so clearly products of earliest Christian
teaching, and have so much to commend them as substantially the works of Paul,
that we can safely accept them as trustworthy sources of apostolic doctrine. The
same, in substance, may be said of the Catholic epistles and the Apocalypse,
although Jude and 2 Peter (have least value among all the New Testament
writings, and the majority of modern critics assign their composition to the
first half of the second century.
10. Superiority of the New Testament.
When, now, we examine the contents and scope of all these canonical books, and
observe that Jesus and his disciples emphasize the transcendent superiority of
the new covenant, mediated and ministered by the Christ, the Son of God,
we must note that the New Testament revelation consummates and supersedes
that of the law and the prophets of the former times. How or why should this
be otherwise after "the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished
death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel"? There
has been such a widespread habit of placing the Old Testament on a full equality
with the New, and a consequent failure to observe how Jesus and his apostles
inculcate a different doctrine, that we must here call attention to the
following facts:
(1) Shown by Statements of Jesus.
One of the most emphatic statements of Jesus is that he came to fulfill, not to
destroy, the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17). His own most positive teaching
in the immediate context and elsewhere, goes to show a complete
displacement of the statutes of the old covenant as a norm of ethics and of
religious life, and a taking up of all their essential and permanent elements
into a new setting in the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. Even the decalogue,
the richest kernel of the whole law, becomes, in the teaching of Christ, exalted
into a divine fullness and significance unknown to the Jewish fathers. The word,
"Thou shalt not kill" is violated by "every one who is angry with his brother."
The sin of adultery is committed when one "looketh on a woman to lust after
her." The statutes against swearing falsely are all superseded by the new
commandment, "Swear not at all." The sabbath law is so enlarged as to become a
principle of universal obligation to do good: to be, like the Son of man, not a
slave but "lord of the sabbath," and to know that the heavenly Father "worketh
even until now." Jesus set aside the old mosaic regulations for divorce, and
rebuked the disciples who would, like Elijah, have called down fire from heaven
upon a Samaritan village that refused to receive him. And if these weightier
matters of the law were thus declared defective, how much more the minor
regulations about meats, and drinks, and rituals of divine service? We learn
from all this that the new covenant of the gospel brings with it new spirit and
new life. It does not stop at partial reforms and modifications of old customs,
but requires a deep, radical, permanent uplift from the bondage of the letter of
laws and prophecy into a Christly freedom of the spirit. All this and more may
be shown further by our Lord's own illustration of the impropriety of putting a
piece of now, undressed cloth upon an old garment, or of putting new wine into
old wineskins, or of an invited guest fasting at the time of the wedding feast,
when the bridegroom and his companions are expected to rejoice together (Matt.
9:14-17). The old and new cannot thus be pieced together, for the Lord Christ
came to "make all things now." Essential elements of the old truth must needs
abide; they cannot be destroyed; but they are taken up out of their old
limitations and wrought over into a thoroughly new structure. Every jot and
tittle of the former revelation, whether it be found in the Law, the Prophets,
or the Psalms, must be fulfilled, and pass, as by a process of growth, into a
new organism. Thus it was that the law and the prophets reached their finale
with the ministry of John, whom Jesus pronounced greater than any one who had up
to his time arisen, but, he added significantly, "he that is but little in the
kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11:11; comp. Luke 16:16).
(2.) Shown by other New Testament
Teaching. This teaching of Jesus is also affirmed in the New Testament
epistles. According to Paul the letter of the old covenant, written in tables of
stone, although it came with glory, was relatively a ministration of death and
of condemnation, and has been eclipsed by the surpassing glory of the
manifestation of the Christ (2 Cor. 3:6-11). Hence the man who has found life in
Christ is "a new creation the old things are passed away; behold, they are
become new" (2 Cor. 5:17; comp. Rev. 21:5). Like a woman, who in the event of
her husband's death is discharged from the law of subjection to the husband, so
"we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held;
so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter"
(Rom. 7:6). In like manner the epistle to the Hebrews teaches that by the
manifestation and exaltation of Christ there comes "a setting aside (________)
of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, and a
bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God"
(7:18, 19). For the law made nothing perfect; the first covenant was not
faultless, and was at that time becoming old and nigh unto vanishing away (8:7,
8, 13). The law and its ceremonial were a shadow of good things to come, and
must be taken away in order that the Christ may reveal himself as the mediator
of a better covenant, enacted upon better promises (10:1; 8:6). So the old
covenant has given place to the new, and we are no longer under the law, but
under grace. The old is not destroyed; it remains as a precious and wonderful
object lesson to show us how God spoke of old in different ways and portions;
but that which in its nature was preparatory must needs be relatively defective
and weak and unprofitable as a law for the Christian life. Every jot and tittle,
however, that has value for religious discipline is fulfilled in the higher
revelation of Christ.
(3) Shown by Obvious Facts of the
Records. A study of the main contents of the Old Testament will serve,
furthermore, to show how defective the law and the prophets of the ancient time
are for purposes of direct instruction now. The holy men of old live, act, and
speak within the limitations of their time, and we should no more look for
perfection in the ethics, or in the definite religious concepts of their
writings, than we look for ripe fruit in the young shoot or in the green ear.
There is no evidence in their books that those men of God, who wrote the Law and
the Prophets and the Psalms, were so overruled by the Spirit as to be
independent of their historical environment. The book of Genesis is of the
nature of a grand national epic, and, like the poems of Homer and Firdausi, is a
composite of the songs and traditions which had been transmitted from parents to
children through many generations. The rest of the Pentateuch is mainly given to
the record of laws and regulations for the ritual of a Levitical service which
long since became old and vanished away. The laws touching slavery, retaliation,
cities of refuge, easy-going divorce, matters of inheritance, witchcraft, meats,
drinks, ablutions, and such like, are no more binding on the Christian
conscience than similar laws of Hammurabi, Lycurgus, or Numa. "For Christ is the
end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom. 10:4). Much
the same is The character of the Prophets and the Psalms, so far as their
contents may be supposed to supply us with authoritative precepts for Christian
faith and practice, for they belong to the pre Christian ages, and, though
abounding in pious sentiment, magnificent oracles, and hymns of divine worship,
every jot and tittle of them have found their consummation in the superior
revelation of Jesus Christ. As the Decalogue received at his hand a deeper and
fuller setting than it had before, so, too, the prophets and the psalms of
Israel have been fulfilled and superseded by "the Apostle and High Priest of our
confession," who is the life and the light of the world.
(4) The Transition Gradual.
But the fulfilling of the old and the establishing of the new were not the
accomplishment of a few days. Jewish customs and ritualistic vows and offerings
and forms of divine service prevailed for a long time among the Jewish
Christians. Jesus himself avoided an open and sudden breach by subjecting
himself to the law and the ancient customs. He submitted to baptism by John as a
becoming fulfillment of righteousness (Matt. 3:15). He directed the man whom he
healed of his leprosy to go to the priest and offer for his cleansing the things
commanded in the law (Mark 1:44). The apostles of the Church in Jerusalem
observed with conscientious care the practices of circumcision, fasting, vows,
and questions of meats, and drinks, and fast days, and new moons, and sabbath
days. Even Paul, after having broken with Jewish rudiments, consented, for the
sake of peace, to observe the obligations of a Jewish vow and shave his head
(Acts 21:24). But these things were only the temporary accommodations to the
relaxing bonds of an old system that was then "nigh unto vanishing away."
11. The Question of Inspiration.
The divine inspiration of the Scriptures is a fact acknowledged by all who
accept them as a treasury of religious truth, but the exact nature and extent of
that inspiration have been subjects of persistent controversy. We, have no
theory of inspiration to propound, but confidently accept the canonical
scriptures as containing the highest revelations of divine truth ever imparted
to mankind. We are bound, however, to oppose and drive away, so far as we are
able, the dogma of the verbal inerrancy of the records, a dogma which we believe
to be without any valid support in the Scriptures. The strange notion of a
mechanical control of the biblical writers by the power of God's Spirit may be
traced back to the ancient Jewish synagogue and the Alexandrian theosophy. Some
of the early Christian fathers seem to have imbibed this conception from the
assumptions of the allegorical exegesis which was prevalent in those days.
Justin Martyr speaks of "the energy of the divine Spirit acting like a plectrum,
descending from heaven and using righteous men as an instrument, like a harp or
lyre."(7) Such a statement might have had
force with the Greeks of Justin's time, who were familiar with the mantic frenzy
of sibyls and soothsayers, but should have no weight with any who soberly
inquire after the actual facts. It is, however, conceivable, and it has
sometimes occurred, that devout men, under an extraordinary spell of
inspiration, have spoken more wisely than they knew. No theist should question
the power of the Holy Spirit of God to move the human soul with a supernatural
inspiration, or with a heavenly vision. But we find that such extraordinary
revelations are the experience of a moment, and, in case the person so inspired
essays afterward to write down what he saw, we are not at liberty to affirm,
without some specific evidence, that his normal powers were suspended or
neutralized in the process of his writing. In such a case what he wrote would
not be his own composition, but the supernaturally secured product of another
mind. A dogma which involves such a concept of any writings cannot be accepted
without the most positive evidence. We must appeal to demonstrable facts,
observe what the various scriptures claim for themselves, allow no unwarranted
inferences from exceptional statements of prophets or apostles, but seek a sound
and trustworthy interpretation of what is written relative to the question
before us.
(1) Highest Old Testament Claims.
If we turn to the scriptures themselves and study the highest claims which any
of the sacred writers make for what they have put on record, we find nothing in
the Old Testament more impressive than Isaiah's account of his own divine
commission (in Isa. 6). However we interpret the vision of Jehovah's throne, and
the seraphim, and the live coal that touched the prophet's lips, it is evident
that to the seer himself the revelation was profoundly real; and he went forth
with that vision of The Holy One in his soul and proclaimed his powerful
messages to the people. But there is not a line of evidence that what was
afterward written out as Isaiah's oracles was anything other than the prophet's
own composition, prepared in the full exercise of all his personal faculties,
and within the limitations of his own human thought. Jeremiah tells us that
Jehovah destined him before his birth to be a prophet unto the nations, and also
that he put forth his hand and touched his mouth, and said unto him, "Behold, I
have put my words in thy mouth" (Jer. 1:9). He also commanded him to "write all
the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book" (30:2; comp. 36:4, 32). But in
his case, as in that of Isaiah, we have no warrant for supposing that when
Jeremiah addressed the people of his time, or sent the messages of Jehovah to
the king, or dictated the words which Baruch wrote upon the book roll, his
normal intellectual activity was temporarily arrested or neutralized by divine
power. So, too, when the sweet psalmist of Israel says (as in 2 Sam. 23:2),
The Spirit of Jehovah spoke in me,
And his word was upon my tongue,
he simply utters the impassioned language of sacred poetry,
which always breathes human emotion, and shows rhetorical culture, but
furnishes no proof that the writer was an impassive machine, controlled by
another Person, and miraculously secured against the utterance of any and every
kind of error or mistake.
(2) Witness of the New Testament.
When we turn to the
New Testament for its highest claims of inspiration we observe the same lack of
any evidence of infallible dictation. Some have appealed to the assurance given
the disciples that they should be divinely assisted by the Holy Spirit when
arrested and brought before governors and councils (Mark 13:11), but that is
a promise which Christians of all times may appropriate when beset with like
persecution. It was as truly verified by Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms as
by Peter before the council at Jerusalem. The assurance of such divine
assistance before councils makes no reference whatever to the writing of
scriptures. So, too, the promise of the Comforter (in John 14:26), who "shall
teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you,"
contains no word touching a future record of the sayings of Christ, but is
applicable to all who believe in Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit. For this
"promise of the Father" is no other than the "anointing from the Holy One," of
which we read in 1 John 2:20-27, namely, "the anointing which ye received from
him," and which "teacheth you concerning all things." So far as the
disciples' recollection of the words of Jesus has furnished any portion of our
gospels, we doubtless possess most precious results of that promised help of the
Spirit. But no student of the variations and intricacies of the synoptic
Gospels should fail to see that the facts which meet him at every step are
utterly incompatible with the claim of verbal inerrancy for these divergent
records. So far as they report the sayings of Jesus, they are all of them, at
the most, Greek translations of what he uttered in another language. The preface
of Luke's gospel is especially noteworthy for the statement of the author that
he had "traced all things accurately from the first," and had taken pains to
secure trust worthy information from those "who were from the beginning
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." He does not give the slightest hint
that he received any exceptional assistance of the Holy Spirit. Paul puts forth
as lofty claims to special revelation as any writer of the New Testament. He
declares that he received his gospel “not from man, but through revelation of
Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12). But he obviously refers to the substance of his
preaching, and his language cannot be legitimately construed into a claim of
inerrancy for his epistles.(8) For his
epistles bear some marks of his human infirmity. He confesses his inability to
remember whether he baptized any other than Crispus, and Gaius, and the
household of Stephanas at Corinth (1st Cor. 1:14, 16). He gave the
Corinthians his judgment on a certain question, “as one that hath obtained mercy
of the Lord to be trustworthy,” and in the expression of such an opinion he said
that he “thought that he had the Spirit of God” (1st Cor. 7:25, 40);
but he nowhere puts forth the claim of inerrant inspiration. He shows his high
estimate of the Old Testament when he says: “Whatsoever things were written
aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through
comfort of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). We read also in 2nd
Tim. 3:16, the classic text on inspiration: “Every scripture inspired of God is
also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which
is in righteousness”; but here is not a word that can establish the dogma of
verbal inerrancy.
(3) Such Claims not Applicable to All
the Rooks. We should further point out
the fallacy of applying any high claims made for themselves by certain prophets
and apostles to other writers who make no such claim. We may well believe
that Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and Paul, and some others, were gifted above all
other men by way of an exceptional inspiration for some particular work, but it
does not therefore follow that all others, whose writings have been taken up
into our canon, were inspired in the same manner and in the same degree. (As
simple matter of fact, all the books of the Bible are not of equal value, and
some portions of a single book are not as valuable as some other portions of the
same book.) Can any man of sober thought maintain that the laws touching clean
and unclean animals in Lev. 11, or the vindictive Psa. 109, or Isaiah’s oracle
against Moab, are worthy to be placed on an equality with the Sermon on the
Mount, or even with the epistle to Philemon? What shall we think of the
statement that the generations of Esau in Gen. 36, the names of the mighty men
of David in 2nd Samuel, and the genealogies of 1st Chron.
1-9, “are the very word of God”? If we maintain that the entire canonical
Scripture is the product of a supernatural dictation of verbal statements, we
must in all logical consistency apply our theory to the long lists of cities and
tribal boundaries in the book of Joshua, the exploits of Ehud, and Jephthah, and
Samson in the book of Judges, and the references to apocryphal literature in the
epistles of Jude and 2nd Peter.(9)
Such a theory ought to show some perceptible evidence that the books of Nehemiah
and Esther and Ecclesiastes and the Canticles bear marks of divine inspiration
not to be found in the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecelesiasticus, and 1st
Maccabees. What remarkable advantage by way of demonstrable inspiration has the
epistle of Jude over the book of Enoch, who is quoted therein as “the seventh
from Adam"?
(4) Our Doctrine should Accord
with existing Facts. From these various considerations it seems
inevitable to conclude that our doctrine of biblical inspiration should accord
with all the existing facts of the writings themselves. Sound sense and
scientific criticism can accept nothing less. All the biblical writers were men
of like passions as we are, and not one of them has put forth the claim, or
warranted the inference, that their book-rolls are inerrant and infallible in
all which they record. Their manifold peculiarities of thought and style evince
the human freedom with which they wrote, and
any attempt or presumption at the present time to define the exact nature and
extent of each man’s inspiration would be an exhibition of human folly.
There exists no specific definition of the word inspiration as applied to the
Scriptures, and there is no statement or theory of the same to be found in any
creed, confession, or ecclesiastical formulary of faith, that would be accepted
in all Christendom today as having authority for the Christian conscience. How
absurd, then, to affirm that any particular theory of inspiration is binding, or
has always been the doctrine of the Church! As well might one claim the
consensus of Christendom for the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures.
The one truth conceded by all who revere these
sacred writings is that the Holy Spirit of God cooperated with their authors,
and the result is a volume immeasurably more profitable, as a whole, for
instruction in spiritual things than all the other religious writings of the
world. With or without the so called
Apocrypha, these scriptures of the Old and the New Testament are the self
evidencing records of a progressive divine revelation of God in the world of
human history. They embody and inculcate all the great religious truths
which are anywhere known among men. They vary in the relative value of their
different portions, but, when fairly interpreted, they reveal an adorable
purpose of God to draw all men unto himself, and they accordingly contain, as in
a shrine, all those hallowed and helpful doctrines, reproofs, counsels,
consolations, and heavenly promises which answer to the deepest yearnings of the
heart of man.
(5) Inerrancy a Dogma of Necessitarian
Philosophy. The dogma of verbal
inerrancy is inconsistent with existing facts, extravagant in its assumptions,
and mischievous in its tendency to provoke continual controversy in the Church.
It has so extensively infected popular thought as to become a positive hindrance
to the rational study of the Bible. Its habitual bent is either to conceal or to
pervert the undeniable human element conspicuous in the sacred writings. It has
obvious logical relationship to the necessitarian philosophy of human action,
and was, accordingly, adopted by the leading Churches of the Reformation which
accepted the Calvinistic creed. These Churches maintained the dogma of divinely
secured human volition, and a mechanical theory of biblical inspiration was the
natural result. This theory found its logical expression in the Helvetic creed
which declared that "the Hebrew original of the Old Testament is inspired of God
not only in its consonants, but in its vowels—either the vowel points
themselves, or at least the power of the points—not only in its matter but in
its words; thus forming together with the original of the New Testament, the
sole and complete rule of our faith and life; and to its standard, as to a
Lydian stone, all extant versions, Oriental and Occidental, ought to be applied,
and whenever they differ, be conformed," With all its extravagance this
confession is only a logical conclusion from the postulates of the monergistic
theology and the necessitarian philosophy. Once accept the theory of
supernaturally secured human volitions, and our thoughts, words, and deeds
become as mechanical and necessary as the movements of the planets and the
tides. We reject this hypothesis and regard its conclusions as a mischievous
leaven in the realm of Christian thought. The synergistic theology is the opposite
of this, and the only tenable alternative. But many who reject the necessitarian
theology are so accustomed to the use of words and phrases which had their
origin in notions of positively secured human actions that they have unwittingly
imbibed the theory of the verbal inerrancy of the entire volume of Holy
Scriptures.
12. The Dogma of Infallibility. The
necessitarian dogma of inspired verbal inerrancy is usually connected with that
of the “infallibility of the Bible.” It seems difficult for some to think of a
book of divine revelation without associating with it the idea of all the
perfections of God, and they allow a priori assumptions to divert
attention from some of the most simple facts It
is claimed and was formally declared by the Vatican Council of 1870, that the
Pope of Rome, whenever he speaks officially on a question of doctrine or of
morals, is possessed of inerrant and infallible judgment for determining the
very truth of God. But all Protestant
Christendom rejects this claim as ludicrously futile, and even the Greek Church
resents it as blasphemous. Over against the authority of popes and
councils the Protestant reformers placed the clear teaching of the Scriptures as
interpreted by valid and convincing reasoning. To these latter Luther made his
appeal when called upon to, revoke his opinions before the Diet of Worms. These
Scriptures contain the treasured revelations of ages and generations of
lawgivers, prophets, and apostles, and also the records of the words of Christ
himself. That they are and were intended to be, by the help of the Holy Spirit,
the surest guide to the knowledge of the eternal truths of God, and the
“sufficient rule of faith and practice” became the formal principle of the
Protestant Reformation, and this is firmly held today among all the reformed
Churches of the Christian world. We maintain
the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as a guide in the way of salvation
through Christ; but the dogma of “infallibility” is no essential part of the
true Protestant principle, but only a cause of confusion and error.
(1) Involves a Distorted Notion of the
Bible. For this dogma of an, “infallible book” involves a
distorted and misleading conception of the Bible itself. It is apt to convey to
the popular mind the notion of an inerrant, infallible Monarch, uttering nothing
but categorical propositions of what is right and what is wrong. It ignores the
fact that the Scriptures are a body of various minds of literature, made up of
composite narratives, songs, fables, riddles, parables, allegories, visions, and
dreams. In the interpretation of all of these there has never been uniformity,
of opinion, nor is there likely to be for ages to come. Strong, sweeping
abstract assertions of the equal authority of all portions of this multiform
volume go for nothing in the face of opposing facts which appear in the various
books, and the contents of many of these books are the farthest possible from
the nature of a set of authoritative utterances on matters of doctrine or on
questions of conscience. It requires only the slightest attention to the facts
to see that the entire Scriptures cannot be
accepted in all their parts as so many final and infallible decisions of
doctrine, valid alike for all times and for all men. The greater part of
the Mosaic legislation, that veritable Holy of holies in Jewish estimation, is
obsolete today for the faith and practice of the Christian world.
(2) Discredited by Discrepancies and
Persistent Controversy. This dogma, moreover, like its twin companion of
“verbal inerrancy,” is incompatible with the numerous discrepancies of the
Scriptures. We have a goodly number of volumes written to harmonize these
discrepancies, but their very existence is a fatal witness against the unanimity
of the biblical writers. If papal infallibility
is effectually discredited by the fact that different popes and councils have
widely disagreed on questions of faith and practice, biblical infallibility must
for the same reason fall under the same condemnation. For not only have
the most eminent Protestant theologians, but
famous synods also, and great religious bodies like the Lutherans, the Baptists,
the Presbyterians, and the Unitarians have persistently disagreed on matters of
doctrine which they all believed to be taught in the Bible. On some
doctrines deemed fundamental their divergent interpretations have been the most
remarkable. In the face of such age long controversy over its teaching, wherein
consists the infallibility of the book? Obviously there is no such infallibility
among men or books. According to 2nd Pet. 3:16, Paul wrote “in all
his epistles some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and the
unsteadfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own
destruction." Wherein, then, is Paul’s infallibility to be seen, and wherefore
should we commit ourselves to the needless task of maintaining the infallibility
of any such writings? Their everlasting value for instruction in righteousness
and in doctrine may be devoutly acknowledged without acceptance of the dogma of
their “infallibility.”
(3) The Word itself Irrelevant.
The simple fact, which all who seek the truth should recognize, is that the word
infallibility has no proper relevancy to a subject in which human
judgments and volitions are so largely involved as in this question.
All writings known to men are subject to human
interpretation. It is no disparagement of the Scriptures, nor of the
power of God, to say that, in all matters which contemplate the exercise of
man’s intelligence and freedom of will, any assumption of coercion is inept and
futile. We may illustrate this by comparison with our concept of the
infallibility of God, and the irrelevancy and fallacy of confusing this concept
with matters which belong to the province of human responsibility. No man in his
right mind will admit that the omniscient Ruler of the world is capable of
falling into error. He is absolutely infallible in his judgments and his ways
are in large measure past our finding out. But this belief does not rest for its
support on any dictum of pope, or Bible, or theologian, although they may all
affirm it. We accept it, not because it has been formally declared by a prophet,
or apostle, or pope, or council, but rather because of its stronghold in the
intuitions of the human soul, in the convictions of the heart, in the
necessities of rational thought, and in a consequent impossibility of supposing
the contrary. This cannot be said of any man or of any book in the world. And
yet, along with this acknowledged infallibility of God, we have the fact that
God himself has brought fallible men into his world, and endowed them with
powers of free and responsible personality. By reason of being what he is man
has through all generations misconceived his Creator and disobeyed his laws.
The fallibility and the actual failures are no
fault of God, but are charged to the, ignorance and perversity of man.
When, however, one claims infallibility for a man or for a book we demur, and
have the right to demand some incontrovertible proof.
It is irrelevant, in answer to such a demand,
to be told that God is infallible. The Bible is not God. He is invisible
and far beyond us; but the Scriptures are open to our personal inspection and
were written by men of various times and of various degrees of culture and
knowledge. The real question here is not about God’s personal
perfections, but whether he has actually given us a book which determines
inerrantly and infallibly for mankind all matters of doctrine and morals. We
maintain that such infallibility is not found in man or in books. The invisible
God is by the necessities of our concept of him infinite in wisdom and
knowledge, but we decline to accept, without convincing evidence, the dogma that
he has imparted such qualities to any volume written by men. And
this position is perfectly compatible with the
belief that the Bible, when interpreted in the light of the completed revelation
of Jesus Christ, is a unique record of the noblest religious truths and the most
perfect standard of morals ever given among men. But being a manifold
record of a progressive divine revelation it contains divers portions which
represent imperfect standards, as Jesus himself showed, and we refuse to
perpetuate the fallacy of affirming of this entire volume of Scriptures what is
true of only a part of it. We insist on
bringing every doctrine and every question of morals to the final test of the
explicit revelation of Jesus Christ. According to his teaching the two
commandments of love, as enunciated in Matt. 22:37-40, involve the purest
concept of religion and the most perfect standard of ethics in the world, and
they comprehend the substance of “the whole law and the prophets.”
But even these most fundamental truths fail to
impress some men, and we have too often and too long found men disposed to argue
and insist that the morals of the book of Esther are in full harmony with these
two commandments!
(4) Sufficiency Rather than
Infallibility. Over against the dogma of infallibility we maintain the
sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as a guide to the knowledge of God and the
way of salvation through Jesus Christ. We hold with the apostle to the Gentiles
that those who are intrusted with these Scriptures have “much advantage and
profit every way” over those who have not been thus favored. But according to
Paul God has revealed himself through the
visible creation, without the Bible, to the whole Gentile world (Rom. 1:18-20;
2:14, 15), so that every man is left without excuse for his personal
unrighteousness. In the Deistic controversies it was claimed by some that
“the light of nature” was of itself quite sufficient for man’s moral guidance
and for a knowledge of the supreme Ruler. But it was replied that this light of
nature is very fallible, and often misleading, and therefore we need the
superior light of a written revelation. We admit this plea as valid for the
scriptural revelation, but at the same time reject the unwarranted inference
that the superior biblical revelation must needs be inerrant or infallible. Paul
himself, after affirming the clear revelation of the light of nature to the
Gentiles, goes right on in the epistle to the Romans to show that the Jew also,
with all his superior advantage of “the oracles of God, and the adoption, and
the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the promises,”
failed and fell not only through unbelief but also through misunderstanding of
his higher revelation. Thus, according to Paul, the written revelation given in
the Old Testament as well as the light of nature, had conspicuously failed to
evince any quality that entitles it to the claim of infallibility. The actual
failure of the Scriptures to convince and convert thousands of men who read them
is a conspicuous fact, but the claim of their infallibility is at best a
questionable dogma. To aver that the
fallibility is with the reader, not with the book, does not prove the
book infallible. God has never given man a
revelation, written or unwritten, that is infallible in securing unity of
belief, or uniformity of religious practice. On the contrary, the sufficiency of
the biblical revelation as a source of instruction in the knowledge of God and
of Christ and the way of salvation is a most wholesome truth, and is verified by
the experience of innumerable thousands. Why then hold a dogma which, if not
utterly futile, is utterly incapable of proof, and is provocative of constant
disputation?
13. Authority as Sources of Doctrine.
The authority of the Scriptures as sources of doctrine does not rest upon the
basis of a mechanical inerrancy or of a supposed infallibility. Authority in
religion is not a matter of ancient sacred records, but of irresistible
spiritual convictions. It is analogous to authority in mathematics, in geology,
in astronomy, in medicine, and in international law. Whatever has real authority
over the judgment and the consciences of men is clearly seen to rest upon
indisputable facts. The undisputed and commanding facts in any science are what
they are, not because they are written in text books everywhere accepted as good
authority; but the text book has value and authority according to its
acknowledged rank as a full and sufficient guide to the knowledge of the science
which it treats. So may we say of the great
truths of the Bible that they are what they are, not because they are found in
the Bible, but because they are self-evidencing as unquestionable truths of God.
For God has revealed some things so clearly to the heart of man that there is no
room for real differences of opinion. The chief teachings of Jesus Christ
evinced an intrinsic authority that left no place for doubtful disputation. An
authoritative revelation must command the honest assent of the reason and the
conscience in order to be convincing in its truthfulness. Our claim for the Holy
Scriptures is that the Old and New Testaments embody a religious literature of
inestimable worth. The various writings are not of equal value in all their
parts, but, taken as a whole, they constitute a remarkably self-interpreting
book. The well trained inquirer after heavenly truths finds therein many things
both new and old. He perceives how “God spoke in old time by divers portions and
in divers manners,” and in the later times spoke through Jesus Christ in a
manner and fullness that surpassed all other revelations given among men. We
make, accordingly, the same relative claim for the Bible that we make for the
Christian religion. It consummates and supersedes all other cults ever in force
among the various peoples. Such a volume needs no high-flown eulogies, no dogma
of inerrancy and infallibility; but having great variety of contents, and
written at different times and by many different authors, it has the right to be
interpreted rationally and self consistently. The real value and authority of
such a volume are best seen in demonstrable facts which show that
this Bible is immeasurably superior to all
other religious writings of mankind. The sacred books of other religions have
their value; but the scriptures of the Old and New Covenants are preeminently
THE HOLY BIBLE, profitable above all other books for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, and for discipline in righteousness
(1) Superiority in Variety of Contents.
This Holy Bible is superior to all the
other bibles of the world in the remarkable variety of its literature.
The Rig Veda is a collection of more than a thousand ancient Aryan hymns
addressed to many nature-gods; but these hymns are limited in their range of
thought, and quite monotonous. The other Vedas are little more than liturgical
arrangements of the same hymns, and add nothing of real value to them. So, too,
the contents of the voluminous Tripitaka are tedious and tasteless repetitions
of Buddhist stories, and minute regulations for the conduct of mendicants. Their
doctrines, though relatively few and simple, involve the denial of human
personality and the ultimate cessation of our self-conscious being. The Kojiki
of the old Shinto cult is a crude mixture of Japanese mythology and traditions,
and it possesses no value for religious instruction. The sacred books of China
are confessedly non-religious. The Shu King is a collection of historical
narratives, the Shih King is a book of poetry, and the other books treat of
governmental rites, and ceremonies, and rules of etiquette. None of them claim
to be inspired of God, or to embody revelations of heaven. The Avesta is at best
the scattered fragments of a warlike cult, which long ago took up the sword for
holy wars, and perished by the sword. The prayers, the hymns, the liturgical
fragments, and the code of laws are all of one general cast, and the entire
collection is more of a prayer book, or a ritual, than a bible.
The Koran is a peculiar medley of commandments,
admonitions, and narratives dictated by Mohammed, which exhibit numerous
blunders in history and chronology and show in many ways the narrow limits of
its author’s knowledge of Judaism and Christianity. It is a most
wearisome book to read, and seems to be incapable of happy translation into
another language. And so we may say, in substance, of all the other religious
books which have any corresponding claim to be the bibles of distinct systems of
religion. Not one of them is really worthy to be compared with our Holy
Scriptures for richness and variety of contents. The annals, proverbs,
apocalypses, prophecies, psalms, dramatic poems, gospel narratives, and epistles
which make up the Old and New Testaments speak for themselves in the
unmistakable religious character and aim of what they have to tell us. And these
divers elements are so interwoven as to command the lively attention and the
absorbing interest of the reader. The loftiest concepts of God, the incalculable
value of the human soul, the beauty of holiness, and the imperishable permanence
of love are truths presented for our instruction in righteousness, and they are
made so plain and simple that a little child may understand them.
(2) Superiority of Historic Outline and
Background. Another aspect of superiority is seen in the strong and
clear historic outline in which the progressive character of the biblical
revelations is set forth. The oldest Abrahamic
traditions contain the germs of the Messianic hope. The divine legation
of Moses was narrowed because of the hardness of the people’s hearts, and he
spoke of a Prophet of God to come after him, like unto him, but greater in the
commandments which he should utter in Jehovah’s name. David received yet fuller
revelations of the advent of his messianic Son, and of the establishment of his
throne for ages to come. The prophets and the psalmists after him repeated and
enhanced both the ancient promise and the future blessed hope; and when
Jerusalem and the throne of David were overthrown by the armies of the king of
Babylon, and the princes and the people were carried away into exile, Jeremiah’s
oracle proclaimed loudly above all the din and ruin and gloom of that sad day
the word of Jehovah: “Behold, the days come that I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel.” All these successive periods in the progress of Israelite
history are so interlinked with the historic records of other peoples that we
find them confirmed by several ancient witnesses. Amraphel, incidentally
mentioned in Gen. 14:1, was a contemporary of Abraham some 2,250 years before
Christ. The recovery of a remarkable code of laws enacted by this ancient “King
of Shinar” puts the great ancestor of the Hebrew nation in realistic touch with
the Babylonia of that date as truly as the mention of Nebuchadnezzar, in the
prophecies of Jeremiah, shows a later stage in the history of the seed of
Abraham, and confirms the story of their Babylonian exile. The monuments of
Egypt and the stones of Palestine give their testimony also to the unmistakable
outline of the history of Israel which is clearly traceable in the Hebrew
scriptures. No such marks of actual historic intercourse with contemporary
nations of world importance are found in the other sacred books that sometimes
rank as bibles. These facts remove our biblical narratives from the literature
of myth and fable. They show a real historic background in the gradual
development of the religion of Israel, and also a divinely ordered preparation
for the coming of the Christ.(10)
Page 31
(3) Superiority of
the Revelation of Christ. The crowning, glory of the Holy Scriptures appears in
the New Testament revela tion of Jesus Christ. He is the supreme Prophet and
Apostle of our confession, for whose coming all the foregoing revelations given
through holy men had prepared the way. He is the Light of the world. ~'The
gospels, the epistles, and other New Testa iment books supply us with the
substance of his teaching in a raanner too self evidencing to be misunderstood.
) When we duly observe that all preceding legislation an ' d prophecy found
their fulfillment in him, we shall not be perplexed by the obvious imper
fections of Israel's old time cult. The codes of Moses and of Hammurabi contain
evidences of adaptations to the hardness of the hearts of the peoples of those
ancient times. Any rational conception of a progress in divine revel * ation
must admit the short comings of the former ages. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were
gifted above the teachers of an earlier period to declare that the old f~
proverb of setting the children~s teeth on edge because their fathers ate sour
grapes should be no longer used in Israel (Jer. xxxi, 29; Ezek. xviii, 2). But
Jesus Christ fulfilled every jot and tittle~ of the law and the prophets, so
that the entire Old Testament must ~,~ now be studied and tested by the light of
the gospel of Jesus.," ,,"'Had this important truth received due attention, we
might have been spared the lamentable spectacle of men strenuously maintainliag,
on biblical grounds, the righteousness of polygamy, and human slavery, and easy
going divorce, and capital punishment for witch ~eraft, and the vindictive
cursing of enemies. Jesus introduced new thought, new life, and new inspiration.
He now "sitteth on the throne, declaring, Behold, I make all things new." If we
were not possessed of the profound conviction that the Bible is the divinely
treasured literature of a progressive revelation of God in Christ, and that the
completed witness and teaching of the New Testament supplies the most
authoritative source and
I We should in the interests of sound apologeties, abstain from the illogical
use isoknetimes maae of these incidental connections of biblical narrative with
persons and events of ancient history. The mention of Amraphel, Pharaoh, or any
other king is in itself no proof of the historicity of the book of Genesis, or
of any other book in which such names may occur. That question must be
determined in other ways. A poem, a novel, a parable, or an allegory may make
various uses of historical names and facts. No sensible person would argue that
the Last Days of Pompeii and Quo Vadis are books of veritable history because
they have much to say about famous historical persons and events. And, yet it
may be added that probably no strictly historical work, compiled from the most
trustworthy sources, would supply the common reader with a more truthful picture
of Roman life in those days than the celebrated novels named.
Page 32
means oi religious truth within the reach of man, we could never presume to
write a Biblical Doomaties. 14. The Bible and the Word of God. These Holy
Scriptures, completed and crowned by the revelation of Jesus Christ, are the
treasured result of religious truths spoken in various measures througl~ many
generations. Thus they also become for us a most profitable means of discipline
in the truth and in all righteousness. By the help of the Spirit, who is given
to guide us into all the truth (John xvi, 13), the Bible is a mighty instrument
for apprehending and imparting the revelations of God. The real source of all
truth and of all revelation in the truth is God himself, and in our search for a
knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God we should not confound God and
the Bible, as the manner of some is. ' The heavenly treasure deposited in the
biblical records is not identical with the book itself.' Like the treasure
hidden in the field, and the pearl of great price, the living truth of God has
its places of hiding and is not found without search and sacrifice. But when
found and made one's own, the heavenly jewel becomes a source of light and
comfort and a means of grace and truth. But how are we to distinguish the
precious treasure from the field in which it is hidden? Field and treasure both
are ours, but some men seem to insist on our saying, The field is the freasnre;
"the Bible is the Word of God." This shibboleth, we believe, has been a source
of no little confusion and error. It is only in a loose and inaccurate way of
speaking that the letter of the Scriptures may be called God's Word, and, when
thus designated, it should be seen at once that we are employing a synecdoche, a
rhetorical figure of putting the whole for a part. It is like naming the vessel
when we mean only the treasure in the vessel. A close examination of all the
scriptural texts in which the phrase "word of God," or its equivalent, occurs,
will show that there is no warrant in the Bible for the dogmatic shibboleth
cited above. It is very easy for a superficial reader of such psalms as Psa.
xix, 7 11, and Psa. exix to iniagine that the words law, testimony, precepts,
statutes, con2,mandments, judgments, thy word, n.tean the entire scriptures of
both Testaments, whereas the Teal reference of the psalmist is to the Decalooue,
and, in his widest thought, to the laws of the Pentateuch. There is no allu V""
sion to the Prophets and the Psalms, which as yet formed no portion of the
Jewish canon of Scripture. The delusive anachronism of applying the words of
such a psalm to the entire Bible ministers not to intelligent study of the
Scriptures, but only to ignorance and error. We should observe, further, that
the messages of the prophets were usually a word of Jehovah for some person,
people,
Page 34
or definite occasion. Not a few of those messages, like that of Isaiah to
Ahaz (vii, 3 9), have no natural reference to any other person or time. Others
embody helpful promises, or solemn warn ings and reproofs, which are profitable
for all time, but that which is of permanent value in them is the substantial
content of the message, not a written document as sucli. The word of J ehovah
through Isaiah is also called "the vision of Isaiah," and the "burden," or
oracle, "Nvhich Isaiah saw." But the book of Isaiah contains four chapters
(xxxvi xxxix) out of the book of Kings, and also a "writing of HezekiaY'
(xxxviii, 9), which are nowhere called the word of the Lord. But even if the
entire book of Isaiah\ were made up of specific oracles of Jehovah, it would not
authorize l~ us to call the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Esther
"the,.) Word of Jehovah." The ph rase "oracles of God" in Rom. iii, 2 is no
proper designation of the Old Testament as a whole, but, like the "living
oracles" in Stephen~s speech (Acts vii, 3S), refers more particularly to the
Sinaitic docalogue. In I Pet. iv, 11, the phrase denotes any utterances of
apostle or preacher who declares the living triths of God. In Heb. v, 12, "the
oracles of God" are no special portion of the Bible, nor the Bible itself, but
the word of the gospel of Christ as preached to them that heard him. In fact,
there is no passage of Scripture in which_ the expression "the wor& o C i~ eans
t h e biblical wiiii,~s 11 as a whole. In the 3rew Tesit~i~nt Cli6 ~~ is often
used to designate the content of the gospel message. In Jesus's prayer we have
the statement "thy word is truth" (John xvii, 17), but there is no reference
here to the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, but to the word of the gospel
mentioned in verses 14 and 20. Filled with il ie Spirit of Christ the apostles
"spoke the word of God with all boldness" (Acts ~7~ e n~ p e r s e c u~ f lo n
sc a t t o re d ther n abroad ey went about preaching the word" (Acts viii 4),
that is, the in sa e 6T salvitioii i'hro~ g h 3 ,esus C hi~ist. '~The wor~ is
e~mp I ~oved in ~t~i m e's in tke A ets TI ili7p ~ P a u7=c , ,t lTs if '7ti'hh
(e wo rd 6f f~ith ~vbich we each" (Rom. x 8), ,~t e~N~or (Fa the ~' Pyl~ X . i,'13),
the gos el of your salvatiow' (E Dh P=~ ,~__ , ~~ I I ' 'tt e wc ,r d o f
messa!,~e of God, not the word of men, but. as
~Qqd th in you that , Ehich also woi believe" (1 Thess. ii, 13). (In the"~
Tfe~ an~ the W~ 6id~of 'God is Christ himse l~ a n~d it is only as the Holy
Spirit Tf i rii~ t~akes of ~t h e fhings, of Christ and makes them knoivn to us
(comp. John xvi, 11), that we can apprehend and appreciate the significance of
such a text as Heb. iv, 12: "The word of God is living, and active, and sharper
than. any two edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit,
of both joints
Page 34
and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart." No
writings as such answer to this definition of "the word of God," gr satisfy the
import of Jesus' i , saying, "The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit,
and are life" (John vi, 63). According to 2 Cor. ii.i, 15 18, Moses and Isaiah
and Paul may be read with such a veil over the heart that the reader himself
fails to see that "the Lord is the Spirit." For it is only as we discern the
grace and glory of the Lord himself that we can distinguish the hidden treasure
from the field, and the pearl of great price from the mother shell in which it
found its setting. The results thus acquired will be no questionable dogma,
empty of spiritualcontent, but intelligible facts of the greatest value for
instruction in righteousness. 15. Necessity of Sound Interpretation.
Accep~ing_the Bible as the broad field in which lie hidden innuraW~16 treasures
of relil gious wisdom and knowledge, we must at the same time observe that the
1)recious , truths a r e noi to be brouahi forth an d emp I oyei for leaching
and_discipline in righteousness except in accordance with__ sound _ prinei les
of interl)retation. We now reject the )i former method of catechisms and of
other compends of Christian doctrine which was given to citing proof texts at
will from any part of the Bible, without regard to their scope and context. It
was assumed, in accord with a current theory of inspiration, that every word of
Scripture, whether uttered by poet, chronicler, patri arch, or apostle, was
alike the word of God. A saying of Jeph ' thah, a request of Esther, a decree of
Cyrus, an oracle of Zechariah, or a parable of Jesus, must needs be equally
inspired and useful ~, for doctrine. Such an irrational use of the Scriptures,
we may hope, is wellnigh obsolete, but, unfortunately, in some places the evil
leaven of it is yet somewhat perceptible. While we accept the entire biblical
canon as our great source and means of doctrine, we must study to interpret
every relevant text in the light of its context, its authorship, its occasion
and its legitimate applica tions. The facts of a multiform literature in the
Bible are never to be 16 st from sight. We should keep in mind at ever I y step
of ~ dr procedure that these various scriptures originated at many different
times and in different way,,;. We must study to know whether the words we cite
in proof of doctrine are a statement of historic fact, or a fragment of song, or
part of an apocalypse, or a proverb or a parable.i, ~ The words of Jesus are the
Holy of holies in the Seri ptures, and Wh en we I clearlv apprehend his teaching
I on a matter of doctrine we recognize it as the highest authority. il l" But
according to Uaft. xiii, 10 16, 3 e , sus spoke in parables that the mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven might not be too easily
Page 35
grasped. The patables need interpretation., aiacl must be explained on sound
inZ sel f e o nsiste nt principles... The old cov enant is ful ancl therefore
not a jot or a tittle of the Old Testament is to be reckoned as i~al for
instruction in righteous ness until tested and confirmed by tt2_Ao§,p.el of
Jesus.. Ev en l n ih7~YCv~ o bs erve some iri~fices of the early Jewish Church
which are not intended for the Gentiles or for general acceptance. l~ostles~ad
their limitations, and could knowlanlcl pERp!~eg 9RI I ~f at I_in part 'irt is
i~oTe~W~mr hyth
Tou r "necessLTy_ " which the great Council of Jerusalem _Lh ~~s, MqaiM~Lhe_
ice and un~f the early Church (Acts xv, 28, 29), three have long since ceased to
"s erved in Christen dom. It is only by patient research, by careful
discrimination of things that differ, and by the approved methods of critical
and historic exposition, that we shall reach results that are trustworthy. wg co
mpare scripture with scripture, and honestly endeavor to RLove all things and
hold ast on Ii~l ~y,t la t ~w,hich is goo . EN,eryti ue Protestant and every
Church thaf is true to t e principle and spirit of Protestantism must be open
and hospitable toward all consei ~~ w h a tle v e r ' t h h thr6 eniious
research new ligh sue researc ,W'S 0 e i.blean ,itsin e a ion . ufficiene o roes
o rine. Prolonged comparison s of t ese oly cri tures con r us in the belief of
their superiority and sufficiency as sources of religious instruction. ~Th~,v
are conspicuously superior in contents and in style to all the
y contain a su ciency of means for and f doetri 4e, o ell or guiding men into
the tf dt h an train i ug,t em in the knowled gp l~a'nd lo'~,'e= of God. Vvhen
the one serious effort is to ascertain the ess~;rl r ~lig i o~s content of the
biblical revelation and its highest expression in Jesus Christ there is found
such a solid basis of unqiiestionable facts and such an organic consensus of
belief throngh the Christian centuries that there appears no place for
reasonable doubt. Disputations arise from efforts to exalt mat ters of secondary
anPl~Ter i or im A ~ z 0 po into the rank o~ undamental U, ~7 * ~l arise stions
6~ this kind will pr~gb,a y never cease to hile continue to thinl~ and reason.
Alinds differently
I Thus Professor J. E. McFadyen writes: "A church which is not willing to
welcome new facts, if they be facts; a church which is not willing to respond to
new truth, from whatever quarter it comes; a church which binds old forms of
truth upon the consciences of men, or refuses to accommodate the truth which
they embodied to contemporary modes of thought: such a church, though she will
hardly allure within her walls profound and reverent thinkers who stand outside
her, may yet be able to do something for others, and especially the more
emotional sort of men. But she cannot call herself a Protestant Church. " Old
'Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, p. 187.New York, 1903.
Page 36
trained and adjusted to different methods of thinking will always be found to
differ in sundry opinions. There are many interesting I questions about persons
and events mentioned in the Bible and in other books on which we shall never
obtain a satisfactory answer. Even on such fundamental doctrines as the nature
of God, and of Christ, the resurrection oi the dead, and the conditions and
modes of f uture existence, we cannot now learn from the Bible k,,all we would
like to know. In the discussion of such themes ver been among some t leoloviaiis
a dist)osition o there has e wi,,e above wi~la f is written in t e Scril)tures.
But aside from such q aestions, on which there is ample room for many diff
erences of opinion~ there is in the Scriptures such a full and unmistakable
contenu of livin ng, practical rel~ 91 C gious certainties, that no person oT ,o
r~dinary intelligence need fail r6 the i,, an ,t=.e into the knowledve of these
essentials the Holy Spirit is our assuring Guide. In living fellowship with this
that any one teach us, for his anointing teacheth us concerning all things, and
is true, and is no lie (I John ii, 27).,,;; I
End Notes
-
Thus Quenstedt,
in 1685, declared that “all things which were to be written were suggested by
the Holy Spirit to the sacred writers in the very act of writing, and were
dictated to their intellect as if unto a pen (quasi in calamum), so that they
could be written in no other circumstances, in this and no other mode or
order” (Theologia Didact., iv, 2). Carpzov, in 1728, declared that the divine
Power “impelled the will” of the biblical writers, and “directed their hand
that they might write infallibly” (Critica Sacra Vet. Test., p. 43). Similar
statements might be cited by the hundred from writers both earlier and later
than these.
-
Contra Apion,
book i, 8.
-
It is remarkable
how a vague tradition, destitute of any trustworthy authority, and notably
inconsistent with certain demonstrable facts, may be taken up by a bold writer
and affirmed as the end of all controversy on a most important question. Thus
J. H. Hottinger, about the middle of the seventeenth century, declared:
“Hitherto it has been an unquestioned axiom both among Jews and Christians
(who have not a fungus for brains) that the canon of the Old Testament was
fixed once for all, with divine authority, by Ezra and the men of the Great
Synagogue” (Thesaurus Philologicus, i, 2). This statement is without any
proof, but has been repeated by scores of theologians, who seem never to have
clearly comprehended the difference between demonstrable facts and bold
assertions.
-
Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, book iii, chap. xxv; book ii, chap. xxiii.
-
Moses wrote his
own book, and the section about Balaam and Job. Joshua wrote his own book and
eight verses of the Law. Samuel wrote his own book and also Judges and Ruth.
David wrote the book of Psalms at the direction of (or in behalf of) the ten
ancients: Adam the first, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph,
and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book and the book of Kings
and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song, and
Ecclesiastes. The men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel and the Twelve,
Daniel, and the roll of Esther. Ezra wrote his own book, and the genealogies
of Chronicles down to his own time.—Baba Bathra, 14, b.
-
See
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chap. 39. Our Greek gospel
of Matthew appears to be based upon the Hebrew original referred to by Papias,
and to include also a considerable amount of matter derived from other
sources. It Is also not improbable that our Greek gospel of Mark is a similar
enlargement of the original memoranda of Peter's recollections.
-
Address to the Greeks, chap. 8.
-
The fact that such a text as 1st Cor.
2:13, has been often cited to prove Paul’s claim to verbal inspiration shows
how unjustifiably men construe irrelevant statements to the support of
foregone conclusions. The passage refers, as the whole context shows, to the
apostolic preaching of the gospel, not to any records or epistles as such. The
apostle’s language is also applicable to every minister of the gospel message,
and to every child of God who possesses the spiritual mind, “combines
spiritual things with spiritual words,” or “interprets spiritual things to
spiritual men.” This endowment was no exclusive prerogative of inspired
writers of the first century, but is the blessed gift of all who enjoy the
illumination of the Holy Spirit.
-
In his note on Matt. 1:1,
John Wesley expresses the opinion that if the
biblical genealogies contained some mistakes, it was not the office of
inspiration to correct them. If this opinion holds, it must in self
consistency apply alike to all the genealogies, and the chronicles of the
kings of Judah and Israel, and the songs and fragments cited from “the book of
Jashar,” and “the book of the Wars of Jehovah,” and from all the other sources
of similar kind mentioned in the Old Testament. Seventeen such different
sources are acknowledged in the books of Chronicles alone. Critical study is
continually discovering evidences of compilation in most of the narratives of
the Bible; and if the inspired compilers of these records were not permitted
to correct any mistakes found in the documents they employed, what becomes of
the inerrant inspiration of so large a portion of the Scriptures? On this
principle more than half the narratives recorded in the Old Testament may be
shown to be copied from older public records and so to exclude the office of
inspiration to correct any errors which they may contain!
[
Table
of Contents ]