2 Peter 1:21

HOW THE SCRIPTURES WERE WRITTEN

‘Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’

2 Peter 1:21

Here we have the apostolic definition of the work of inspiration, and by that definition we are taught that there are two distinct elements to be considered, the Divine and the human; the Divine, for the Holy Ghost moved the writers; and the human, for the communication did not come as a direct voice from heaven, but holy men spake as they were moved. In order therefore fully to investigate the subject, it will be necessary to examine: (1) the Divine element; (2) the human element; and (3) the combination of the two.

I. The Divine element.—I need scarcely say that this Divine element is the great subject of modern controversy. But I hope we may meet the points more especially agitated, by considering four questions:—

(a) Does it extend over the whole book? We have no right to pick and choose amongst the various portions of the Word of God. The whole is arranged as a whole for the accomplishment of God’s great purpose, the whole is included in ‘the Scriptures,’ and the parts are so interwoven one with another, and so beautifully fitted into each other by God’s Divine hand, that there will be found ultimately to be no intermediate path between receiving the whole as the Word of God, or sweeping away the whole and launching forth on a sea of scepticism, without a Bible, without a Saviour, and, as the last step, without a God.

(b) Is it equal? So far as the authorship is concerned, we find no distinction whatever. All alike is called ‘Scripture’; all ‘the Word of God’; all is included in the statement, ‘Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope’; and all is stamped by Divine authority in the words, ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.’

(c) Is it verbal? It is our privilege to regard the whole as one, to receive the whole with equal reverence, and to accept the whole, prediction, psalm, history, facts, thoughts, and words, as the inspired Word of the living God. But the question of verbal inspiration is not the one really at issue. For no one believes that, if there be any accuracy, it took place in the words only. It must have taken place in the thoughts, in the matter, in the facts. If, e.g., there is a variation between St. Matthew and St. Luke, no one supposes that they meant to convey the same thoughts, but made a mistake in accidentally selecting different words. The real point of the controversy is the infallible accuracy of the matter.

(d) Is it infallible? The testimony of our Lord Himself is sufficient. Witness two passages—the one referring to a nice point in a quotation from the Psalms (John 10:35); the other to the whole Word in its sanctifying power (John 17:17). Now what is His language? In the one, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’; in the other, ‘Thy word is truth.’ With these statements of our Blessed Lord, I am content to leave the subject. In the words of Scripture, I believe that God Himself has spoken to man, and therefore, in the midst of all the world’s disappointments, and in all the failures of even the Church of God, we have here that on which the soul may calmly, peacefully, and fearlessly repose. And whether we look at history or prediction, at promises or judgments, at prophecies understood by those who uttered them, or language veiled in mystery until the Divine purpose is developed in history, we receive the whole as inviolable truth, for all has the stamp of the Spirit Himself, and all is given by inspiration of God. We receive it, we honour it, we submit to it, we acknowledge its Divine authority, and welcome with heartfelt thanksgiving its infallible promises. Yes, we receive it not merely with the deepest conviction of our most deliberate judgment, but we welcome it to our soul with all the deep feelings of a thankful heart, and say with the inspired Psalmist, ‘Thy word is very pure, therefore Thy servant loveth it.’

II. The human element.—But there is a human element in the book as well as a Divine. ‘Holy men spake as they were moved.’ The human authorship is as prominent and conspicuous as the Divine, and any theory of inspiration which excludes it is, I cannot but think, opposed to the facts of Scripture.

(a) There is distinctive character in the different writers. Compare St. Paul and St. John, St. Peter and St. James, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and you see the most transparent variety, a variety which renders it impossible to suppose that they were merely pens, machines, or copyists.

(b) There is the use of natural powers or gifts. St. Paul was a well-educated, intellectual man, with great reasoning powers, so he supported truth by argument. David was a poet, so he breathed out as the sweet psalmist of Israel the hallowed outpourings of a sanctified heart.

(c) There is the use of feeling. All the emotions of the human heart may be found in Scripture.

(d) There is the use of memory. Our Lord’s promise to His Apostles in John 14:26 applies clearly to this point, and shows that the gift of the Holy Ghost, so far from superseding memory, would quicken it, and give it the power of recalling with accuracy the words entrusted to it. ‘He shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.’

(e) There was also the use of personal experience, as, e.g., when St. John said, ‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory’ (John 1:14); and again, ‘That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you’ (1 John 1:1; 1 John 1:3).

(f) There was the diligent use of collected information. See St. Luke 1:1, where St. Luke does not claim to write original matter, but to have received it from those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the Word.

III. The Divine and the human element.—How is the union to be explained?

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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 (Hebrews 1:1) 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.

Remember 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.

Rev. Canon Edward Hoare.