Inspiration: Its Nature and Extent

by Edward Hoare

DIFFICULTIES.

But, while we rejoice in the great doctrine of a complete, plenary, and infallible inspiration, we should be wanting in Christian candour if we were to ignore the existence of certain difficulties connected with the subject. There are difficulties we freely acknowledge, some of which have been felt, not merely by sceptical, but by devout and Christian minds; and these difficulties I now propose to consider.

1. The first of these has been already met. It arises from the variety of mind and character in the inspired writers. This is thought to be inconsistent with the divine inspiration of the whole book by one inspiring Spirit; and it would be a difficulty if we believed, according to the mechanical theory, that the writers were merely pens, machines, or copyists. But on the principle that there is a perfect manhood combined with a perfect Godhead, instead of remaining a difficulty, it becomes one of the chief beauties of the book, and is the very thing that renders it so pre-eminently suited to the wants of the human heart.

2. A second difficulty arises from the idea that the language of Scripture is opposed to modern science. The principle of this difficulty is contained in the words, ‘Any true doctrine of inspiration must conform to all well-ascertained facts of history or of science.’ [45]

Now, in the first place, we enter our solemn protest against the Scripture being regarded as a scientific treatise. Its object was no more to teach us science than to teach us medicine. It is therefore utterly unfair to bring its language to the test of scientific experiments. If the allusions of Scripture to surrounding nature were not altogether in harmony with the discoveries of modern science, it would not in the least affect my own idea of inspiration; for in making use of men to convey His own divine message, I could not expect anything but that our Heavenly Father should make use of such language as men understood at the time the book was written; and it seems utterly unreasonable to suppose that He should render His revelation unintelligible to those to whom it was given, by going out of His way to anticipate discoveries which were about to be made some thousands of years afterwards. But, though the Scriptures are not given to teach science, and no one has a right to doubt their inspiration because he does not find scientific accuracy in their language, we are still prepared to meet the scientific man on his own ground, and fearlessly to affirm that there is nothing in Scripture opposed to the well-ascertained discoveries of science.

For mark well. There is nothing in a miracle opposed to the laws of science. Science refers to those laws of nature which are within reach of our investigation; but if, at any time, the Creator should displace them, either by the action of higher laws unknown to us, or by the simple power of His will, science knows nothing of that displacement. It is the office of science to investigate existing laws; but science knows nothing of any interruptions of those laws by the sovereign will of Him who founded them. Such interruptions lie altogether beyond its province. All, for example, that science can say is, that we know of no law which could cause the sun to stand still on Gibeon. But does Scripture ever assert that it was done by any law within our knowledge? Is it not represented as the act of God’s omnipotence suspending known laws? And is not that suspending power altogether beyond the reach of scientific inquiry? The miracle therefore, lies beyond the reach of science, and cannot be opposed to it.

But as for the well-ascertained laws of nature and well-established scientific facts, we fearlessly assert that there is nothing in Scripture opposed to them.

Let us consider for a moment the two cases most commonly quoted as involving contradiction: the description of the sun standing still on Gibeon, and the Mosaic account of the creation.

With reference to the former there are two objections urged. The first is that of the infidel who denies the possibility of the miracle, but with that I have nothing to do, as I have already shown that miracles are not within the range of science. The second is founded on the language of the narrative, which is thought to imply an ignorance of the earth’s rotation on its axis. But really this is so childish that it is scarcely worth our notice. Is there any one in his senses who would have expected Joshua to say, ‘Earth, suspend your rotation round your axis;’ or to have framed his language in any other way so as to describe that rotation? And if Joshua ought to have so expressed himself, why do not astronomers and other learned men alter their own language now according to their own science? Or are we to suppose that after all they know nothing about astronomy, because they speak like ignorant men, and say, like the rest of us, ‘the sun rises and the sun sets?’

The other case, however, is more important, for it is the object of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis to give an account of creation, and it is perfectly reasonable therefore to expect to find it in harmony with geological facts. But mark. There is a great difference between being in harmony with geological facts, and in harmony with every geological theory that is started. We must confine the argument to what is known, and we have nothing to do with what people think. True science is a rigid thing, and relates to facts, not opinions. When, e.g., people tell us that there could not be light before the sun, they are thoroughly unscientific in so saying, for they know nothing of the kind. There is a vast amount of light at this present time quite independent of the sun, and the idea that there could be none before it is nothing more than an unscientific conjecture. No! we must keep rigidly to facts, to facts really established by trustworthy evidence; and, keeping stedfastly to such facts, I have not the least shadow of anxiety respecting geological discovery. On the contrary, I believe that the first chapter of Genesis will furnish us, and is even already furnishing us, with one of the grandest arguments ever yet produced for the divine inspiration of the book of Scripture. I cannot but think that that first chapter is placed in the forefront of the book in order to present us, at the outset of the whole, with an unanswerable evidence of the divinity of its origin.