Inspiration: Its Nature and Extent

by Edward Hoare

For what is the present position of geology? In the first place, it is a very young science, one of scarcely more than fifty years’ growth. The most profound geologists are most convinced how much there is still to be learned, and they are learning more every day. No really wise man therefore would give up the inspiration of Scripture in deference to these present conclusions, even if those conclusions should at first sight seem to be opposed to the inspired word.

But they are not opposed to it. There may be a difference of opinion among Christian men as to which is the right principle of harmony, but there is no difficulty in harmonizing all geological facts with the plain, literal, straightforward, honest interpretation of every sentence of the sacred record. Nay more! There is one remarkable point of harmony clearly established, viz., this, that in its great outlines the order of events recorded in the book of Scripture is the same as the order as exhibited in the record of the rocks. Moses describes a certain order in creation. Three thousand years after Moses, learned men began to investigate the earth’s crust, and in the rocks which form that crust, they have discovered the outlines of a certain order. They have come to the conclusion that certain great events must have succeeded each other in the creation of the world. Here therefore you have two records, one from the rocks, and one from Moses: one only just now discovered, and one given more than three thousand years ago. But place them side by side. Do not be afraid of comparing them, for truth is never afraid of investigation. But in comparing them what do we find? That the order in the rocks in all its broad features corresponds step by step with the order in the Mosaic record; and though there are still some minor difficulties, still in the great, grand, broad facts there is a magnificent harmony. But whence did Moses learn that order? The events must have taken place millions and millions of years before ever man trod this earth. There were no geologists in his day to teach him. How then could he have known the order of events which took place ages before man’s being? There is only one answer to be given, and that is, that he must have been taught it by God Himself. Thus we may thank our modern geologists, as many of them delight in believing, for having in these days of infidelity dug out from the bowels of the earth a fresh and noble proof, which had lain buried there for centuries, that the first chapter of the Book of Genesis was given to Moses by inspiration of God.

But we may go further still with reference to science, and remark that there are many expressions in Scripture remarkably in harmony with it, and which almost appear to indicate a mind far in advance of the knowledge of the day. Take, e.g., the distinction drawn by Moses between rain and dew in Deut. xxxii. 2, ‘My doctrine shall drop as the rain, and my speech shall distil as the dew.’ Or the language of Job respecting the weight of the atmosphere, a scientific truth unknown till the days of Galileo: ‘To make the weight for the winds.’ (Job, xxviii. 25.) Many similar passages might be quoted, but these are sufficient to show that, although it was not the purpose of the book to teach science, there lay hidden within the book the germs of the truest science, waiting there unobserved till scientific men should discover the facts, and so by their science bring to light a fresh evidence of the divine inspiration of the book.

3. It is alleged that the sacred writers differed in some instances from secular historians. The favourite instances adduced are the date of the governments of Cyrenius in Syria, and that of Lysanius at Abylene. The one is placed by Josephus about eleven years after the birth of our Lord, and the other about the same distance of time before the commencement of John the Baptist’s ministry. It is a real pleasure to find men fixing on such minute points, and to see them obliged to leave unassailed the vast amount of accumulated evidence to the accurate fidelity of the sacred records. I confess that the simple fact of their fastening on such points proves very clearly to my own mind that they have nothing very substantial on which to fasten. Suggestions have been thrown out, which, if true, may meet the difficulty; but with our limited information, after an interval of one thousand eight hundred years, it is impossible to be sure that they are correct. But suppose there is a difference. Suppose the chronology of Josephus is at variance with that of St. Luke. Suppose that one or the other is in error. Is it impossible, I ask, that Josephus may be wrong? Is he infallible? Are his writings guaranteed from error? And why should the Christian tamely surrender the point, and quietly submit to the conclusion that St. Luke is wrong and Josephus right? I protest against such a surrender, and, till there is clearer evidence than we have obtained at present, I shall venture to believe that Josephus is mistaken if in anything he really differs from the inspired word.

4. But I have left to the last that which to many minds is the greatest difficulty. I mean the variations, or as some would call them, the apparent discrepancies, between the sacred writers themselves.

Now I have no wish to deny the existence of such variations, though I dislike the term ‘discrepancies,’ for I do not believe there is discrepancy. And in dealing with this difficulty, there are, I conceive, three principles to be kept clearly in mind.

1. The narratives are very short and fragmentary in their character. They never attempt to record the whole. Hence one gives one fragment, and another a second, and these fragments are often like the fossil bones of a skeleton. Ignorant men, which we all are, cannot fit them together; but we must not on that account assert them to be contradictory; for when the structure of the whole is once discovered, they will all fit into their proper places, and all the scattered fragments be combined in perfect symmetry.

2. There is the widest possible distinction between variation and contradiction. If two writers give an account of the same event, they will each regard it from their own point of view, and describe it as it impressed themselves. Hence one will bring into prominence certain facts which are altogether omitted by another. But such a variation is totally different from contradiction. An excellent illustration of this is found in the case of the inscription over the cross, a case which Dean Alford considers decisive against verbal inspiration. Now I am quite ready to admit that, if there were contradiction, it would be decisive. But I deny that there is any contradiction whatever. There is variation, but nothing more. All agree in the emphatic point—’The king of the Jews,’ and the only difference is that some give in addition a few more words than others. But these added words are not at variance with each other. On the contrary, they all combine in one sentence, which probably formed the real inscription. That sentence is Οὔτός ἐστιν Ἰησους ὄ Ναζαραίος ὄ Βασιλεὺς των Ἰουδαίων. ‘This is Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews.’ Now, supposing that to have been the real sentence, so that each of the evangelists omitted some of the explanatory words, while all preserved, ‘The king of the Jews,’ which was the real point of the inscription, there was no discrepancy or contradiction in such omissions, nor anything to affect our full and complete reliance in the verbal accuracy of all the four evangelists.

3. It is also most important for us to remember that such variations are essential to the value of a fourfold testimony. If God had seen fit to impart His truth by direct communication only, then I freely grant that I should have expected a verbatim agreement in the narratives. But in that case there would have been no employment of the human element. Nay more; if the life of our Lord had been so reported, the evidence would have become single, instead of fourfold. Even, as it is, it has been argued that the resemblance is so accurate as to show that the evangelists copied from one common tradition, and must not be regarded as independent witnesses. The variation therefore becomes almost as important to us as the agreement, and, instead of shaking our convictions, confirms them. That blessed Redeemer is the corner-stone of our hopes, and therefore, instead of two witnesses, which under the law were sufficient, He has given us two pair of witnesses. And in the inspiration of their words He has given so much scope to the human element that there are all the variations inseparable from independent testimony; while, on the other hand, He has so guided, directed, and controlled the whole, that, notwithstanding all the cavils of sceptics, there is no real contradiction in their statements. There is variation enough to prove the independence of their evidence, while there is such a depth in their complete agreement, as can only be explained by the fact that they were taught by God’s Spirit to convey to us infallible truth.

Other objections have, I know, been urged; but all, I firmly believe, may be fully and fairly met by the principle that it has pleased God in His own wisdom to combine in the one book the divine and human element. In some cases the mind of the man may be more conspicuous than the mind of the Spirit, while in others the mind of the Spirit seems completely to overrule the mind of the author who wrote the words. In some passages the thoughts are so far within man’s compass that no inspiration appears to be necessary, while in others they dive so deep into hidden mysteries that they far outstep the utmost range of the human intellect. Thus God has given us a record of what man has felt, as well as a statement of His own hidden will. He has given it through the medium of minds of the same nature as our own; but by His own mysterious power He has given their writings such a divine authority that they claim our unwavering trust; so that, notwithstanding the cavils of infidels, and the sneers of those who despise us as bibliolaters, we heartily thank God for our Bibles, and receive as divine all that God has taught in them, believing without reserve the statement of St. Peter, that ‘Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’