The Use of the Bible in Evangelical Preaching Today 2 (Charles Cameron)

This is the second and final part of the previous post, "The Use of the Bible in Evangelical Preaching Today 1" by Charles Cameron.

_______________

With this understanding of preaching, we will take care to hold doctrine and experience together. J. 1. Packer emphasizes that ‘revelation is ... much more than propositional’. (25) E. Schillebeeckx emphasizes that ‘the right propositional understanding of revelation ... must be kept in a right relation to the experience with which this propositional language is associated’.(26) Developing this theme further, Schillebeeckx describes Scripture as the point of contact between the spiritual experience of the biblical writers and today’s readers and hearers who are now being invited by Scripture to enter into the same experience of the living God:

As a testimony to the experience of those who created it Scripture is an offer – a possibility that this experience can be extended to others.(27)

There is the relationship between the words of Scripture and the power of the Spirit. Rightly understood, the words of Scripture are not mere words. They are words which speak with power. Jesus makes this point within the context of his own ministry.

The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life (Jn. 6:63).

Paul, like Jesus, could not conceive of ministry as a thing of words only. True ministry is ministry empowered by the Spirit:

My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1 Cor. 2:4).

Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction (1 Thess. 1:5).

In our preaching of God’s word today we must earnestly pray for this dual ministry of the Spirit:

The Spirit ... opens up the Scripture to us and ‘opens’ us to the Scripture.(28)

Being opened up by the Spirit to the Scripture can be an uncomfortable experience. Where the word of God is preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, we have the situation described in the letter to the Hebrews:

The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword ... discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do (4:12-13).

Scripture does not speak of salvation only. It also speaks about sin. Scripture does not speak only of the love of God. It also speaks of the holiness of God. When Jesus spoke of the ministry of the Holy Spirit he said this:

When he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement (Jn. 16:8).

There are uncomfortable truths concerning which the Lord Jesus says, ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches’ (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).

If we should be faithful preachers of God’s word, we must preach what people need to hear, and not simply what they want to hear. This is not only the way of faithfulness, it is also the way of relevance. Those who seek relevance at the expense of faithfulness turn out to be irrelevant. Their shallow and superficial preaching turns out to be no real substitute for ‘the living and abiding word of God’ through which alone the hearers can be ‘born anew’ (1 Pet. 1:23). Before we can truly appreciate the grace of God in the gospel, we must understand that ‘there is no human solution to the human problem’. (29) This can be a painful experience. We do our hearers no favours if we pay little attention to the uncomfortable truths of God’s word. G. C. Berkouwer ends his discussion, ‘The Voice of Karl Barth’ with these words:

He discovered the powerful witness of the ‘tremendous’ word that always speaks against us so that we can learn to stop speaking against it.(30)

To appreciate Barth’s emphasis on the centrality of Christ, we must first hear the word speaking against us. Concerning the message of the Bible, Barth writes:

The Bible says all sorts of things certainly; but in all this multiplicity and variety; it says in truth only one thing – just this: the name of Jesus Christ.(31)

In the presence of Jesus Christ we learn that we are sinners, but we learn also that CHRIST loves sinners. Unlike the Pharisees who despised ‘sinners’ Jesus Christ ‘receives sinners’ (Lk. 15:2). In the presence of Christ we encounter both perfect holiness and perfect love. In Christ we discover ‘an unmerited abundance of love’.(32) This love leads us to a special kind of obedience – the obedience of love. ‘We love because he first loved us’ (1 Jn. 4:19). In Christ we face the claim of love upon our lives. This living presence of Christ inviting us to receive salvation and calling us to embark on the pathway of discipleship is the depth-dimension of preaching. On the face of it, preaching involves a preacher giving an address to a congregation. There is, however, something much deeper than that going on when the word of God is preached. D.G. Miller in an article entitled ‘Biblical Theology and Preaching’ highlights this depth-dimension of preaching:

In a real sermon ... Christ is the preacher. The preacher speaks through the preacher ... The biblical view of preaching is to confront men with the question, ‘What think ye of Christ?’ And out of this question, to have the encounter shift into the dimension of a personal confrontation by Christ, who himself asks, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ This is the unique task of the Christian preacher.(33)

Describing further the purpose of preaching, Miller continues:

Preaching must always be for decision. Our aim is not merely to inform the mind, to stimulate the feelings so that men have a rather pleasant emotional experience: it is rather to strike directly at the will with the demand for decision ... until we have confronted men with the issue so that they either have to surrender or rebel further, to accept it or reject, believe or disbelieve.(34)

This decision concerning Jesus Christ is also a decision concerning the meaning, purpose and direction of our own lives – ‘Deciding about him is at the same time deciding about ourselves.’(35) As we hear the story of Jesus Christ, the word of God tells us the story of our own lives – what we are and what we can become. The call for decision is a call to leave behind what we are in our sin, and move on to what we can become in Christ.

If evangelical preaching is to make a significant impact on today’s world, it dare not rest content with giving theological lectures. Stressing the relevance of the Bible to our life today, D. E. Stevenson describes the Bible as ‘a hall of mirrors’ and offers this advice: ‘Look into it properly and you will see yourself.’(36) The preacher dare not place himself far above the people, preaching a message which goes over the heads of the people. The preacher, no less than his hearers, must sit under the word of God. If he is to preach a message which is relevant to the life of his hearers he must first find in Scripture a word that is relevant to his own life. This involves much more than being an academic theologian who seeks intellectual stimulation from his study of the Bible. The preacher is not to remain a stranger to the people. He dare not speak as a theologian, proud of his education yet detached from his hearers’ life- situation. The preacher is to be a friend to his hearers. He lives among them. He meets them in the streets and at the shops. He visits them in hospital and at home. He teaches their children at school. He hears about and shares the joys and concerns of the community in which he lives. Within this very human context the pulpit must not become an ivory tower of irrelevance. Though not merely human – he is an ‘ambassador for Christ’, bringing to his hearers ‘the message of reconciliation’ (2 Cor. 5:19-20) – the preacher must not ignore the very human context in which the word of God is to be preached. In preaching from the Scriptures he proclaims a word which transforms the present and not merely a word that belongs to the past. The preacher who is sensitive to the pastoral relationships which exists between himself and the people will not preach messages which could be preached anywhere and at anytime. He takes account of the particular situation into which he is called to preach God’s word. He seeks to hear and to speak the word which God wants to speak to this people at this time. The method of preaching will vary from sermon to sermon, from one series of sermons to another. The manner in which we preach remains constant. It is to be preaching grounded in the Scriptures, centred on Christ and empowered by the Spirit.

Such preaching has relevance, not only for the Church but also for the world. The gospel cannot be kept within the ‘four walls’ of the Church. Paul described the gospel in this way – ‘The gospel for which I am suffering and wearing chains like a criminal’. He then went on to say, ‘But the word of God is not fettered’ (2 Tim. 2:9). Sometimes the preacher will feel like Paul – imprisoned within his circumstances. He may feel imprisoned within a clerical strait-jacket. He may feel imprisoned within the limitations of being only one man, able to do so much and no more. Like Paul, however, the preacher can lift up his eyes to the word of God which is able to break free from such imprisoning limitations. When the word of God is preached, it is not simply a proclamation by one man within the ‘four walls’ of the Church. It is a proclamation which reaches out into the world. It is carried by the hearers into their life situations. This fact encourages the preacher to believe that his message preached may be just the spark which gets a fire going. His preaching may be just the spark which sets the Church on fire with a real desire to pass on the good news of Christ’s love to the needy world. The possibility of being the spark which lights a fire gives the preacher greater boldness. It assures him that his preaching is not as insignificant and ineffective as he may sometimes feel. There is, however, a humbling factor here. The preacher receives boldness in answer to the prayers of God’s people.

Pray ... for me, that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel (Eph. 6:18-19)

There is no true boldness in preaching without the prayers of faithful man and women who call upon God on behalf of the preacher.

With the supporting prayers of God’s people, the preacher goes into the pulpit. Through the continuing witness of God’s people, the preached word goes beyond the pulpit into the world. The preacher is one among many within the fellowship of the Lord’s people. His ministry is significant, but so also is the ministry exercised by others. As we consider the relationship between the pastor and the people we must never forget that the spark which gets the fire going is the power of the Holy Spirit. If there is to be a fire lit in our day, it will not be the work of man but the mighty working of the Spirit. In all the works of ministry-the ministry of the preacher and the ministry of the people – there is something we must never forget:

We are servants of the word and not its masters ... Not only are we servants of the word ... we are unprofitable servants.(37)

______________

(25) ‘Infallible Scripture in the Role of Hermeneutics’ in D. A. Carson & J. D. Woodbridge (eds) Scripture and Truth, IVP, Leicester, (1983), p. 35

(26) Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modem World, SCM Press, London, (1980), p. 54.

(27) Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modem World, SCM Press, London, (1980) p. 68.

(28) J. Veenhof, ‘Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture’, Scottish Bulletin Evangelical Theology, Vol. 2, (Autumn 1986).

(29) J. Mcquarrie, Studies in Christian Existentialism, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, (1965), p. 8 (italics original).

(30) A Half-Century of Theology, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1977), p. 74.

(31) Church Dogmatics, 1.2. T & T Clarke, Edinburgh, (1956), p. 720.

(32) E. Schilebeckx, Christ, The Christian Experience in the Modem World, SCM (1981).

(33) Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 11, No. 4, (Dec. 1958), pp. 393, 395-6.

(34) Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 11, No. 4, (Dec. 1958), p. 399.

(35) N. J. Young, History and Existential Theology, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, (1969), p. 122.

(36) D. E. Stevenson, In the Biblical Preacher’s Workshop, Abingdon Press, Nashville, (1967), p. 93.

(37) D. E. Stevenson, In the Biblical Preacher’s Workshop, Abingdon Press, Nashville, (1967), p. 16.

© 1995 Evangel

The Use of the Bible in Evangelical Preaching Today - Part 1 (Charles Cameron)

A major concern I have had over the years has been the decline of solid, sound, biblical preaching in many of our Churches today. Despite the ready availability of and accessibility to literally hundreds and thousands of resources on preaching on the internet, the dirge of good preaching remains. Now that I am teaching in a seminary, I am even more concerned as I notice how seminary students, despite having been through exegetical and homiletical classes, are unable to put a reasonable sermon together. The leap from study to pulpit is undoubtedly a difficult one. It is both an art and a science. It is a matter of habit - should I say, a habitual way of reading the Bible in a certain way and a habitual way of thinking about what teaches in a certain way. But primarily, in my humble opinion, it is a matter of conviction and commitment to several indispensable truths. (1) God has spoken. (2) God has spoken in Scripture. (3) God has spoken in Scripture about His Son, Jesus Christ. And because God has thus spoken, (4) Scripture carries His authority. (5) Scripture primarily is about the Lord Jesus Christ. (6) Scripture is always relevant since God is the God of the living and not the dead. Unless a preacher is convinced about these basic truths, he may come to Scripture and employ all his exegetical and homiletical skills and still find his preaching falling flat and without "oomph". Charles Cameron's article rhymes somewhat with my personal conviction. He insists that true biblical preaching is dependent upon a threefold cord - Scripture, Saviour, Spirit. He also suggests that we need to be convinced of the authority of Scripture and thus in our task of interpretation to always submit ourselves to that authority. In a word, be faithful to what it says. And as we are faithful, he maintains, we will quickly find its relevance. His emphasis resonates with mine, and that is why I have shared it here.

This article first appeared as Charles Cameron, “The Use of the Bible in Evangelical Preaching Today,” Evangel 13.1 (Spring 1995): 16-21.

_____________________

Ernest Best was professor of New Testament at the University of Glasgow. Robert Davidson was professor of Old Testament at the University of Glasgow. The late George Macleod was the founder of the Iona Community. Each of these men has exerted a significant influence on the ministry of the church of Scotland. Comments made by Best, Davidson and Macleod provide an appropriate point of departure for this short study concerning contemporary preaching. In his book, From Text to Sermon Best writes, ‘The preacher ... ought to avoid merely using a text as a jumping-off for what he wants to say.’(1) When invited to introduce a former student – Rev. Fraser Aitken – to his first charge, Neilston Parish Church, Davidson preached from Ephesians 3:8, concerning Paul’s description of his ministry in terms of preaching ‘the unsearchable riches of Christ’. Macleod’s book, Speaking the Truth in Love, contains this arresting remark concerning ‘preaching’ which, though it ‘may be without doctrinal error hardly stirs a soul’. (2)

Taken together, these three comments highlight three essential features which must surely characterize evangelical preaching in every generation. Our preaching should be grounded in Scripture, centred on Christ and empowered by the Spirit. The Scriptures, the Saviour and the Spirit – here we have a ‘threefold cord’ that cannot be broken. By stressing the importance of the Bible for contemporary preaching we are not simply being ‘traditional’. We ground our preaching in Scripture because we find Christ in the Scriptures (Lk. 24:27; Jn. 5:40; 2 Tim. 3:15). We do not base our preaching on Scripture simply because we wish to be ‘Biblicists’. We preach from Scripture because the Spirit points us to the Son through the Scriptures (Lk. 24:2; Rom. 10:17). This ‘threefold cord’, the Scriptures, the Saviour and the Spirit, must be preserved if contemporary preaching is to be truly evangelical.

Today’s preachers are, like Paul, called to ‘preach the unsearchable riches of Christ’. Our situation is not however precisely the same as Paul’s. We are to preach the Word of God ‘as addressed to modem man’. (3) This application of the gospel to the situation of modem man requires to be handled in a careful and sensitive manner. We dare not remain locked in the past if we are to speak a word which has genuine relevance for the present day. On the other hand, the threat of ‘modernism’ is real. We can be so easily ‘squeezed into the mould of the world’s way of thinking’, rather than allowing our minds to be renewed by ‘the living and abiding world of God (cf. Rom. 12:1-2 J. B. Phillips; 1 Pet. 1:23). Where modern thinking is accorded an undue importance, the gospel can be seriously distorted. This kind of distortion takes place in the theologies offered to us by Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich. Commenting on Bultmann theology, G. C. Berkouwer writes, ‘The fact that he proceeds from a pastoral and missionary motive – namely, to preserve modern man from rejecting the New Testament because of its mythical structure – do not diminish by one iota the theological presumption of this undertaking.’(4) K. Hamilton describes Tillich theology thus: ‘Jesus Christ and the biblical revelatic have been fitted into a structure already complex without them.’(5)

One particularly serious consequence of this type of theological reductionism is selectivity in the use of Scripture. This may be illustrated with particular reference to the theology of Bultmann. Discussing Bultmann’s exegetical procedure, N. J. Young offers penetrating analysis. Bultmann’s norm for understanding the New Testament is the theology of Paul and John as interpreted by Bultmann. Those parts of the New Testament which do not accord with Bultmann are not given careful attention. Paul and John, as well as the rest of the New Testament, are treated in this way. (6) This method of exegesis, ‘in which a variety of views are acknowledged, but only one selected for attention, leaving the others virtually ignored’ (7) is particularly noticeable when he discusses Paul’s eschatology. He acknowledges that there is evidence that Paul does have an ‘apocalyptic eschatology with its expectation of a cosmic catastrophe’. (8) Nevertheless, Bultmann pays no further attention to this aspect of Paul’s eschatology.

What are we to make of this approach to the New Testament? This is what Young says: ‘If some parts of the New Testament prove to be impervious to a particular hermeneutical approach ... it may be because the hermeneutical approach is not adequate for the task, not because it claims too much.’ (9)

Young contends that there is a better way than Bultmann’s way. ‘A proper recognition of the diversity of the New Testament witness... makes unnecessary Bultmann’s attempt to achieve harmony by silencing those voices which appear to him to be off-key.’ (10)

Best makes this point more positively – without any direct reference to Bultmann’s theology. ‘Christ is greater than any single description of him, and we need the variety we have in the New Testament.’ (11) What relevance does this discussion of Bultmann’s selective exegesis have for the preacher? N. Weeks, clearly alluding to the kind of theology propounded by Bultmann, makes an astute and most important observation: ‘The belief that modem man cannot understand biblical concepts becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we believe that men cannot accept such truths, then we will not preach and teach them. Hence they will not be received because faith comes by hearing the word preached. (12)

If we would preach the ‘whole counsel of God’ from the pulpit, there must be a thorough searching of the Scriptures in the study. Selective exegesis can never be a real option for those who would seek to ground their preaching in the Scriptures.

To dissociate ourselves from Bultmann’s method of reading the New Testament is not to involve us in stepping back from the complexities of biblical interpretation. Rather, we stress that the complex business of biblical interpretation will never permit one particular line of interpretation to take a stranglehold over our thinking. Whenever a particular method of interpretation dominates our thinking, it becomes our authority. Scripture – the authoritative Word of God – is then moulded to fit what we think it should be. The interpretation of Scripture is not to be separated from the authority of Scripture. Divorced from an authoritative word from the Lord, biblical interpretation can become a very confusing business. We are not, however, forced to choose between a real involvement in the complex issues of biblical interpretation and a naive biblicism which refuses to get involved with the difficult questions. It has been said that ‘the Bible is like a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim’. (13) There are many areas where differences of interpretation can leave us quite confused. Nevertheless, we are still able to affirm that Jesus Christ is the centre of the biblical message. We are still able to experience the power of the Holy Spirit as he leads us to Christ through the Scripture.

By refusing to align ourselves with Bultmann’s approach to the New Testament we are not dissociating ourselves from his concern with relevance. We are, however, stressing that there is another concern to which we must give careful attention – faithfulness: ‘In seeking for relevance we must not renounce faithfulness.’ (14) We must not set relevance and faithfulness over against each other, as though we are forced to choose between them – be faithful at the expense of relevance; be relevant at the expense of faithfulness. Relevance and faithfulness belong together. Relevance is not to be divorced from faithfulness but grounded in faithfulness. God’s Word is seen to be ‘the living and abiding word of God’ as God’s people believe it to be and proclaim it as ‘the living and abiding word of God’. The faithfulness which is ever relevant involves a real commitment to walking in the Spirit as ‘ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills but the Spirit gives life’ (2 Cor. 3:6). J. Veenhof, expounding the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures, emphasizes that it is the Holy Spirit who binds faithfulness and relevance together. He ‘makes it clear that this ancient word never becomes antiquated but is permanently relevant’. (15) This relevance is always a matter of something more than mere words. Our lives as well as our words must be faithful to the Word of the Lord. Faithfulness and relevance do not belong only to the study and the pulpit. There is a life to be lived in the world as well as a sermon to be preached in the church. Our lives are to be a ‘letter from Christ’, ‘known and read by all men’ (2 Cor. 3:2).

In the pulpit, faithfulness and relevance are to be held together. In the study authority and interpretation are to be held together. If, in the study, Scripture is not honoured as the authoritative word of God, there will not be faithful preaching from the pulpit. A commitment to faithfulness carries with it a concern for relevance, since God ‘is not God of the dead, but of the living’ (Matt. 22:32). He is the living God and his word is to be proclaimed as the living word. If we are to speak a word of relevance, we need to interpret God’s word for this generation. It is not sufficient to affirm the authority of the Bible, if we do not give serious consideration to understanding what God is saying to the world of today. The preacher, who seeks both faithfulness and relevance, will seek to understand the relationship between authority and interpretation. In the preface to his book, A Theology of the New Testament, G. E. Ladd writes: ‘All theology is a human undertaking and no man’s position can be considered final. (16) However strongly we affirm the authority of Scripture, we dare not elevate our own theological understanding to the level of Scripture itself. When we recognize clearly the distinction between authority and interpretation, we will not be afraid of interacting with theological perspectives different from our own. We need openness without a loss of the divine word. We need not make the ideal of ‘open-mindedness’ so prominent in our thinking that we end up empty-minded, with no clear conviction concerning the divine word.

Nevertheless, we must surely welcome the kind of openness described by G. C. Berkouwer in the foreword to his book, A Half Century of Theology:

A curiosity that works itself out in passionate study and serious listening to others promises surprises, clearer insight, and deeper understanding – no matter from which direction they came. (17)

Our interpretation of the vital relationship between authority and interpretation is directly connected to our understanding of the dual character of Scripture as both the word of God and the words of men. Scripture speaks to us with authority because it speaks to us as the word of God. The study of Scripture involves us in the complex business of interpretation, since it speaks to us as the words of men, words written at various times and places by many writers. E. Schillebeeck describes the dual character of Scripture in a helpful way:

All human speech about what comes ‘from above’ (‘it has been revealed’) is uttered by human beings, i.e. from below ... However human it may be, this language is not an autonomous human initiative. (18)

G. C. Berkouwer offers an insightful perspective on Scripture as both word of God and words of men. He describes ‘scripture’ as ‘the human witness empowered by the Spirit’. (19) He stresses the divine origin of this witness:

This witness does not well up from the human heart but from the witness of God in which it finds its foundation and empowering as a human witness ... This Scripture finds its origin in the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ, and witnesses of him through the human witness.’ (20)

Berkouwer emphasizes that this ancient word speaks with relevance to every generation:

These witnesses are not ‘lifted out’ of their time and milieu, but as living witnesses could interpret in their era what was destined for all times.’ (21)

He helps us to understand both how we are to approach Scripture and how we are not to approach Scripture:

Believing Scripture does not mean staring at a holy and mysterious book, but hearing the witness concerning Christ. (22)

It is within this context of a human yet divine, ancient yet permanently relevant witness concerning Jesus Christ that we are to understand our confession of faith. The Bible is the word of God:

The respect for the concrete words is related to this and the ‘is’ of the confession points to the mystery of the Spirit, who wants to bind men to Christ through these words, through this witness. (23)

The faith with which we are to receive God’s word has been well described by Calvin:

The word is not received in faith when it merely flutters in the brain, but when it has taken deep root in the heart. (24)

From Berkouwer and Calvin the preacher can learn much. Faithful, relevant, authoritative preaching is preaching which focuses upon Christ, preaching which is empowered by the Spirit, preaching which calls for faith that takes deep root in the heart.


ENDNOTES

(1) The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh, (1978), p. 100.
(2) SCM Press, London, (1936), p. 30.
(3) A. Richardson (citing G. Ebeling) ‘Hermeneutics’ in A. Richardson (ed.) A Dictionary of Christian Theology, SCM Press, (1969), p. 154 (emphasis original).
(4) The Person of Christ, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, (1954), p. 41.
(5) ‘Paul Tillich’ in P. E. Hughes (Ed.) Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids (Second Revised Edition), (1969), p. 473 (emphasis original).
(6) History and Existential Theology, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, (1969), pp. 51-55.
(7) Young, p. 53.
(8) Young, p. 53 (citing Bultmann, History and Eschatology, p. 151).
(9) p. 54.
(10) p. 55.
(11) From Text to Sermon, p. 29.
(12) The Sufficiency of Scripture, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, (1988), pp. 82-83.
(13) D. A. Carson ‘Interpreting the Bible’ in Evangel, 3:2 (Summer 1985), p. 13.
(14) B. Meeking & J. Stott (eds.) The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission, 1977-1984, The Paternoster Press, Exeter, (1984), p. 21.
(15) ‘Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture' in The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Autumn 1986), p. 76.
(16) Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1974), p. 5.
(17) Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1977), pp. 7-8.
(18) Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modem World, SCM Press, London, (1980), p. 46.
(19) Holy Scripture, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1925), p. 167.
(20) Holy Scripture, pp. 165-166.
(21) Holy Scripture, p. 167.
(22) Holy Scripture, p. 166.
(23) Holy Scripture, p. 166.
(24) Institutes, III.36 (Associated Publishers and Authors Inc., Grand Rapids, p. 304).

© 1995 Evangel. Reproduced by permission. Rev. Dr. Charles M. Cameron is a Church of Scotland minister in Dunfermline and a regular contributor to Evangel.

The Human Writers of the Old Testament, Part 3 (E J Young)

This is the third and final part of the article, "The Human Writers of the Old Testament" by E J Young.

_____________________________

This brings us to another point which must be raised in opposition to the assertion that human fallibility precludes infallibility in the Scripture. It is that the advocates of this position are for the most part extremely inconsistent. Certain parts of the Bible, they tell us, are pure and true. For example, the injunction to love one’s enemies is acceptable to modern theologians. There, certainly, is the Word of God. That we are to obey. In saying this, however, modern theology is in effect admitting the very case which it wishes to deny. In admitting that there is even one bit of Scripture that is the pure and infallible and trustworthy Word of God, the modern theologian is tacitly acknowledging that at least some of the Word of God has come through the medium of fallible human writers without itself becoming fallible. It was protected from error so that we today might regard it as trustworthy. It is the truth free from error; our duty in fact is to love our enemies. If, however, even a portion of the Word may have been transmitted through fallible human channels without error, why may not all have been so transmitted? To acknowledge that some may be preserved from error is to give the case away. If some may thus have been kept from imperfection, without doubt all may likewise have been so kept. Moreover, if it is true that humanity, because it is necessarily fallible, may thwart the revelation of God, so that that revelation comes to us marred, what is to be said about Christ? Jesus Christ was a true man, and if manhood necessarily involves fallibility, Jesus Christ was fallible. If humanity, simply because it is humanity, is characterized by error and imperfection, Jesus Christ is not our Savior.

From these consequences we cannot flee. We are not warranted in making an exception of the Person of our Lord, and if we have once adopted the position that the human necessarily entails imperfection, let us be consistent and admit that Christ also is imperfect. It is a sad conclusion to draw; sad as it is, however, it is one that we must draw if the premise which we have adopted is correct. If our Lord, in His human nature, was necessarily subject to fallibility, then, of course, He was not what He claimed to be; He was subject to sin. There is no escape from this conclusion, none whatever. If Jesus Christ was a sinner (for fallibility is the consequence of sin) we might as well face the fact that He is not, nor could He be, our Savior. As a matter of fact, however, this vicious premise is not correct. The God whom we worship is powerful enough to convey His revelation through human channels and to do so in such a manner that His revelation does not acquire the imperfections that adhere to sinful humanity. In the Person of His Son, He is able to take to Himself a true human nature which is not touched with sin. Although error and imperfection are found in sinful human nature they are not at all necessary characteristics of human nature as such.

Is it not, the charge is sometimes made, an illogical position to adopt, this position which asserts that God can give an infallible revelation through fallible channels? Man is fallible; man is the only instrument available to God through which this revelation can come. Simple logic demands that said revelation must then partake of fallibility. Thus the view for which we are contending is dismissed as “illogical.”

But is this view, as a matter of fact, illogical? The charge, grave as it is, is based upon the premise that man is capable of qualifying or affecting the revelation which God gives through him. Is this premise, however, warranted by the facts? Can man, in truth, control God’s revelation? Is God the Revealer subject to man? According to the Bible this premise is utterly and completely false. According to the Bible God has created man in His own image. Man therefore is subject to God, and dependent upon Him. God, on the other hand, is utterly independent of man, and self-sufficient unto Himself. “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things” (Romans 11:36a).

Man is entirely subject to the law of God. As created by God, Adam, although finite, was nevertheless not fallible. Adam, however, sinned, and all mankind sinned in him and fell with him. Man, therefore, is a sinful creature and as a sinner is subject to error. God, since He is the omnipotent Creator, has absolute control over those whom He has created. In His good pleasure, which is a sovereign good pleasure, He may bear the human writers of the Bible, so controlling them, yet preserving intact their personalities, that they can write His revelation exactly as He wishes. If once we think rightly about God, other matters will appear in their proper perspective. Once we realize that God is in control of the situation, it will become clear that the Biblical doctrine of inspiration, mysterious as it may be, is nevertheless not illogical.

Thus we come to that which is basic in modern thought. In all this talk of the Word of God we would ask the question, What is it that modern theologians have in mind when they are speaking of the Word of God? Who is this God in whose Word they are so interested? It is difficult to identify Him. He seems to be a creation in the image of man, and not the Triune God who has spoken in the Bible. The issue involved is in reality that of theism. Who is our God? Are we followers of the King, or have we bowed the knee to Baal? Unless first we become as little children and acknowledge the true God in all our ways, we shall not speak profitably on the subject of that Word which has been breathed forth from His mouth. The modern god, created by man, lives and rules in the City of Destruction. From him and from his reign, however, we have been delivered by the God of Holy Scripture.

It should be clear from the discussion so far that the Bible is not to be regarded as a “joint” product, the combined effort of God and man. Surely the Bible itself does not make such a claim. There were indeed human writers of the Scripture, but they are not to be considered as co-authors with God. It is not that God contributed certain parts of the Scriptures, and men supplemented these, and it most certainly is not the case that men contributed the greater portion of Scripture to have it supplemented by God. Nor did God and man take counsel together as to what should be included in the Scripture. God did not consult man as to what should be written. The Bible is truly the Word of God. He is the final and the ultimate Author; the Bible comes from God. Without Him there could have been no Bible. Without men, however, there could have been a Bible. God could have given us His Word in some other manner than that which He actually did choose. As a matter of fact, He did choose to speak through inspired men but He was not compelled to do so. In no sense was He limited. That he employed human writers was an act of grace, and the heart of faith will ever adore and revere Him that He so honored the human race as to employ lost sinners as writers of His pure and holy Word. While the human authors were true authors, nevertheless they were not the originators of the words and the thoughts that are found in the Bible. They were holy men indeed, but they were holy men who were borne by the Spirit.

Were these human writers infallible, even when they were not borne by the Spirit? Obviously the Bible does not teach that this was so. They were men of their own day. No doubt their own views of astronomy, for example, were not one whit more advanced than those of their contemporaries. On the other hand, when they were the penmen of the Spirit of God, they were expressing the words of God. The thoughts which they were penning had been revealed to them by God; they were placed in their minds by the Spirit Himself. It therefore will not do to assert that they did not have a knowledge of modern astronomy and hence could not have written an account of the creation that was scientifically accurate. If Moses had depended only upon the wisdom of the Egyptians, he would have produced a rather clumsy account of Creation. If he had relied alone upon the thoughts and opinions of his own heart, he would have composed a first chapter of Genesis that for crudity and error might have equaled the writings of Babylonia. Moses, however, in writing the first chapter of Genesis was not drawing upon his own ideas and thoughts. He was giving expression to thoughts which he had learned by revelation of God. He was an inspired penman. What went on in his own mind as he wrote we can never tell, but he acted as a conscious, responsible human being. Without doubt he must have realized that he was writing far more deeply than he himself could fathom. However he composed, however he gathered his material and set it down in writing, whether he wrote and crossed out and polished, we do not know. Nevertheless he worked, and what was finally set down as the completed product was just what the God of Truth desired to have written down; it was the Word of God.

At other times, however, to continue our use of Moses as an illustration, what Moses may have said and done, and what he may have written down, was no more free from error, no more infallible, than any other purely human word or composition. Not at all times was he kept from error, but only when he served as the penman to write down the Divine oracles. The same is true of the other writers of the Bible. Hence, the folly of Reimarus’ objection that the moral character of some of the human writers would preclude them from being the recipients of Divine revelation. In giving the Bible to mankind God did not make use of men who were free from sin. David was a sinful man, and yet through him God gave many of the Psalms. Moses was a murderer. Paul persecuted the Church of God. Yet God selected them to be His instruments of inspiration. That they were thus chosen in no sense condones or excuses their sins. If anything, it would seem to heighten their guilt. What they wrote, however, and what they said when they were not borne by the Spirit was not inspired; it was as subject to error as the utterances of anyone else. Only when borne of the Spirit were the authors infallible in what they wrote.

In the book of 2 Samuel there is recorded a letter which David wrote to his general Joab (11:15). When David penned this letter he was doing a despicable thing. It is a tragedy indeed that the man who had composed many of the Psalms should also have stand out against him the words of this letter: “Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.” Those words will ever stand to blacken the record of David. An evil thing indeed was the writing of this letter. Was David inspired when he wrote it? Most obviously he was not. It was something that was composed from his evil heart; this was the stratagem which he devised to cover up his own sin by removing the innocent Uriah from the scene. David did not write this letter under the impulsion of the Spirit of God.

Inspiration naturally extends only to that which the writers produced when they were under the impulsion of God’s Spirit. How then, it may be asked, do we find a copy of this letter in the Sacred Scriptures? The answer must be that the writer of the book of Samuel was inspired as he recorded the letter. It was the intention of God to include this letter in the Scripture, and the author of Samuel, being borne of `the Spirit, has given an accurate copy thereof. We have, in other words, a correct copy of the words which David wrote. To draw from this the conclusion that the letter had the approval of God upon its contents would be unwarranted indeed. In writing this letter David did an evil thing, and it was the will of God that we today should know of this evil thing; for that reason the letter was included in the Scripture. The writer has given an accurate copy of the letter, for inspiration secures accuracy. Inspiration does not, however, involve Divine approval of the contents of all that is inspired.

We may then say with assurance that the writers of the Bible were inspired only when they were actually engaged in composing the books of Scripture. Apart from that they were men of their times, and erred just as other men err. They were sinful human beings, and inspiration did not by some magical process keep them from error. It was only when the Spirit mysteriously came upon them as they wrote down His Word that they were in His power and so kept from making in their writings errors such as adhere to everything merely human.

Very remarkable is this doctrine of inspiration! It is remarkable above all because it is taught in the Bible itself. The Bible is God’s Word, we may say, but the Bible is also the work of men. They were not, however, men who wrote under their own power and under ordinary circumstances. Great indeed was the honor which had been placed upon them. There were times when they were lifted from the ordinary level of human experience. There were times when what they set down in writing was free from error. There were times when they were under the compulsion of the Spirit of God. There were times when these chosen few of the human race were the writers of Scripture.

The Human Writers of the Old Testament, Part 2 (E.J.Young)

This is the second of a three part series on "The Human Writers of the Scriptures" by E J Young.

_____________________

The question may very well be raised how the Spirit actually controlled the writers of Scripture so that they wrote expressly what He desired and yet at the same time were responsible individuals whose personalities were not stifled. How, for example, could the prophet write, “The words of Amos . . . which he saw?” Does not this verse contain a glaring contradiction? If the words are truly those of Amos, how could they at the same time be those which had found their origin in God? If God was the Author, how could Amos also be regarded as an author?

Legitimate as such questions are, however, they cannot be fully answered. God has not seen fit to reveal to us the mode by which He communicated His Word to His servants, placing that word in their mouths and “carrying” them until the Word was accurately committed to writing. We have come, in other words, into an area of mystery. There is much about this precious Scriptural doctrine which God has not revealed. The Scripture is silent as to the mode which God employed to preserve His Word from error. In this as in so many doctrines of the Bible there is mystery. It is of course, to be expected that such would be the case. We are but men and our understanding is at best limited and finite. We can only know as a created being knows. God, on the other hand, is the One who in His understanding is infinite. We cannot probe into His dealings in such a way as to obtain full and comprehensive knowledge thereof. He is not such a One as can be brought down and placed under the scrutiny of the microscope of the human mind.

In the doctrine of the Trinity likewise there is mystery. He who thinks that he can remove that mystery and fully understand the doctrine deceives no one but himself. This deep truth must be received in faith, and the believing heart rejoices simply because God has revealed this mystery in His Word. How wondrous is this revelation which God has given of Himself! How great, we are compelled to say, is our Holy God! When the mind delights itself in the thought that He is the one living and true God, it finds itself suddenly brought face to face with the fact that He is also Triune. Likewise, when it contemplates the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it is worshipping Him beside whom there is no other. The One reminds us of the Three, and the Three bring us to the One. Before Him, the one God in three Persons, we bow in adoration. We praise Him, we worship Him, we extol His matchless Name, we meditate upon His infinite attributes and perfections. Never, however, can we remove the mystery that adheres to the revelation which He has given of Himself as Triune.

It is the same with the doctrine of inspiration. When we have set forth all that the Scripture has to say, we can go no further. It may well be that questions arise in our minds, but they are questions which, at present at least, we cannot answer. Our duty is to believe all that God has revealed and to bow in humble acceptance of the truth which He has given. Scripture has spoken; it has permitted us to learn much concerning its inspiration. It has not, however, told us all. We may then freely acknowledge that there are difficulties in the Scriptural position, and also that there are questions which we cannot at present answer. Our portion is to be believers. God has spoken. Let us hear His voice, and beyond that let us not seek to go.

At this point, however, it is necessary to consider in some detail and with some care an objection to the above teaching which is frequently being voiced in our day. When the Word of God came through human personality, it is very often maintained, the Word was obscured to some extent. God was limited in His choice of available instruments through whom His Word might come to us, and therefore He did the best that He could with the personalities and means that were at His disposal. Consequently, the character of the revelation which we have depends not only upon God but also upon the human media through which it came.

Since the Word did come through human agents and instrumentality, it is claimed, there must adhere to it some of the error and imperfection which is found in everything human. It is just like plunging one’s arm into muddy water: in withdrawing the arm some of the mud will adhere to it; or it is like rays of sunlight which are less bright when shining through a dirty window than a clear one.

The character of the Divine revelation, therefore, according to this view, depends not only on God, but also on those media through which that revelation came. If those media were fallible, then the revelation itself partook of that fallibility. God Himself was limited by the means at hand. He could communicate Himself and His truth to men only in so far as men themselves were spiritually mature to receive His revelation. Men with spiritual failings could mar and prevent that revelation from coming to mankind.

Those, who insist that the Word of God in coming through human instruments has itself been affected and has acquired imperfections, for the most part believe that they can themselves detect these imperfections. Generally they wish to limit the errors and flaws which have supposedly crept into the Word of God to minor matters of fact or history. Sometimes a comparison is made with the incarnation of the Lord. The Word which became incarnate was subject to all the limitations and hardships of human life, it is sometimes maintained, and likewise the embodiment of the spoken Word of God in the history of a people such as the Hebrews involved all the crudities and the errors that such a people would probably make.

One need not look far today for a statement of this position. It is to be found in much that is written on the subject. Whenever someone writes on the Bible, he seems to feel the necessity of pointing out that it contains errors, and that these errors are a result of the human agents who were employed in the writing down of Scripture. It seems to be taken for granted that error must in the nature of the case be found in whatever is written by human hands.

As we hear this objection to the Scriptural teaching, there are several questions which arise. In the first place, we would ask, What kind of a God is He who cannot reveal to the world a message that is free from error? Surely, He must be limited and restricted indeed! Those of us who from time to time engage in a bit of writing are happy to have a stenographer who types our work accurately. If we discover that the stenographer is constantly making mistakes in her typing, and these mistakes are of so serious a nature that our work is actually obscured and marred thereby, we shall probably change stenographers. God, however, if the position which we are now considering is correct, cannot even do this. God is far more limited than are we mortals. We have the ability of hiring someone who will do our work for us as we desire it done; God, on the other hand, cannot even do that. When God would speak to mankind in writing, He cannot get His message across without having it cluttered up with irritating errors.

It is well to consider this question carefully. God, we are being told, had to use the means at His disposal. Those means were human beings. Therefore, when God revealed His Word, that Word, in passing through the media of human writers, acquired the characteristics of those writers, including their error, their ignorance, their crudities. Well may we exclaim at the poverty and weakness of such a God! If indeed man can thus thwart Him, it is pertinent to ask, Is He really worth knowing after all?

One thing, however, is clear. Such a God, limited as He is by the human agents through whom He gives His Word, is not the God of the Bible. He may very well serve as the god of modern theology, but he is not the Creator of heaven and earth, the one true eternal God. If it were really true — and thank God that it is not — that the Father in heaven were restricted in His power by man and were limited in His ability to reveal His Word, we could then be sure that at the best he was only a finite being like ourselves. He might be more powerful than we, yet, since we can clutter up His revelation with our error, even that assumption is questionable. Since He is limited by His creatures, such a God is no God at all.

Very different is the God of whom Scripture speaks. This God, whom the Christian worships as the Creator, is One who doeth according to His will, “and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Daniel 4:35b). This God, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, is One who can take up and bear `the writers of Scripture so that what they have written is exactly what He desired to have written. He is One who in His infinite power can use as His agents and instruments fallible human beings, who can bring into His employ all the gifts, talents, and characteristics of those human beings, and yet can cause them to pen His own Word, and keep that Word utterly separate and distinct from their own sinful nature and the consequent imperfections which are the result of that nature.

There is, however, another point which must be raised in this connection. Those who believe that there are errors in the Bible, as we have seen, seek to account for the presence of these supposed errors upon the assumption that their origin is to be attributed to the human writers. Since human authors are fallible, they reason, the Scripture itself must therefore partake of fallibility. If this is actually the case, it follows that not merely part of Scripture partakes of fallibility, but all. Whatever is the Word of God has passed through human instruments. Whatever passes through human instruments, so this argument runs, must therefore partake of fallibility. All Scripture has passed through human instrumentality; consequently, all Scripture has become fallible. There is no escape from this position. It will not do to say that fallibility has attached itself only to statements of historical and geographical fact. To do that would be to be guilty of gross inconsistency. Like a leach that cannot be removed, human fallibility attaches itself to all Scripture without exception. Whatever is the Word of God is also fallible; no part is free from error and imperfection.

It may very well be that this is not what modern writers believe but, be that as it may, it is the logical conclusion of their position, and it is well to note what that conclusion is. God grant that those who are so insistent that humanity must give to the Divine Word the character of fallibility would realize what is involved in their claim. They have not solved any difficulties; rather they have created incalculably difficult questions and problems.

An example will reveal how dire are the consequences of this position. When we are called to a home where death has come, how inadequate we are. At such a time how trite and unsatisfactory are mere words of ours! How the heart grieves at the thoughtlessness and cruelty of those who have nothing more to offer than mere banality and platitude. Cold and unthinking they are indeed! Can we on the other hand, offer anything of greater comfort? We turn to the pages of the Bible and read, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” (John 11:25,26). “Is that true?” asks the one in sorrow. “Is Jesus really the One who has taken my loved one to be with Him?” “Well,” we reply, “we believe that it is true. Of course, this Word of God, like everything else in the Bible is tinged with fallibility. Like the remainder of Scripture it also has imperfection and error.”

To speak in that vein would be mockery. It would offer no comfort to the soul who is in sorrow. Yet, how else could one answer? To the one in need there would be nothing better to say, since all Scripture is fallible. We could never be sure as to what it said about God, nor could we, for that matter, have any assurance that its prescriptions for our conduct upon this earth were free from error. Serious and tragic in the extreme are the consequences of adopting this modern error. We can only be thankful that its adherents are themselves inconsistent in their practice. For our part, we want nothing to do with a position which logically can lead to such results. Thank God that when it came through human agents His blessed Word was not coated with fallibility. Those agents did not control or circumscribe Him; they did not affect His Word, but rather, under His sovereign Spirit, were rendered the willing instruments to carry out what He wished accomplished.

Furthermore, if fallible human writers have given to us a Bible that is fallible, how are we ourselves, who most certainly are fallible, to detect in the Bible what is error and what is not? To this the answer is given that with the increase in knowledge, we can easily detect errors which the ancient writers made. They had crude ideas of geography and history, it is said, but we today have much greater knowledge. Where they went astray, we can furnish a check and correct their errors. To speak this way, however, is not to settle the issue at all. What about those parts of the Bible upon which we cannot check? How are we to discern what in those parts is error and what is not? How are we to separate the fallible from the inerrant?

To take an example, the Bible speaks of Palestine and Jerusalem. We may today travel to Palestine and Jerusalem, and thus we have a check. When the Bible mentioned these places, it was telling us the truth; such places do exist. The Bible also mentions certain customs of antiquity. Abraham, for example, took his concubine, Hagar, and from her a son was born. Archaeology has made it perfectly clear that this custom was as a matter of fact practiced in Abraham’s day. Well and good, but what about those parts of the Bible upon which we cannot check? How shall we evaluate the God of Scripture? How do we know whether we can separate the wheat from the chaff in the Biblical teaching about God? The answer is that we simply cannot do so. If all Scripture is fallible, then all that Scripture says about God is fallible, and we have no way of detecting what is and what is not in accord with fact. We ourselves are likely to err. How then can we judge the Scripture? Judge the Scripture we cannot; we are left in a hopeless scepticism. It will not do to say that modern knowledge has made it possible to separate the wheat and the chaff in the Bible. It has done nothing of the kind. We are ourselves like the authors of Scripture and the only thing that can help us in an infallible Word from God. Since, however, God cannot give us an infallible Word, there is nothing that we can do. Here is the Bible, shot full of error, and we must make the best of it. Disastrous indeed is this conclusion. Disastrous as it is, however, it is the end at which we are bound to arrive if we adopt the view which we are now seeking to answer.

The Authorship of Isaiah (Edward J Young)

I hope you don't mind my interrupting the series on "The Human Writers of the Scriptures" by E J Young just this once. I promise to post the remaining two parts in the near future. For this post, I like to share with you another article by E J Young on "The Authorship of Isaiah". At the turn of the 20th century some scholars were arguing for a division of the Book of Isaiah into Proto-Isaiah (Chs 1-39) and Deutero-Isaiah (Chs 40-66). When Young wrote this article in Themelios 4.3 (1967): 11-16, Deutero-Isaiah has already been divided by scholars into Deutero-Isaiah (Chs 40-55) and Trito-Isaiah (Chs 56-66). Scholars who believe that Isaiah comprise these three divisions also insist that these three parts were written by different authors and at different times. They concede that the prophet, Isaiah, wrote Proto-Isaiah around 700B.C. However, Deutero-Isaiah was written by an unknown author who lived in the Babylonian captivity around 540 B.C., and Trito-Isaiah was written by someone who ministered to the returned exiles around 539 B.C. In this article E J Young argues against this view of Isaiah and for the unity of Isaiah by one author, namely, the prophet Isaiah. It is important to note the dire implications, according to Young, for Bible-believing Christians if we should deny the unity of Isaiah and its single authorship.

_________________________

Who was the human author of the prophecy of Isaiah? This is one of the leading questions that confronts Old Testament scholarship today, but it is a question which many practically ignore, for they feel that there is no need to devote more attention to it than has already been devoted. Among modern scholars there seems to be rather general agreement that, whoever was responsible for the book in which we now have it, it was not the eighth century prophet Isaiah. On the other hand, the prophecy itself bears a heading which ascribes authorship to Isaiah, the New Testament clearly considers the book to be Isaiah’s work, and this has also been the traditional position of the Christian Church until the rise of unbelieving rationalism in the eighteenth century.

MODERN VIEWS OF AUTHORSHIP OF THE PROPHECY
That Isaiah was the author of the entire book which bears his name is, as we have just stated, the verdict of a unanimous tradition within the Christian Church until the latter part of the eighteenth century. Among the Jews, the tradition was also practically unanimous, there really being only two known exceptions, and neither of these was of much significance. The modern view really began to make its appearance when Koppe, who edited the German edition of Bishop Lowth’s commentary, suggested in a footnote to chapter 50 of the prophecy that this chapter might have been the work of Ezekiel or of someone else who lived at the time of the Babylonian exile. Soon it was maintained that the entirety of chapters 40-66 were written at the time of the exile. Were these chapters, however, the work of one man or of many? For a time there seemed to be no settled answer, but the strong voice of Gesenius, speaking early in the nineteenth century, came out in favor of the view that these chapters were the work of one man, and this view seemed to predominate among those who would not listen to the testimony of the Bible to itself.

This unknown author of chapters 40-66 was generally referred to as “Isaiah of Babylon”, or “Isaiah of the exile”, or “Deutero” or “Second” Isaiah. Critics spoke of him in glowing terms. He was the great exponent or really the discoverer of ethical monotheism, with whom no other prophet could be compared. In 1892, however, he toppled from his throne, for in that year Bernhard Duhm’s commentary on Isaiah appeared. Duhm held that only chapters 40-55 could be ascribed to “Second” Isaiah, and furthermore that “Second” Isaiah did not live in Babylonia, but in Palestine. Within the compass of chapters 40-55 were the four passages which Duhm labelled “Servant Songs”, the most prominent of which was the famous fifty- third chapter. These songs, according to Duhm, were taken from a collection of songs which was written about one hundred years after the time of the exile, and were later incorporated into the body of chapters 40-55.

As for chapters 56-66 Duhm asserted that these were the work of another man, whom he designated “Trito” Isaiah, who also, according to Duhm, lived in Palestine. To say that these were revolutionary ideas is to put it mildly. Duhm’s work soon began to have its influence, and soon it was carried to extremes, one writer even asserting that only a few verses of chapters 40-66 had anything to do with Babylonia. The principal point of division among scholars had to do with the question whether “Trito” Isaiah was an individual or whether a number of writers had written the material that comprises chapters 55-66. Today Duhm’s influence is still paramount, although, as a result of form-critical studies, there is more of a tendency to see genuine Isaianic influence throughout the prophecy. Isaiah, so it is asserted, had disciples who wrote in his spirit, and this accounts for the influence of Isaiah throughout the entirity of the prophecy. At any rate, whatever view of authorship is maintained, it is stoutly insisted that Isaiah himself was not the author of the entire prophecy.

WHAT SHALL WE BELIEVE?
It is perfectly clear that scholarship has been unable to come to a satisfactory position with respect to the question of authorship. In fact, all too often it is simply assumed without any argument whatever that the author of chapters 40-66 must have lived in the times of the exile or later. In modern writings little serious heed is paid to the claims for Isaianic authorship of the book. What then should our position be as Christians? In order to answer this question we must note what is really involved in the question of Isaianic authorship and why it is so important that we hold to the correct position. To state it succinctly, what is involved is simply the authority of the New Testament. It is perfectly clear that the New Testament attributes the authorship of the entire prophecy to the eighth century Isaiah. It is furthermore clear that the New Testament intends (despite what is often said today) to attribute authorship to Isaiah. The New Testament speaks not so much of the prophecy of Isaiah (although it does so speak) as of the individual man himself. Hence, we have phrases such as, “Well did the Holy Spirit speak through Isaiah ... “ or, “Isaiah becomes bold and says.” If one will examine the usage which the New Testament makes of the prophecy he will soon see that the New Testament very definitely does intend to attribute authorship to Isaiah. Now if the New Testament is mistaken at this point, how do we know that it is not mistaken at other points? This is the question at stake: can we rely upon the New Testament or not?

When we turn to the infallible witness of the New Testament we note that it uses the prophecy of Isaiah more than all the other prophecies of the Old Testament combined. One passage in particular calls for our attention. In John 12 :38 we have a quotation of Isaiah 53:1 which is designated as “the saying of Isaiah the prophet ... which he spoke.” This passage, taken from what the “critics” generally designate “second” or “deutero” Isaiah and which, according to Duhm, is part of an old song about a leprous rabbi, is by the New Testament attributed to Isaiah the prophet and interpreted as referring to the unbelief of the Pharisees. In verses 39 and 40 there is a quotation from Isaiah 6 which the “critics” are willing (in as much as it relates his call in the first person) to attribute to Isaiah himself. Here reference is made to the prophet with the words, “Isaiah said again.” This passage, taken from the critics’ first Isaiah is used by the inspired writer of the Gospel to prove the truthfulness of a quotation from the ‘critics’ “second” Isaiah. Finally, as though to anticipate the modern emphasis upon the “Sitz im Leben” of the prophecies, John goes on to say, “These things (i.e., the truth of verses 38 and 40) said Isaiah, when he saw his (i.e., Christ’s) glory, and spoke of him” (verse 41). Thus, in this particular quotation both parts of the prophecy are tied together and both are attributed to the eighth century Isaiah. In as much as the New Testament is the Word of God, the question is settled. God has spoken, and we have but to follow His Word, irrespective of what the latest “critical” theories may be.

In a brief article of this nature it will not be possible to note all of the New Testament quotations, but the reader will find it profitable at least to consult the following: Matthew 3:3; 8:17; 12:17; 13: 14; 15:7; Mark 7:6; Luke 3:4; 4:17; John 1 :23; Acts 8 :28, 30, 32, 33; 28 :25; Romans 9:27, 29; 10:16, 20. (cf. my Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 199-222 for further discussion.)

SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
That the New Testament attributes Isaianic authorship to the prophecy can scarcely be questioned by serious scholarship. For the believer in the authority of Scripture, such inspired testimony is sufficient. We may note, however, that there is an abundance of evidence, both external and internal, which, as we might very well suspect, supports the testimony of the New Testament.

Let us note then that the heading of the prophecy attributes the work to Isaiah (for a discussion of the heading cf. my The Prophecy of Isaiah, Vol. I pp. 27-33) and that no other name has ever been attached to the prophecy as the author. Those who deny the Isaianic authorship of the entire prophecy must explain how Isaiah’s name came to be attached to the prophecy, and this they have not been able satisfactorily to do.

In support of the ascription of the heading we have the evidence of tradition. As early as the second century B.C. we have the witness of the book of Ecclesiasticus who definitely believed in Isaianic authorship. Indeed, the manner in which he employed the book shows that in his day the tradition of Isaianic authorship had been long established. This is supported by the great manuscript from cave No. 1 at Qumran which comes from the second century B. C. It is most interesting to note that between chapters 39 and 40 there is no particular break. Chapter 39 concludes one line from the bottom of the column, leaving space for a few letters at the end of the line. Chapter 40 begins on the last line of the column with no indentation whatever. Nor is there any change in the copyist. It thus appears that there was no intention to make a break at this point. Here then is further evidence of the antiquity of the tradition, and from the scroll it would appear that this tradition had long been in existence. We are probably on safe ground if we assert that the tradition of Isaianic authorship goes back at least to the third century B. C.

This poses some problems for those who refuse to accept the witness of the New Testament. If the so-called “second” Isaiah was such a great prophet, how is it that all trace of him has disappeared, and that his work was attached to the writing of “first” Isaiah who in the eyes of the “critics” was by no means as great as “second” Isaiah? When one begins to contemplate this problem seriously he realizes how difficult it is of solution. Indeed, there is no solution, and it is understandable that scholars have been so quiet about it. From Isaiah 40-55 it is impossible to learn anything about the supposed “second” Isaiah whom the “critics” think was the author of these chapters. All trace of him, who he was, where he lived, what he did - all has been lost. Yet, we are told that he was the greatest of the prophets. Is it asking too much that those who refuse to believe the Word of God should give us an explanation of how chapters 40-55 came to find the place in the prophecy that they now occupy? What happened to the memory of this great prophet that his works were attached to those of the eighth century Isaiah?

THE MESSAGE OF ISAIAH
One of the strongest of the secondary arguments in defense of the Isaianic authorship is found in the progress of the message of the prophecy. Chapter one serves as an introduction in which the principal themes, later to be developed, are given in germ form. In chapters two through five the prophet brings in the two great themes with which he will later deal in more detail, namely, the salvation to come and the judgment. After presenting an account of his prophetic call, he points out, in what may be labelled a Messianic cluster of prophecies, that the hope of the nation lies not in trust in any human king, but in the Messiah.

The work then groups itself about two main historical periods, that of Ahaz and that of Hezekiah. Step by step, however, it prepares itself for the threat of exile to Babylon (chapter 39) and so paves the way for the messages of comfort found in the last twenty-seven chapters. The importance of this preparation is often overlooked or ignored. If chapters 40-66 be severed from what precedes, it is practically impossible to explain them. On the other hand, chapters 1-39 are then left incomplete; it is obvious that they prepare for something, but for what? Without 40-66 we are left without an answer. The “comfort ye” of chapter 40 depends upon the threat found in chapter 39, and 39 clearly prepares for 40. Divorce the two, and the “comfort ye” of 40 raises some insoluble questions. Furthermore, in 1-39 there is stress upon the Person of the Deliverer. It was necessary that this be so, for during the days of Ahaz there was a desire to forget the promises of God and to turn to a human deliverer. Isaiah points the nation to the promises and declares that a Child will be born who will deliver His people and who will reign eternally.

Who is this Child and what is His work? Isaiah makes abundantly clear who He is, but it is in the second portion of the prophecy that he stresses the nature of His work. The One described in chapter 53, despite all that “critics” say to the contrary, is the One presented in chapters 7 and 9. Were we left only with 1-39 we would not know the identity of the Redeemer. We need both parts of the prophecy, and the “critical” partition simply destroys what is a beautiful unity and harmony.

In this connection it is well to notice the importance and the significance of chapters 36-39 in the prophecy. These chapters serve as a connecting bridge or link between 1-35 on the one hand and 40-66 on the other. In chapters 36-37 we have the account of the invasion of Sennacherib and this points back to the time of Assyria which underlay for the most part the messages of the first thirty-five chapters. Chapters 38-39 on the other hand tell of the coming of the Babylonian envoys and contain a prediction of captivity to Babylon and thus point forward to the Babylonian period which underlies much of what we have in 40-66. These four chapters occur with some variations in II Kings, but it is obvious, as I have sought to show in detailed fashion in my commentary, The Prophecy of Isaiah, Vol. II, that the original of the chapters is found not in Kings but in Isaiah. This is a strong argument in defense of the unity of the book.

Another point that is often overlooked is that there are reflections, in one way or another, in later prophecies upon the contents of Isaiah 40-66. Jeremiah in particular employed the earlier prophecies, probably far more than any other prophet. If Jeremiah used material found in Isaiah 40-66, Isaiah 40-66 must have been earlier than Jeremiah, and such indeed is the case. What do the critics say about this? Insofar as they pay any attention at all to this consideration they insist that the borrowing is on the part of 40-66. This of course, would be to make mince meat of the Old Testament prophecies, for it would place 40-66 at a very late date and make the author of these chapters dependent upon Jeremiah and the other prophecies. A careful examination of the prophecies in question, however, shows that the dependency was not upon the part of the author of Isaiah 40-66 but the other way round, upon Jeremiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, etc. Those who are interested in working this out for themselves may consult my article, “Isaiah 34 And Its Position in the Prophecy” (The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. XXVII, May 1965, No. 2, pp. 93-114).

In this connection we may note that throughout the entire prophecy there is an almost uncanny similarity in the usage of words and combinations of words. As is well known, the phrase, The Holy One of Israel occurs in both sections of the prophecy. It reflects upon Isaiah’s call to the ministry and is a characteristic expression of his book. Rare words, such as caprice or thorn bush appear in both parts of the prophecy but apparently nowhere else in the Old Testalnent. This is true of many other words and phrase and peculiar combinations of words. Those who are interested in pursuing this matter further should read the valuable work of Rachel Margalioth: The Indivisible Isaiah. The material presented in this volume is unanswerable. It is perfectly obvious that the author of 40-66 was also the author of 1-39.

WHY NOT BELIEVE IN ISAIANIC AUTHORSHIP?
If then the arguments for Isaianic authorship are so strong, why do they not command universal assent? Why, particularly in popular works such as Sunday School manuals, are we still subjected to phrases such as “Second” Isaiah, or “Isaiah of the exile”? In part, the answer to this question may be that many have never taken the trouble to familiarize themselves with the arguments for Isaianic authorship. Bible believing scholars make it a point to try to read on both sides of the question, but there are not many “critical” scholars who are willing to do the same thing. The biblical position is often dismissed as obscurantist, or fundamentalistic or the theology of repristination or the like.

There are of course some positive arguments adduced for rejection of Isaianic authorship, and they are the following. It is asserted, and rightly, that the name of Isaiah is not found in chapters 40-66. This, of course, is true, but for that matter, neither is the name of anyone else as author appended to these chapters. Certainly they do not bear the heading “Second Isaiah”. And whereas, if these chapters are from Isaiah, there is much in the argument and in the style and in the theology which shows that they come from the same hand as the author of 1-39, if however, these chapters are from some “second” Isaiah of the exile, there is nothing in them to support that fact. This theory of a “second” Isaiah must first be imposed upon the chapters, and then they must be made to fit that theory, and anyone who has studied carefully the vast literature on the subject knows that such is the case. Hence, the fact that the name of Isaiah is missing from these chapters in itself proves nothing as to authorship.

Secondly, it is maintained that the style of the chapters 40-66 is so different from that of 1-39 that they cannot possibly both come from the same writer. We have already made some brief comments on style and vocabulary. Suffice it to say that if there is a difference of style, and to a certain extent there is, this is precisely what we should expect upon the basis of Isaianic authorship. In part the change in style is due to the subject matter. There is however, a consideration more important than that. It would seem that chapters 40-66 came from late in the reign of Hezekiah, in the latter part of the prophet’s life. It is questionable whether these chapters were ever uttered orally. Rather, the Holy Spirit superintended the aged prophet as he wrote out these chapters, dealing with the greatest of all themes, the glory of the sovereign God and His sovereignty in the salvation of His people. The fact that these chapters were written and not delivered orally would to a great extent account for any changes of style. We must also note that as a man grows and matures, his style of writing will change and improve. Are we to expect the aged Isaiah to write in just that style which he might have employed when the Lord first called him into the work of prophecy? Lastly, although there is a difference of style to a certain extent, we have noted throughout the prophecy that certain words and combinations of words, found nowhere else in the Old Testament, characterize this work. The argument from style does not disprove Isaianic authorship.

Lastly, it is claimed that these chapters (i.e. 40-66) have a Babylonian background, and in particular the mention of Cyrus shows that Isaiah cannot have been the author. It is true that in a certain sense there is reflection upon the exile, but Babylon is mentioned more in chapters 1-39 than in 40-66. As to the prophecy of Cyrus, who lived many years after the eighth century Isaiah, we would simply say that God is the God of prophecy and history. Why could He not have revealed to Isaiah the name of Cyrus just as He revealed to the man of God the name of Josiah (I Kings 13 :2), some three hundred years before Josiah’s birth?

In connection with the prophecy concerning Cyrus, we may note that it presents Cyrus as one to come in the far distant future. Cyrus is clearly not a contemporary of the prophet. If the prophecy were written by one living at the time of Cyrus, it would seem that he gave a wrong and untrue impression in making it appear that Cyrus would not appear upon the scene of history for a long time to come. On the other hand, if the prophet were Isaiah, this is just what we should expect.

In what we have written we have sought to show some of the reasons why we are compelled to believe that the New Testament is correct in ascribing authorship to Isaiah. If the prophecy is his work, we have before us a well developed argument of a most magnificent kind, the like of which the world has never seen. If it is not from Isaiah, we have a collection of fragments about which we really know very little and whose meaning is lost to us. God’s Word tells us that Isaiah saw Christ’s day and spoke of Him. Does any mere man have knowledge sufficient to deny the truthfulness of that statement?

The Human Writers of the Old Testament, Part 1 (E.J.Young)

Dr. Edward J. Young is considered one of the ablest conservative scholars in the field of Old Testament. He served for many years as Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. At a time when the historical-critical method to the study of the Bible was gaining ground, Young (like Warfield) stood firm on the divine inspiration of Scripture and its full inerrancy. In all his works, this fundamental position is assumed. Thus, his works provide evangelicals with a solid example of how a full-scale commitment to divine inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture may engage the more critical theories of his day, and needless to say, in ours as well.

I was greatly helped by his treatment on the subject of inspiration as a young Christian. His Thy Word is Truth (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1963), together with the writings of B B Warfield on the same subject, provided me with a firm foundation for all these years of ministry. Whenever I run into difficulty with a commentary which may advocate an unreasonable dependence on the critical theories, Young and Warfield have invariably come to my assistance. Since in the last post we had Warfield on the subject, I thought it appropriate to include Young's contribution here. This is the first of three posts.

_________________

There is one very important factor in the doctrine of inspiration which hitherto has been mentioned only in cursory fashion. That is the human side of the Scriptures. Peter stated expressly that “holy men who were borne along of the Holy Ghost spake.” We have said little about these holy men whom God used in the composition of the Bible. We have simply sought to make it clear, since they themselves also emphasize this fact, that the Scriptures are from God. It is, we have contended, necessary to recognize the Divine origin of the Bible, and the implications of such recognition.

It is likewise necessary and important to do full justice to what the Bible has to say about its human side. This is today the more important because of the constant misrepresentations of this aspect of the doctrine. We are told, for example, that the human writers were mere pen holders whose hands moved under the direction of the Spirit. The historic doctrine is quite frequently parodied as being “static.” The writers wrote as mere automata, so the parody runs, having received what was dictated to them and then placed it in writing. When modern authors proclaim, “We want no mechanical theory of inspiration,” they give one the impression that they believe they are refuting an actual error. As a matter of fact, however, the idea of mechanical dictation is nothing more than a straw man. Recent conservative writers on the subject of inspiration have sought to do justice to the human side of Scripture; they have been far from advocating a mechanical dictation theory.

What shall we say about this word dictation in regard to the doctrine of inspiration? It was a word that Calvin, to take one example, did not hesitate to employ. “Whoever, then,” he says, “wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him, first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit.” [2 Timothy 3:16, translated by William Pringle.]

In speaking in such a vein, Calvin is simply following the thought of the Bible itself. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, did not hesitate to say, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Corinthians 2:13). If we were to attempt to bring out more clearly the precise force of the Apostle’s language, we might render, “in words taught of the Spirit.” Paul is saying as patently as he can that the words which he is employing are those which the Spirit has taught him, and this is precisely what Calvin also maintains.

At the same time, although the term dictation in itself is not objectionable and expresses forcefully the Divine origin of the words of the Bible, it is perhaps unwise to use the word today without some qualification. A new connotation has come upon the term which it obviously did not have in the day of Calvin. When we speak of dictation, there immediately comes to mind the thought of the businessman dictating a letter to his stenographer, or the teacher dictating an exercise to her pupils. In both these instances it does not make too great a difference who takes down the dictation. One stenographer can probably do it as well as another, and if one is not available, another can easily be obtained. Likewise, when the teacher dictates a passage to her class, the important thing is that the pupils take down precisely what has been dictated, and do not add to it or subtract from it. The person of the stenographer or of the pupil is in reality a comparatively negligible factor. Such, however, is not the situation with respect to the human writers of the Bible. True enough, the words which they employed were taught them by the Holy Spirit, but it is not the case that it makes no difference who wrote those words. It is not true that Peter might just as well have written the Pauline epistles as the great Apostle himself. It would serve the interests of clarity, therefore, if, in the discussion of this doctrine, we lay stress upon the fact that although the Bible teaches that its very words are from God, it most emphatically does not teach a mechanical dictation view of inspiration.

Men like Turretine, Calvin and others who have written on this subject have been as eager to do justice to the human side of the Bible as have some of the modern rejectors of the Biblical doctrine. It is a sad thing that scholarly men of our day constantly erect a straw man and seek to attack it instead of coming to grips with the Scriptural teaching itself. Those who believe the Bible and who wish to do justice to its teaching are as concerned as anyone to refute the notion that inspiration was a mechanical kind of dictation, that the human writers were mere automata whose personalities were entirely suspended in the writing of the books of the Bible.

Let us then proceed to notice in more detail the emphasis which the Bible places upon these human writers. “How then,” we read, “doth David in spirit call him Lord?” (Matthew 22:43). It is David who calls the Messiah Lord. And there are particular conditions under which he does this. It is while he is in the Spirit that he so speaks. The implication is that there are also times when David is not in the Spirit, when, in other words, he is not inspired. When David spoke of the Messiah as Lord, however, he did so being in the Spirit. David, therefore, is the human author of the utterance; it is his, and it is as a conscious responsible human being that he speaks. At the same time, the conditions under which the Psalmist spoke were not the normal conditions of everyday life; he spoke not as a normal man, but rather under peculiar circumstances; David was in the Spirit.

Of particular interest is the statement, “For David himself said by the Holy Ghost” (Mark 12:36). Very strong is the emphasis that it was the man David who spoke. This emphasis receives additional confirmation and strength from the passage, “And David himself saith in the book of Psalms” (Luke 20:42). Of unusual relevancy is this verse because it attributes the authorship of certain words to the man David. In the place of saying that it was in the Spirit that he spoke, it substitutes the phrase “in the book of Psalms.”

In the words addressed to God “who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage and the people imagine vain things?” a passage from the second Psalm is attributed to David. It is God who uttered these words; they find their origin in Him; they are His; He, and He alone, is their author. Nevertheless, He spoke them by the mouth of His servant David. David spoke, but God spoke through him. Similar is the statement to the effect that the Lord received the name Jesus in fulfillment of the words which were “spoken of the Lord by the prophet” (Matthew 1:22). The tender and mysterious prophecy of the Virgin was of Divine origin, but God spoke it through the mouth of the prophet.

In referring to the passage about the burning bush which He says is in the “book of Moses,” Christ quotes, “God spake unto him, saying . . .” (Mark 12:26). The words are regarded by Christ as those which God Himself has spoken, but they are to be found in a book written by the man Moses. In another place, however, no reference is made to the human author other than the question “have ye not read?” which implies that the words uttered by God are nevertheless to be found in a book where they can be read (cf. Matthew 22:32). In a similar type of statement the Apostle Paul makes reference to the Old Testament, “Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying . . .” (Acts 28:25, 26a). Paul would here make it clear that the Holy Spirit spoke, yet at the same time it was through the mouth of the individual Isaiah that He gave His utterance. The prophet was the human author of the message, yet the one who was speaking through Isaiah was none other than the Spirit of God Himself.

A careful consideration of the above passages should make it clear that God, in revealing His Word, spoke through the instrumentality of men. In the first place, they were holy men; men who knew and loved their God. This does not mean at all that they were not sinful men; they were sinful, sometimes great sinners. David, for example, had committed sins which few, if any, men would forgive, but David, nevertheless, was one through whom the Spirit spoke. The writers of the Bible were indeed sinners, but they were men who, despite their sins, loved God and were used of Him in the composition of Scripture.

It would be most unjust to the data of Scripture to maintain that God merely looked about to see if here and there He could find a man through whom He might speak to the world. There is nothing in the Bible to support or to sustain this idea; in fact, everything teaches the very opposite. Did it matter, we may ask, through whom the Divine message was spoken? According to the Bible it mattered very greatly. In the first verse of Amos’ rugged prophecy we read, “The words of Amos . . . which he saw.” Only nine short chapters, yet from them we learn something of the man who wrote them. How different they are from the quiet tenderness of Hosea! How unsuited was Amos to have undergone the sad experiences of a Hosea! At the same time, different as each was from the other, each was clearly conscious of speaking forth the words of God.

The same is true when we turn to the pages of the New Testament. Do not the human writers of the New Testament also differ greatly one from another? It would seem that God had chosen specific men to write specific portions of His Word. And such was indeed the case. Not only, however, did the Lord select certain men to write certain portions of His Word but, more than that, they were used as real men. Their personalities were not held in abeyance; their talents were not obscured; they were not somehow placed in a state of suspended animation. Rather, God used them as they were. All their gifts of training and native talent God called into play.

The matter may be very clearly illustrated by the case of the Apostle Paul. God very obviously did not look about to discover if there were somewhere on the face of the earth a man who might be used in the composition of those writings which we now call the Pauline Epistles. There was only one man that could have written those Epistles, and that man was the Apostle himself. The Apostle, however, required training and preparation before he could commit to writing the glorious epistles which now bear his name. His very birth and upbringing in the city of Tarsus were of importance. The instruction which he received at the feet of Gamaliel and his indoctrination into the tenets of the Pharisees served as a background which stood him in good stead throughout the remainder of his life. Not the least of his talents was his ability to use the Greek language both in speaking and preaching. After his conversion he spent three years in Arabia, years, we may well suppose, in which he engaged in study and meditation.

Did all this, however, occur simply through chance? Not at all; it was God who was at work in the events of Paul’s life, shaping him so that he would be precisely the man whom God wanted and whom He needed to write the great epistles. It was a providential preparation; a schooling and training conducted at the hands of God Himself through the ordinary course of His providential working.

Similar was the case with Moses. Here again we note the long years of preparation. In childhood and youth Moses learned of the afflictions of his people in Egypt. He knew well the Egyptian mind, and how to deal with the taskmaster. Then came the period of training in the desert, where, in the stillness of the wasteland, he might mediate and reflect. Thus, through this time, followed by his own participation in the events of the Exodus, Moses came to the place where he was prepared for the task of writing the first five books of the Bible. It is clear that these books represent a unified plan and that they are the work of a great mind. Only a mind such as that of Moses could have composed them. And for this work of writing, Moses, in the providence of God, had been prepared and equipped. How graciously did the Lord deal with His recalcitrant and stubborn servant! How wondrously He led the man on, step by step, until Moses was ready to write.

Very wondrous was God’s providential preparation and equipment of those men whom He had appointed to be the human instruments in the writing of the Scripture. Thus He prepared and raised up an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, a John, and a Paul. His work of providence and His special work of inspiration should be regarded as complementing one another. Those through whom the Spirit desired to give the Scriptures were individuals who had been equipped for the task in the providence of God. When, therefore, the Spirit bore a holy man of old (2 Peter 1:21) it was not any man who happened to be on the scene, but rather, just that holy man whom God, through years of training, had prepared to speak and to write precisely that portion of the Scripture which He desired to have him write.

The Divine and the Human in the Bible (B B Warfield)

Over the past year and a half, I have taught the doctrine of Scripture to four separate groups of students in differing situations and from varying backgrounds and embracing a wide age-range (from the early 20s to the mid-60s). Not once have I been given the opportunity to pass over (cursorily) the issue of the relationship between the divine and human elements in the Scripture. This relation seems to me to be an enduring issue, just as it is with the relation between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man (another topic that I am not “permitted” to pass over in my doctrine of God lectures). While attempts have been made, for example, by Jonathan Edwards (using the distinction between moral necessity and moral inability on the one hand, and natural necessity and natural inability on the other) and J I Packer (using the concept of “antinomy” or “unresolved tension” between two seemingly contradictory truths), I have often felt it wise to explain that while we may not understand fully “how” this can be true at the same time, the important thing is to guard both truths without compromise. For if we do not guard them, then, we will fall into error! In this respect, B B Warfield has helpfully provided an article that echoes my concern, and I share it here in the hope that it will be o some benefit to those of us who wish to understand the importance of maintaining both the human and divine elements in the Scripture. This article is taken from Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, Volume 1, edited by John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970). It was first published in the Presbyterian Journal, May 3, 1894.

__________________

There is probably no problem more prominently before the minds of Bible students of today than the one which concerns the relation between the divine and human elements in the Bible. Recent discussion of the authenticity, authorship, integrity, structure of the several Biblical books, has called men’s attention, as possibly it has never before been called, to the human element in the Bible. Even those who were accustomed to look upon their Bible as simply divine, never once thinking of the human agents through whom the divine Spirit spoke, have had their eyes opened to the fact that the Scriptures are human writings, written by men, and bearing the traces of their human origin on their very face. In many minds the questions have become quite pressing: How are the two factors, the divine and the human, to be conceived as related to each other in the act of inspiration? And, how are the two consequent elements in the product, the divine and human, to be conceived to be related to each other in the Scriptures?

It would be a mistake to suppose such questions as these of little practical importance. It is true enough that Christian men are more concerned with the effects of inspiration than with its nature or mode. But men will not rest in their belief in effects which are not congruous with their conception of the nature and mode of inspiration. Inadequate or positively false conceptions of the nature and mode of inspiration are being continually suggested, and wherever they are in any degree accepted, they bring forth their natural fruit in a modified view of the effects of inspiration. Men are continually striving to be rid of the effects which are ascribed to inspiration in the Scriptures and the formularies of the Church, on the plea that inspiration is not to be so conceived as to require these effects. The question of how inspiration is to be conceived having been thus raised, it becomes of very serious importance to go at least so far into it as to exhibit the untenableness of those theories which, when accepted, wholly overthrow the Biblical conception of the effects of inspiration. It is a matter, then, of importance, and not merely of curious interest, to ask, how are the two factors, the divine and human, to be conceived to be related to each other in the act of inspiration? And how are the two consequent elements in the Bible, the divine and human, to be conceived to be related to each other in the product of inspiration?

In the first place, we may be sure that they are not properly conceived when one factor or element is so exaggeratingly emphasized as to exclude the other altogether.

At one time there arose in the Church, under the impulse of zeal to assert and safeguard the divinity of Scripture, a tendency toward so emphasizing the divine element as to exclude the human. The human writers of Scripture were conceived as mere implements in the hands of the Holy Ghost, by which (rather than through whom) he wrote the Scriptures. Men were not content to call the human authors of Scripture merely the penmen, the amanuenses of the Holy Spirit, but represented them as simply his pens. Inspiration, in this view, was conceived as a simple act of dictation; and it was denied that the human writers contributed any quality to the product, unless, indeed, it might be their hand-writing. This, properly so-called, mechanical theory of inspiration was taught by a number of seventeenth century divines, in all Protestant communions alike – by Quenstedt, Calov, Hollaz, among the Lutherans; by Heidegger and Buxtorf, among the Reformed; by Richard Hooker, among the Anglicans; and by John White among the Puritans. The obvious marks of human authorship in the Biblical books, however, prevented it from becoming dominant, in its extreme form. Recognition of these marks of human authorship – as for example, differences in vocabulary, style, and the like – was recognition of a human element in the Bible; and involved so far the substitution of a theory of co-authorship by God and man for the Scriptures, in the place of the strict theory of the sole divine authorship. In this form alone has the theory of dictation persisted in the Church; and in this form it no longer belongs to the class of theories under discussion. Probably no one today so emphasizes the divine element in Scripture as to exclude the human altogether.

The opposite fault, however, is exceedingly common today. Nothing, indeed, is more common than such theories of the origin and nature of the Scriptures as exclude the divine factor and element altogether, and make them purely human in both origin and character. Historically, this mode of thought is an outgrowth of Rationalism; but it takes every form which is required by a change of philosophical basis. A Hegelian, like Dr. Whiton, adapts himself to it as readily as a Deist; a mystic like R. H. Horton as readily as a vulgar Rationalist. The modes of statement given to it are very various, but they all agree in holding the Bible to be a purely human book. They differ only as to whether there has been any divine preparation for the book at all, or if this be allowed, whether this divine preparation included a revelation which men have recorded in this book, or whether it was only gracious or indeed only providential. The book market is flooded at present with treatises teaching this hopelessly one-sided theory. Dr. Washington Gladden’s Who Wrote the Bible? is a very crude instance in point. To him God had the same sort of care over the production of the Bible that he has over the growth of an old apple tree. Dr. John DeWitt’s recent book on What is Inspiration? is another crude instance. According to him the prophet was left to express himself in human language “as well as he could.” A slightly higher conception is taken by T. George Rooke in his Inspiration and Other Lectures; and a higher one still by a recent German writer, Leonard Staehlin, who thinks that God specifically prepared the Biblical writers for their task, but left them, when prepared, to execute their task in a manner so “free” as to be without continued divine guidance. Throughout all these modifications the germinal conception persists that it was man and man alone who made the Bible; and that it is, therefore, a purely human book, although it may contain a human report of divine deeds and words.

We may be equally sure that the relation of the divine and human in inspiration and in the Bible are not properly conceived when they are thought of, as elements in the Bible, as lying over against each other, dividing the Bible between them; or, as factors in inspiration, as striving against and excluding each other, so that where one enters the other is pushed out.

This hopelessly crude conception seems to have become extraordinarily common of recent years. It is this point of view which underlies the remark, now heard very frequently, that the human element in the Bible is coming to be recognized as larger than we had supposed – with the implication that, therefore, the divine element must be acknowledged to be smaller than we had supposed. Even so thoughtful a writer as Dr. Sanday falls into this mode of speech: “The tendency of the last 50 or 100 years of investigation,” he tells us, “is to make it appear that this human element is larger than had been supposed.”1 So, too, Prof. Kirkpatrick says: “In the origin of Scripture there has been a large human element, larger than there was at one time supposed.”2 The underlying conception is that what is human cannot also be divine, and that wherever the human enters there the divine disappears. Thus Dr. Sanday speaks of his thesis as an apparent contention “for an encroachment of the human element upon the divine,” and Dr. G. T. Ladd even speaks of the chief difficulty in the matter being the determination of “the exact place where the divine meets the human and is limited by it.”3

On such a conception it is easy to see that every discovery of a human trait in Scripture is a disproving of the divinity of Scripture. If, then, it be discovered that the whole fabric of the Bible is human – as assuredly is true – men who start with this conception in mind must end with denying of the whole fabric of the Bible that it is divine. As a preliminary stage we shall expect to meet with efforts to go through the Bible and anxiously to separate the divine and human elements. And if these elements are really so related to one another that when one enters the other is pushed out, this task will not seem a hopeless one. We may be warned, as Dr. Sanday does warn us, that it is “a mistake to attempt to draw a hard and fast line between the two elements.” Men will feel that on this conception of their relation to each other, it is a greater mistake not to make such an attempt. How shall we consent to leave confused such very diverse elements? We need not be surprised, therefore, that men like Horton and Gess have made the attempt. Nor need we at least, who perceive the folly of the underlying conception of the mechanical relation of the two elements to each other, feel surprised over the destructive nature of their results. They do not fail to find the human element entering almost everywhere, and therefore the divine element almost nowhere.

Justice is done to neither factor of inspiration and to neither element in the Bible, the human or the divine, by any other conception of the mode of inspiration except that of concursus, or by any other conception of the Bible except that which conceives of it as a divine-human book, in which every word is at once divine and human.

The philosophical basis of this conception is the Christian idea of God as immanent as well as transcendent in the modes of his activity. Its idea of the mode of the divine activity in inspiration is in analogy with the divine modes of activity in other spheres – in providence, and in grace wherein we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who is working in us both the willing and the doing according to his own good pleasure. The Biblical basis of it is found in the constant Scriptural representation of the divine and human co-authorship of the Biblical commandments and enunciations of truth; as well as in the constant Scriptural ascription of Bible passages to both the divine and the human authors, and in the constant Scriptural recognition of Scripture as both divine and human in quality and. character.

The fundamental principle of this conception is that the whole of Scripture is the product of divine activities which enter it, however, not by superseding the activities of the human authors, but confluently with them; so that the Scriptures are the joint product of divine and human activities, both of which penetrate them at every point, working harmoniously together to the production of a writing which is not divine here and human there, but at once divine and human in every part, every word and every particular. According to this conception, therefore, the whole Bible is recognized as human, the free product of human effort, in every part and word. And at the same time, the whole Bible is recognized as divine, the Word of God, his utterances, of which he is in the truest sense the Author.

The human and divine factors in inspiration are conceived of as flowing confluently and harmoniously to the production of a common product. And the two elements are conceived of in the Scriptures as the inseparable constituents of one single and uncompounded product. Of every word of Scripture is it to be affirmed, in turn, that it is God’s word and that it is man’s word. All the qualities of divinity and of humanity are to be sought and may be found in every portion and element of the Scripture. While, on the other hand, no quality inconsistent with either divinity or humanity can be found in any portion or element of Scripture.

On this conception, therefore, for the first time full justice is done to both elements of Scripture. Neither is denied because the other is recognized. And neither is limited to certain portions of Scripture that place may be made for the other, nor is either allowed to encroach upon the other. As full justice is done to the human element as is done by those who deny that there is any divine element in the Bible; for of every word in the Bible, it is asserted that it has been conceived in a human mind and written by a human hand. As full justice is done to the divine element as is done by those who deny that there is any human element in the Bible; for of every word in the Bible it is asserted that it is inspired by God, and has been written under the direct and immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit. And full justice being done to both elements in the Bible, full justice is done also to human needs. “The Bible,” says Dr. Westcott, “is authoritative, for it is the Word of God; it is intelligible, for it is the word of man.” Because it is the word of man in every part and element, it comes home to our hearts. Because it is the word of God in every part and element, it is our constant law and guide.

__________

1 The Oracles of God, p. 161.
2 The Divine Library of the Old Testament, p. 53.
3 What Is the Bible? p.437.