2. I find certain quotations, the whole value of which entirely depends on verbal accuracy. In Gal. iii. 16, St. Paul quotes from Gen. xii. 7, and his whole argument turns on the distinction between the singular and plural number in one word contained in the promise made to Abraham: ‘He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.’ So in Matt. xxii. 32, our Lord quotes the words spoken to Moses in Exod. iii. 6, and rests his whole argument on the present tense of the substantive verb: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,’ proving by that present tense that Abraham was at that time an existing person awaiting the resurrection. It may perhaps be said that both these instances occur in direct divine communications; but we must remember that we have to consider the inspiration of Moses who recorded that communication, and surely the quotation proves that the historical inspiration of the author might be trusted for verbal accuracy.
3. There are many passages in which the words are quoted quite independently of the thoughts of the context. As an illustration, refer to our Lord’s quotation of Isa. lvi. 7. The whole of that passage refers simply to the admission of the sons of the stranger into the covenant. The emphatic words of the prophecy are ‘for all people,’ and the one idea of the context is the admission of all people to the covenant. But, in unfolding this truth, the prophet was led to express the prophecy in the words, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer;’ and this expression our Lord extracts from the prophecy, and makes it the groundwork of His stern rebuke when He cleared the temple.
4. Once more. It seems perfectly clear that the prophets in many cases did not understand their own writings. We are sometimes told that we must only understand the prophecies as the prophets themselves did. But if we were to act on that rule, it must follow that in many cases we could not understand them at all; for we know, in fact, that Daniel had to pray for an understanding of the prophecy just conveyed through his own lips, and we are distinctly taught by St. Peter that the prophets inquired and searched diligently into the meaning of their own prophecies. (1 Pet. i. 11.) ‘Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.’ This also I have no doubt is the meaning of the expression, ‘No prophecy is of any private interpretation’ (2 Pet. i. 20), ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται, ‘Has not arisen out of private interpretation,’ and is not the result of the writer’s own thoughts, ‘but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’ But, if this were the case, the whole prophecy must depend on verbal accuracy. If they were employed to speak words which had a certain deep, hidden meaning, unknown to themselves, and intended by God to remain unknown until their meaning should be made manifest by fulfilment at the coming of the Lord, surely we must admit that it was the words and not the thoughts which God inspired. The thoughts were actually withheld from the prophets, but they were moved to utter words which required events then unknown to bring out their true meaning.
5. But it may be said that this applies to the predictive portions of Scripture only, and not to the historical. It possibly may, and the last argument clearly does. But have we any thing to lead us to suppose that there is one kind of inspiration for the predictive, and another for the historical portions? Are they not all spoken of as one book? Are not many of these verbal quotations included in the historical portions, as e.g. the promise made to Abraham? Unless, therefore, it can be proved to me that there is such a distinction drawn by divine authority, I feel it my 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 after some measure of careful study, I have been led to the conviction that the question of verbal inspiration is not the one really at issue. For no one believes that, if there be any inaccuracy, 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. And this leads to my last question.
IV. Is it infallible?
On the answer to this question must depend our confidence in Scripture. Some excellent men tell us it is infallible in so far as divine truth is involved. But I freely confess that this does not satisfy my own mind. I do not like that limitation. I am prepared to receive the whole book as invested with infallible accuracy from God Himself, and in taking this view of the subject, I feel the great satisfaction of believing that I am in harmony with the mind of St. Paul, St. Peter, and our great Head Himself.
For St. Paul’s mind, I would refer to his words in Acts, xxviii. 25, and Heb. x. 15. In the Acts he is quoting from Isaiah, and says, ‘Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet,’ and in the Hebrews he is quoting from the prophet Jeremiah; but instead of saying, ‘whereof Jeremiah is a witness to us,’ he says, without mentioning Jeremiah, ‘Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us,’ taking the word, as it were, out of the hands of fallible man, and placing it in those of the infallible Spirit. These passages place inspiration on an equal footing with direct communication. But if inspired writings were spoken of as the actual words of the Holy Ghost just as much as if they had been direct communications; if inspiration was of such a character as to render the words the words of the Spirit Himself, can we believe that those words were capable of error?
For St. Peter’s testimony, I would refer to his language in 2 Pet. i. 19, in the context of which passage he is assuring his hearers that he had not followed cunningly devised fables. And now mark the threefold evidence which he produces. First, there is vision, ‘We were eye-witnesses of his majesty.’ Secondly, there is hearing, ‘The voice from heaven we heard.’ But lastly, there is an evidence more clear, more true, more trustworthy, than either the sight of his own eyes, or the hearing of his own ears. That evidence is Scripture. ‘We have also a more sure word of prophecy.’
For the testimony of our Lord Himself, refer to two passages, the one referring to a nice point in a quotation from the Psalms, John, x. 35; the other to the whole word in its sanctifying power, John, xvii. 17. Now what is His language? In the one, ‘The scripture cannot be broken.’ In the other, ‘Thy word is truth.’