I TRUST, then, that I have shown clearly the existence of the divine and
human elements in Scripture, but it still remains for us to consider the
third point, namely, THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
How is the union between the divine and human to be explained?
1. Not by supposing that the writers were mere pens, or machines. This
is sometimes termed the mechanical theory, but it is clearly inconsistent
with facts. Pens never think, argue, remember, weep, or rejoice, and all
these things were done by the writers of Scripture.
2. Not by supposing them to be mere copyists or amanuenses employed to
write down the words of the Spirit, as Baruch took down the words of
Jeremiah. This may have been the case when they received direct
communication, as when Moses wrote out the ten commandments at the
dictation of God: but it will not apply to inspiration, as it gives no
scope for variety of character. The one dictating mind would be the only
one to appear on such a theory.
3. We will not attempt to explain it by constructing any artificial
theories as to the action of the Spirit on the mind of men. Some have
endeavoured to classify the modes in which they consider the Spirit may
have acted, as, _e.g._, supervision, elevation, direction, and
suggestion. All this may be right, and it may be wrong; for we are
taught (Heb. i. 1) not merely that God spake in divers times, but in
_divers __manners_ unto the fathers by the prophets. But all such
distinctions are unsupported by Scripture, and therefore we may leave
them.
My own belief is, that the safest course for the believer is to take the
word as he finds it, and to attempt no explanation at all. The fact is,
that the question lies in the midst of a class of subjects which have
always baffled man’s inquiry, I mean those relating to the points of
contact between the mind of God and the mind of man. The real point is,
how has the mind of God acted on the mind of man, and how can there be
union in one book between his mind which is infinite and infallible, and
the mind of man which is finite and fallible? That question I cannot
solve. But I cannot there leave the inquiry; for it appears to me that
we have an analogous case of the deepest possible importance, I mean the
corresponding union in the person of our blessed Saviour.
Remember, then, that there are two channels through which God has
manifested His will, viz., the incarnate word, and the written word; and
surely we are justified in expecting that there will be something of the
same character in the two manifestations.
Now, how is it with the incarnate word? In Him there is a perfect
Godhead and a perfect manhood, so that He becomes the perfect daysman
between God and the sinner. His Deity does not neutralise His humanity,
for, though Himself the Creator, He was wearied, He wept, He prayed, He
trusted, He died; and so He can be touched with the feelings of those who
in this suffering world are called to weep, to suffer, to pray, and to
die now. But neither, on the other hand, did His humanity neutralise His
Deity, for in the midst of His weakness He could rise in His omnipotence,
and bid the dead arise and the waves be still. If you ask how it is that
the one did not neutralise the other, I cannot say. All I know is that
God so ordered it, and that He so formed the union that the perfection of
the Godhead did not destroy the manhood, nor the perfection of the
manhood take one jot or one tittle from the attributes of the Godhead.
And if men reply that they cannot understand it, I can only say that they
have no right to expect to do so, for are we not assured in Scripture,
‘Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest
in the flesh?’
But now, passing from the first manifestation of God’s will to the
second, _i.e._ from the incarnate Word to the written word, are we to be
surprised if we meet with a similar union and a similar difficulty? If,
in short, we find the self-same combination of the divine and human
elements? Can I wonder if it is presented to us in a form so divine that
it is infallibly true, and yet so human that it is full of the workings
of the human intellect and human heart? No, I wonder not, and I
speculate not. But, as I thank God for an incarnate Redeemer, who has
all the omnipotent and infinite attributes of God, while at the same time
He has so true a manhood that I may appeal to His sympathy on the ground
of His experience of all the trials of the flesh, so I thank God also
that He has given us a Bible so perfect, so divine, so authoritative, so
infallible, that I may trust it without the shadow of a doubt as the
unerring word of the living God, while at the same time it is so
completely human, and thereby so exactly adapted to the human heart’s
requirements, that I can welcome it as a word spoken for myself, and
admire the love of our Heavenly Father who has been pleased to combine in
one book a perfect divinity and a perfect humanity, the infallible truth
of a perfect Godhead combined by God’s mysterious power with the
heart-touching utterance of a true and perfect manhood.