It will be in order here to note briefly various theories of
inspiration; for it must be known that all students do not agree
as to the degree of inspiration that characterized the writers
of the Scripture. When a man says, "I believe in the inspiration
of the Bible," it will be quite in place in these days to ask him
what he means by inspiration. Following are some of the views of
inspiration held at the present day.
a) Natural Inspiration.
This theory identifies inspiration with genius of a high order. It
denies that there is anything supernatural, mysterious, or peculiar
in the mode of the Spirit's operation in and upon the Scripture
writers. It claims that they were no more inspired than were Milton,
Shakespeare, Mahomet, or Confucius.
Such a theory we absolutely reject. For if such be the character
of the inspiration possessed by the Scripture writers, there is
nothing to assure us that they were not liable to make the same
errors, to teach the same false views of life, to give expression
to the same uncertainties concerning the past, the present, and
the future as did these shining lights of mere human genius.
When David said, "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word
was in my tongue," he meant something more than the prayer which
forms the gem of _Paradise Lost._ When Isaiah and his brethren
said, "Thus saith the Lord," they claimed something higher than
that they were speaking under the stirrings of poetic rapture. When
Paul said to the Corinthians, "Which things also we speak, not in
the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth (1 Cor. 2:13)," he used the language to which you will
find no parallel in the literature of mere human genius. And no
man of candor or intelligence can pass from the writings even of
the unapproachable Shakespeare into the perusal of the Bible without
feeling that the difference between the two is not one simply
of degree, but of kind; he has not merely ascended to a loftier
outlook in the same human dwelling, but he has gone into a new
region altogether. There is a certain "unknown quality" in this
Book which clearly distinguishes it from all others; and if we may
take its own explanation of the matter, that unknown quality is
its divine inspiration.
b) Universal Christian Inspiration, or Illumination.
According to this theory, the inspiration of the Bible writers was
the same as has characterized Christians of every age; the ordinary
Christian of to-day is inspired as much as was the Apostle Paul.
If this be the true view, there seems to be no plausible reason why
a new Bible should not be possible to-day. And yet no individual,
however extreme his claims to inspiration may be, has even ventured
such a task.
c) Mechanical, or Dynamic Inspiration. (See Verbatim Eeporting,
page 198.)
This theory ignores the human instrumentality in the writing of
the Scriptures altogether, and claims that the writers were passive
instruments mere machines, just as insensible to what they were
accomplishing as is the string of the harp or lyre to the play of
the musician.
How, then, do we account for the differences in style of the
various writers, the preservation of their individualities, their
idiosyncrasies?
It seems evident that Scripture cannot be made to harmonize with
the application of this theory.
d) Concept, or Thought Inspiration.
This theory claims that only the concepts, or thoughts, of men were
given by inspiration. It will be examined more fully later. Concept
Inspiration is opposed by
e) Verbal Inspiration.
Here it is claimed that the very words of Scripture were given
by the Holy Spirit; that the writers were not left absolutely to
themselves in the choice of words they should use. (See page 204.)
f) Partial Inspiration.
The favorite way of expressing this theory is, "The Bible
_contains_ the Word of God."
This statement implies that it contains much that is not the Word
of God, that is, that is not inspired. A serious question at once
arises: Who is to decide what is and what is not inspired? Who
is to be the judge of so vital a question? What part is inspired,
and what part is not? Who can tell?
Such a theory leaves man in awful and fatal uncertainty.
g) Plenary, or Full, Inspiration.
This is the opposite of Partial Inspiration. It holds all Scripture
to be equally inspired, as stated on page 200. It bases its claim
on 2 Tim. 3:16.
The Revised Version translation of 2 Tim. 3:16 is erroneous. The
reader might infer from it that there is some Scripture that is
not inspired.
If Paul had said, "All Scripture that is divinely inspired is also
profitable, etc.," he would virtually have said, "There is _some_
Scripture, _some_ part of the Bible, that is _not profitable,
etc.,_ and therefore is not inspired." This is what the spirit
of rationalism wants, namely, to make human reason the test and
judge and measure of what is inspired and what is not. One man says
such and such a verse is not profitable to him, another says such
and such a verse is not profitable to him; a third says such and
such is not profitable to him. The result is that no Bible is left.
Is it possible that anyone need be told the flat and sapless tautology
that all divinely-inspired Scripture is _also_ profitable?
Paul dealt in no such meaningless phrases. The word translated
_also_ does not mean _also_ here. It means _and._
Its position in the sentence shows this.
Again, the Revised rendering is shown to be openly false because
the revisers refused to render the same Greek construction elsewhere
in the same way, which convicts them of error.
In Hebrew 4:13 we read: "All things are naked and laid open before
the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." The form and construction
of this verse is identical with that of 2 Tim. 3:16. Were we,
however, to translate this passage as the revisers translated the
passage in Timothy, it would read: "All naked things are also open
to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." All naked things are
also open things! All uncovered things are also exposed things!
There is no _also_ in the case.
Again, 1 Tim. 4:4: "Every creature of God is good and nothing is
to be rejected." According to the principles the revisers adopted
in rendering 2 Tim. 3:16, this passage would read: "Every good
creature of God is also nothing to be rejected."
The Greek language has no such meaningless syntax. The place of
the verb _is,_--which must be supplied,--is directly before
the word "inspired," and not after it.
The great rationalistic scholar, DeWette, confessed candidly that
the rendering the revisers here adopted cannot be defended. In his
German version of the text, he gave the sense thus: "Every sacred
writing, i.e., of the canonical Scriptures, is inspired of God
and is useful for doctrine, etc." Bishops Moberly and Wordsworth,
Archbishop Trench, and others of the Revision committee, disclaimed
any responsibility for the rendering. Dean Burgon pronounced it "the
most astonishing as well as calamitous literary blunder of the age."
It was condemned by Dr. Tregelles, the only man ever pensioned by
the British government for scholarship.
In accordance with this weight of testimony, therefore, we hold
to the rendering of the Authorized Version, and claim that all
Scripture is equally and fully inspired of God.