“The mental habit of him who imagines that Balaam's ass spoke, in no respect differs from the mental habit of him who imagines that a Madonna of wood and stone winked; and the one, who says that God's Church makes him believe what he believes, and the other who says that God's Word makes him believe what he believes, are for the philosopher perfectly alike in not really and truly knowing, when they say ‘God's Church' and 'God's Word' what it is they say, or whereof they affirm."-Extract from Matthew Arnold. (Sent to L.H.H. with the question, “What think you?")
What think I? —that Matthew Arnold has betrayed himself badly by appealing to philosophy, and yet confounding two entirely different mental phases-superstition and faith. Superstition is “the subject of the mind of man, in the things of God, to that for subjection to which there is no warrant from divine testimony.” Faith is the reception of a divine testimony into the soul. The object of our superstitious reverence gets between our souls and God: faith puts us into immediate connection with God.
If then faith is as above stated—the reception of divine testimony into the soul—what can he who has never experienced it know of such faith? He can, and does, know nothing, and herein lies the futility of reasoning on questions of faith. I have put down certain evidences of the inspiration of the Bible, but I say at the same time that we rely not on proofs such as these, but on the testimony within us which is the corollary to the “reception of divine testimony in the soul.”
The major part of what I have written I knew nothing of before you challenged my belief, and yet knowing it now more fully, do I believe in the inspiration of the Bible more? No, my faith remains as before. It will not convince you; no reasoning can convince in matters of faith. Our Lord said, when here on the earth, “O Father, ... I thank thee that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Luke 10:2121In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. (Luke 10:21)). Because even as a little child, receive the truth as a child, and then will come to you without any reasoning, knowledge of the truth of the Bible. We cannot explain this divine mystery, but it is none the less real.
Do not think from what I have said, that the proofs I have given are not cogent or adequate— they prove amply the inspiration of the Bible, but they are proofs which will not be received by a hostile critic, whose intention is to pick holes in the arguments.
WHAT IS THE BIBLE?
The Bible consists of two parts, the Old Testament containing thirty-nine books, and the New Testament containing twenty-seven books. Now, the first criticism that is sure to be raised is, “Why do you select these sixty-six books, and declare them to be direct communications from God, and yet reject the other books having similar claims—the Apocrypha—as entirely man-made?”
At first sight the selection certainly seems arbitrary. It is asserted that Jerome in the fourth century separated the books in two series, and that his judgment has been accepted as correct through all subsequent time. Now we have ample testimony to the fact that the early Christian fathers and the early Christian church did not receive the books, which were thus separated from the canon before the date of Jerome's translations, in the preface to which he states that they do not form part of the Bible. Athanasius, Origen, Eusebius, Rufinus and others bear similar testimony. The Apostolic Constitutions, and early Christian testimony, pronounced against them. Christ Himself never used or quoted from them, as He did so often from the Old Testament.
Now the Apocrypha, in some of its books at least, gives the later history of the Jews, and therefore the Jews, if any, would be the first to recognize them. On the contrary, they have not been found in the Hebrew tongue at all, and Josephus, the Jewish historian, definitely states that they were not recognized.
But apart from any external evidence at all, who, having read the Apocrypha, would be daring enough to uphold its claims to a place in Holy Writ? The following quotations from 2 Maccabees will suffice to show their trivial character
“All these things, I say, being declared by Jason the Cyrenian in five books, we have tried to abbreviate into one: for, considering the multitude of books, and the difficulty of those who wish to occupy themselves with historical accounts by reason of the multitude of events, we have taken care, for those who wish to read, that there should be pleasure for the mind; for the studious, that they commit it more easily to memory; for all who read, that profit may be conferred on them. And for ourselves, indeed, who have undertaken this work of abbreviating, we have taken on ourselves no light labor, but indeed a business full of vigils and toils” (2 Macc. 2:23-26).
“With these things I will make an end of the discourse, and if indeed well, and as suited the history, this I myself would wish: but if less worthily, it is to be pardoned me. For as drinking always wine or always water is unwholesome to us, but to use both alternately is delightful, so to those that read, if the discourse be always exact, it will not be pleasant. Here, therefore, it will be closed” (2 Macc. 15:37-39).
With this total absence of divine dignity in the contents of the Apocrypha, could you with any truth assert that the choice of books now included in the Bible was in any sense arbitrary? The Jews knew far more than we do of the Old Testament, and they had no doubt very good contemporary reasons for not accepting these books. But Christ did not recognize them: that is enough for me.
We may deal, then, with the Bible as a unique series of books, which have a place of their own alone amongst the books in the hands of man.
BELIEVING AND REASONING
Let us return, for a moment to the question of reasoning and faith. You say, “I must know that the Bible is the Word of God before I believe it,” and I say, “You cannot.” When you have believed, you will know that the Bible is the word of God—that is, you receive faith. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:1717So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)). Human reason cannot pronounce on the authority of the word of God, but “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself” (1 John 5:1010He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. (1 John 5:10)). Believing, you may examine the external evidences, and you will find them satisfactory; but this will not produce faith. It may be useful in answering the objections made by men who believe not; but the authority of God's word cannot be subject to human intelligence. “The law of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul. The entrance of thy word giveth light, it giveth understanding to the simple” (Psalm 119:130130The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. (Psalm 119:130)).
Consider the word of God as light. I am asked to show that something is light. I cannot prove light. It requires eyes to see it. If a man has no eyes, he cannot see it, or know what it is. Nor can anyone tell him what it is, or make himself understood in speaking of it. If you have eyes, you know that you see the light. So it is with the word of God: if you do not see it to be the word of God, it is a proof that you lack moral eyes, i.e., faith. If you had eyes, you would ask for no proof, for you would see that it is so. A blind man does not want proof of light before he has eyes to see it—it is impossible; he must have eyes first, and then he will enjoy light for himself. So that until a man has faith, we cannot prove to him that the Bible is the word of God; and when he has faith, then, as in the case of light, it is a self-evident fact, needing no proof. A man asks me how I can prove honey to be sweet. I say, If you cannot taste it, you must remain ignorant.
Have I then made my point clear?—that faith in Christ must come before believing the inspiration of the Scriptures. Without faith you cannot see the true beauty of the Scriptures any more than a blind man can see a beautiful view. Jesus says “Why do ye not understand my speech? Because ye cannot hear my word” (John 8:4343Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. (John 8:43)); and Paul— “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit: they are foolishness to him” (1 Cor. 2:1414But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)).
Not only is it impossible to prove this question without faith, but the effect of reasoning on the subject is to destroy faith. If Scripture has to be proved by reason, God is not believed because He has spoken, i.e., there is no true faith. If I believe A because B has said that what A has said is true, I do not believe A at all. I come to a logical conclusion from other evidence that the statement is right—I don't believe the person. Similarly, in reasoning about the Scriptures, I may come to the logical conclusion that it must be the word of God, but this is not faith, though faith is almost certain to follow from such a conclusion, but it must be realized that reasoning cannot give faith.
THE CLAIM OF SCRIPTURE TO ITS OWN INSPIRATION
As we shall see later, the authority of Scriptural testimony is established firmly by the Scriptures themselves, the authority being independent of its reception by the hearer. “The words that I have spoken, they shall judge him in the last day” ( John 10:11-48). These “words” are found in the Scriptures, and the Lord states hereby that they are endued with moral evidence, powerful enough to convict a man as guilty who does not receive the testimony, and who thereby treats God as a liar. Unbelief cannot destroy the authority of the Word.
N.B. — “Inspiration,” says Prof. Jowett (who wrote in the “Essays and Reviews” on this subject) “is the idea of Scripture which we gain from the knowledge of it.” If this is indeed so, then our inquiry may well be at an end, for the Scripture teems with allusions to its own inspiration. Quotations without number could be given in support of this-many will be given later on. But it is only necessary to refer here to one, a very famous one, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:1616All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)—mistranslated in the R.17.). Is not this sufficient evidence? To me it is ample.
Now, if there is no inspiration, the words spoken or written by the various writers must have had one meaning only, viz., that intended by the writer as he used it. So, indeed, says Prof. Jowett, has the Scripture only one meaning— “First, it may be laid down that scripture has one meaning—the meaning which it has to the mind of the prophet or evangelist who first uttered or wrote, and to the hearers or readers who first received it.” Exactly two pages farther on he says, however, “All that the prophet meant may not have been consciously present to his mind: there were depths which to himself also were but half revealed.” Apart from the absurd inconsistency, which shows that inwardly the man is not satisfied that all was clear to the prophet, it is important to note that the unbeliever in divine inspiration himself has to admit that all that the prophets wrote cannot have been understood by them. And if this is so, how then can he escape from saying that the prophet wrote under inspiration? Can you conceive the man concocting a sentence, not understanding what he means by it, and yet writing it down—unless guided by the hand of God? It is inconceivable, and the conclusion is forced upon us that an external agency must have been at work—God guided the pen.
THE WORDS INSPIRED
Prof. Jowett states that the language of the Bible is in no sense divine—words are used in their ordinary simple use according to men's ideas. It is not so. In divine things we must know the thing to understand the word. For example— “ye must be born again” (John 3:77Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7)). If I take this in the “simple universal meaning,” I shall stumble into Nicodemus' nonsense. The word Son applied to Jesus Christ—has it the simple universal sense? “The Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:11In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)). What does λόγος mean here? “Reckon yourselves to be dead unto sin"(Romans 6:1111Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11)); and “ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:33For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. (Colossians 3:3)); -what absurdity to take “simple universal meanings” here! In everything referring to God, the words must have a meaning only to be known by those who have the divine key, for in the Bible we have human words to express divine things.
If the Lord’s words had only a literal meaning, how then could the woman of Samaria have missed it in that beautiful conversation with the Lord? (John 4) If the words have an inner hidden meaning, to whom then shall we ascribe this meaning? To the writer? No, for in many cases the force of the writing was not seen until years after; besides there is the impossibility of man's mind being capable of writing thus. This inner meaning must be of Divine origin.
“But,” says Prof. Jowett, “if words have more than one meaning, they may have any meaning.” An absurd statement on the face of it. If an old coin has more than its face-value, does it follow that it has infinite value? Besides, as we have already stated, the inner meaning is apparent only to him who had the divine key, and with that he cannot err.
Let me take an example to show the existence of double meaning. When Christ died it is said that the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. If you assert that this statement has only one meaning—the history of the fact—you are utterly and entirely wrong. The rending is ascribed to Christ's death—the veil was the sign that God was hidden and could not be approached by man: now, by Christ's death, the way is open to all believers to come to Him. The whole mighty change in dispensation was marked in it, and the full power of redemption in Christ's death. These senses are indeed ascribed to it in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews (6:19; 10:20, etc.). Thus the “simple universal meaning” robs the Bible of half its beauty, but the existence of these hidden meanings is a sure sign of Divine origin.
Now those who do not believe in the inspiration of the Bible believe that the writers received revelations from God, but that they communicated them in their own way: there can thus be room for mistakes in writing. In other words, the apostles had divine testimony as a basis for their faith, but that since then, there has been nothing to rest on but human testimony! Now what does Paul say? “What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are given to us of God” (1 Cor. 2:11, 1211For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (1 Corinthians 2:11‑12)). This is a clear statement of the fact that things were revealed by the Spirit to the apostles. Were the apostles mistaken? No, the apostle proves that he could know nothing apart from revelation. Revelation as a fact, therefore, must universally be admitted. But note another statement in the passage quoted, namely, that without divine communication there can be no faith. God alone knows divine things, and He alone can make them known; man must remain ignorant unless God reveals them, as He does by His Spirit, i.e., by revelation.
Now if there can be no faith without divine communication, then we can have no faith if we have no such divine testimony. If the Bible is not inspired, our only testimony is human, on which faith cannot rest. Where then is our faith? It cannot exist; and yet “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:66But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)). Is there not a fault in our reasoning? Yes there is; the fault lies in assuming the Bible is not inspired.
Continuing the passage above quoted, in which Paul states that divine matters have been revealed to him, he then states precisely that the Holy Ghost who revealed to him, also speaks through him— “which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth” (1 Cor. 13). Could the idea of inspiration be stated more definitely? We have shown that revelation without inspiration is absurd, and now we see a definite claim to inspiration, by one whom all admit to have had revelations from God. Of his competency and authority in speaking we shall say more later.
THE CLAIMS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Turning now for a little to the Old Testament, those who believe in revelation without inspiration in the New Testament, here state that they believe as infallibly true what the prophets say after “Thus saith the Lord.” Indeed, how could it be otherwise? Where the writers ‘act as reporters' of God's statement, we have no alternative but to believe: but I wish to point out the absurdity in this belief in ‘partial revelation' Throughout the Pentateuch the historic narratives contain very commonly— “And the LORD spake unto Moses,” adding, “Speak unto Aaron” or “to the children of Israel, and say unto them.” Are these statements true? If we believe the prophets we must also believe here. So in Deuteronomy we find, “These be the words which Moses spake unto the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 1), and then, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:22Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)). Is it true? If so, all the commandments, which are inseparable, in the last four books, from the history, and the history also with them, are the word of God. If not, there is no revelation in the Pentateuch at all. The whole must stand or fall together.
‘No,' says the higher critic, ‘I do not believe the literal truth of the Pentateuchal statements.' What, then, think you of a system which believes that the words of the prophets to the Jews in warning, and in statements occupied with their history and future as a nation to be a revelation from God, and yet rejects the account of the fall of man, the promises, the law, the sacrificial ordinances, the judgment of the world (all of infinitely more importance to us) as no revelation—as a fiction of man's invention? It is absurd on the face of it.
But what again of the man who tries to steer a midway course by believing as revelations all those parts of the Old Testament which start with “Thus saith the LORD,” or “The LORD spake unto Moses, saying,” or “The word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,” or some similar phrases, and rejects the rest as doubtful of human origin alone? Not only do the revelations from the Lord confirm the historical narrative, but the absurdity of the system must be self-evident. No, the theory of partial revelation will find many difficulties in its way both in the Old and the New Testaments. [.L. H. H.]
(To be continued)