MODIFYING STATEMENTS AND FACTS.

We have thus far followed the statements of the Now Testament in a direct line of evidence, without paying attention to some which might have modified our view of particular passages, or led us to different conclusions. Some of the latter statements, while they may not materially change our conclusions, may broaden our view of the subject; and there are a few which have been thought to contradict some of the conclusions which we have reached. To the former class we now direct attention, and the latter we reserve for consideration in a separate chapter.

Among the most conspicuous of these modifying facts is one observed by all intelligent readers, that every writer has his own peculiar style, the result of his education and his mental endowments. In this respect the New Testament writers do not differ from writers without inspiration. They not only have their distinctive styles, but, being all Jews but one, they employ Hebraistic forms and idioms in writing Greek, just as modern Germans often employ German idioms in writing English. This shows plainly that the Holy Spirit did not to any perceptible degree change their natural modes of expression. It shows that the promise, "It shall not be ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you," did not contemplate mental inactivity on their part; and that Paul's statement, "Which things we speak not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth," does not mean that the Holy Spirit gave them a new vocabulary or imparted to them a new style. It chose, on the contrary, by leaving each to his own style to secure in the inspired books that variety of style which makes them at once more pleasing to the reader and more effective of good. That there was wisdom in this, no one will perhaps deny.

Not only is the natural style and diction of every writer apparently preserved in the sacred books, but we also observe in many of them, especially in the Epistles, the natural play of the feelings of the writer. True, the synoptical Gospels are wondrously free from everything of this kind, the personality of the writers being out of sight, and the Gospel of John and the book of Acts are almost as much so; but in the Epistles of Paul one can trace all the currents of his deep flow of feeling, and almost feel the beating of his heart. To such an extent is this true that of all the writers of the whole Bible Paul is the best known in his inward experiences. This shows that if in any instance the Holy Spirit restrained the inspired men in regard to the expression of their feelings concerning the things of which they wrote, in many instances there was no such restraint. The feelings thus expressed were of course all human feelings, and they must therefore be regarded as a human element in the inspired books. The Holy Spirit allowed them a place in the record for the evident purpose of enabling the reader to know how the writers felt under the circumstances. That this was wise is clearly demonstrated by the power for good with which these intense exhibitions of feeling affect the souls of thoughtful readers. Without them the Bible would have been a comparatively cold and powerless book. That this is in harmony with the promises of Jesus, and the declarations of the Apostles which we have cited in the preceding chapter, is obvious.

The quotations which the New Testament writers make from the Old Testament furnish a series of facts which still further illustrate the manner in which the Holy Spirit exercised his guidance over the minds of the inspired men. In making these quotations they were under the necessity of either quoting from the Septuagint, the only Greek translation then extant, or making new renderings for themselves directly from the Hebrew. In the majority of instances they did the former; and if they had not been inspired it is probable that all except Paul would have done so uniformly; for it is quite doubtful whether any except he was acquainted with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, which was not studied in that age except by the learned. Out of the 181 quotations which are collected and tabulated in Horn's Introduction, that laborious author sets down 74 as agreeing exactly with the Septuagint, or varying from it in insignificant particulars; 47 as being from the Septuagint "with some variations;" and 31 as "agreeing with the Septuagint in sense, but not in words." Thus 152 out of the 181 quotations agree substantially with the Septuagint, while a majority of them agree with it literally. In some instances, estimated as eleven by Horn, the quotations differ from the Septuagint, but agree nearly or exactly with the Hebrew, showing clearly that in these instances the writers made a new translation of the passage's for themselves. A remarkable instance of this is the following:

Hebrew: Love covereth all sins (Prov. x. 12).

Septuagint: But friendship covereth all them who are not contentious.

I. Pet. iv. 8: For love shall cover the multitude of sins.

In some other instances the quotations vary in words, and more or less in thought from both the present Hebrew text and the Septuagint. The following is an example:

Hebrew: Thou hast ascended up on high, thou hast led thy captivity captive, thou hast received gifts among men (Psa. lxviii. 18).

Septuagint: Having ascended on high, thou hast led thy captivity captive, and received gifts in the manner of men.

Eph. iv. 8: When he ascended up on high he led his captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.

In this instance the obscure expression of the Hebrew, "received gifts among men," is rendered by the Greek translators, "received gifts in the manner of men," and by Paul, "gave gifts unto men." This is a change of the Old Testament text in thought; but it only carries the original thought to its ultimate aim; for the gifts which Christ received were not for himself, but for men, and this is brought out in the words, "gave gifts to men."

From these observations it appears that the New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament freely. In a majority of instances they departed from its phraseology, and in a few they varied the thought by either expanding, or contracting, or expounding it. In all these latter instances, if they were guided by the Holy Spirit at all, we must understand that he guided them to make variations on his own words and thoughts previously expressed through the prophets. Or, if we suppose that in these matters he left their minds free from guidance, we must conclude that he did so because the writers without special guidance wrote that which he approved. In other words, if the Apostles have not falsified the fact of their inspiration, their quotations are just what the Holy Spirit would have them to be.

Another class of modifying facts, closely related to the last mentioned, consists of citations of facts from the Old Testament, not in the form of quotations, in which the Septuagint account is followed instead of the Hebrew, or in which there is a departure from both. Of the former we mention three specifications: First, Luke's citation of Cainan as son of Arphaxad and father of Shelah, this name being omitted in the Hebrew text (Luke iii. 35, cf. Gen. xi. 12). Second, Stephen's statement of the number of Jacob's family when he migrated to Egypt at seventy-five souls, after the Septuagint, whereas the Hebrew has it seventy (Acts vii. 14; cf. Gen. xlvi. 27). Third, Paul's statement that the law came four hundred and thirty years after the promise, as compared with the statement of the Hebrew text that the sojourning of the Israelites in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years (Gal. iii. 17; Ex. xii. 40). Paul follows the Septuagint version of Exodus, which says: "The sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years." In all these instances the writers followed the version which they constantly read, without knowing, perhaps, that it differed from the Hebrew, just as scholars at the present day often quote from our English version without stopping to impure whether it is accurate or not. Even if Luke, Stephen or Paul had stopped to inquire which text was correct in the places cited, it is not at all probable that they could have decided the question by their unaided powers. It is clear that the Holy Spirit could have guided them, as it did other writers in other instances, to follow the Hebrew instead of the Greek text; and it follows from the fact that he did not, that he desired the facts to be stated as the people read them in their Bibles, rather than to raise questions of textual criticism among a people unprepared for such investigations. Such a procedure would not have been admissible if the argument of the writer in either case had depended on the correctness of the name or the figures; but as it did not, there was no need of decision between the two texts. At the present day the most accurate of scholars are in the habit of quoting passages from our English version that are inaccurately translated, without stopping to correct the renderings except when the use which they make of a passage depends on rendering it correctly. To do otherwise would overload discourse with irrelevant matter, and expose one to the charge of pedantry.

Instances of departure in matters of fact from both the Hebrew and the Greek of the Old Testament are not numerous, but we mention three which are conspicuous: first, the substitution of Abraham for Jacob as the purchaser of the piece of land from Hamor in Shechem (Acts vii. 16, cf. Gen. xxxiii. 19; second, the substitution of Abiathar for Abimelech as high priest when David ate the shewbread (Mark ii. 26, cf. I. Sam. xxi. 1-6); and third, the citation of the passage about the thirty pieces of silver from Jeremiah instead of Zechariah (Matt, xxvii. 9, 10, cf. Zech.

xi. 12). The first two are obvious verbal mistakes, and the only question is whether they were made by the sacred writers or by early transcribers. When we consider the unexampled accuracy of the sacred writers in all such matters, and add to this the consideration of their inspiration, and then consider on the other hand the certainty of clerical errors even in the very first copies made by transcribers, we ought not to hesitate how to decide this question. All probability is in favor of the supposition that some copyist originated the error. As to the name Jeremiah, it must be disposed of in the same way and for the same reasons, unless, as some learned writers have supposed, Matthew here used the name Jeremiah because the manuscript roll of the prophets, which in many Jewish copies began with Jeremiah, was referred to instead of the particular prophet.1 Only in case it were certain that these three errors were committed by the inspired penmen could they have any bearing on the question of inspiration.

Some of the predictions quoted from the Old Testament as fulfilled in the New demand attention in this connection. While many of the predictions thus quoted appear from their context in the Old Testament to have direct reference to the events by which they are fulfilled, there are some which have no such apparent reference. Two representative examples are brought together by John as being fulfilled in the death of Jesus. When the soldiers, in breaking the bones of the crucified, passed by those of Jesus in disobedience to orders, and one of them pierced his side with a spear, John says there were fulfilled the two predictions, "A bone of him shall not be broken;" and, "They shall look on him whom they pierced." The former of these was originally written with respect to the paschal lamb; and it was given as a rule forbidding the Jews, in preparing and carving and eating the lamb, to break one of its bones. This was a very remarkable prohibition, requiring great care to observe it; and certainly no Israelite1, throughout the ages in which it was observed, could have discovered an adequate reason for it. It appears equally certain that no Christian after the death of Jesus could have seen and affirmed the connection pointed out by John, until by the guidance of the Holy Spirit it was discovered that the paschal lamb was a type of Christ (I. Cor. v. 7); and then the mysterious prohibition was understood. The; latter prediction, quoted from Zechariah xii. 10, is obscure in the original context; but it occurs in a passage which speaks of Judah and Jerusalem, and it is probable that no reader of the passage, either before or after the crucifixion, would have supposed it had any reference to the piercing of the side of Jesus, without the Apostle as a guide; and how could he have thought so without the Holy Spirit as a guide? Such uses of the Old Testament, unless we regard them as the vagaries of unlicensed interpretation, and this is the light in which they are regarded by those who deny miraculous inspiration, contain further proofs of the inspiration of the New Testament writers, seeing that they exhibit deeper penetration into the meaning of the Scriptures than we can credit to the unaided powers of the Apostles. They show that the Holy Spirit, in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament, had reference in his own mind, in various utterances which he prompted, to fir different events from those to which the minds of the prophets were unavoidably limited. It shows also that to the inspired minds of the New Testament the Holy Spirit revealed much of the significance of words employed by those of the Old, which the latter did not themselves understand. Thus he was fulfilling the Savior's promise of guiding the Apostles into all the truth, by making known old truth that had been hidden, as well as by revealing much that had never before been spoken. The remarks suggested by these two predictions apply with equal force to a number of others quoted in the New Testament, which in the original context have no apparent reference to the events in which they were fulfilled.

On comparing the quotations made by the four Evangelists severally from the words of Jesus and others, we find that in quoting the same remark they sometimes vary the wording of it in much the same way as they vary the words of Old Testament writers. The following are familiar examples. The words heard at the baptism of Jesus are in Matthew: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased;" in Luke and Mark: "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." The words of the first temptation are in Matthew: "If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread;" in Luke: "Command this stone that it become bread." The reply of Jesus to this temptation is in Matthew: "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that shall proceed out of the mouth of God;" in Luke: "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone." Similar variations are found in many places; but in none of them is there a material change of meaning. They show that in bringing to remembrance what Jesus had said to the Apostles, the Spirit always brought to them the thought, but not always the exact phraseology; and as this is true of some which we can test by means of parallel reports, we may presume that it is also true of some others; and that in speeches recorded by only one Evangelist there is not always a verbatim report, but often one that preserves the thought with variations in the words. So far as the Spirit's guidance had reference in all these cases to the words, it either guided or permitted the writers to vary the phraseology, yet it always prevented such a license as would involve a change of meaning. When we consider how difficult it is to change the words of a writer or speaker without changing his meaning, we can see that the Spirit's controlling power even in these instances was not inconsiderable.

The ignorance of the Apostles concerning the admission of the uncircumcised into the church, up to the time of the baptism of Cornelius, is another modifying fact, and the more interesting from the consideration that it involved a misunderstanding of the words of Jesus in the great commission, and of Peter's own words in his address on Pentecost. It shows that when Jesus said, "I have many things to tell you, but you can not bear them now," he had reference not only to the time then present, but to some years in the future, even after the first impartation of the Holy Spirit; and it shows that the promise immediately connected with this remark, "When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all the truth," contemplated not an immediate illumination on every point, but a gradual illumination according as God should will. The same is true of their expectation concerning the second coming of the Lord. If, as many scholars suppose, they at first thought that this great event was to occur in their own generation, this was in accordance with the declaration of Jesus: "Of that day or hour, knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." If it ever did become known to the Apostles, it must have been by a special revelation of which we have no knowledge. Yet it is quite certain that to Paul it was revealed that a great apostasy would take place before the second coming (II. Thess. ii. 1-12); and to Peter, that after "the fathers fell asleep," that is, after the generation to which the prediction was given had passed away, "mockers would come with mockery, saying, Where is the promise of his coming?" (II. Pet. iii. 3, -1). This again shows a progressive leading into the truth, although in this instance the exact time of the event was still withheld. It has been argued from Paul's use of the pronoun "we" in speaking of those who would be alive at the second coming of Christ (I. Thess. iv. 15, 17; I. Cor. xv. 51, 52), that he expected it before his own death; but his statements concerning the great apostasy which was to occur, ushering in the career of the "man of sin" (II. Thess ii. 1-12), show that he uses "we" in a general sense for the saints who will then be alive, and not for those of his own generation. Before dismissing this topic, we may remark that although Peter did not know until the baptism of Cornelius that uncircumcised Gentiles were to be admitted into the church, lie himself uttered on the day of Pentecost words which we can see did most clearly include that thought. He sit id: "For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him." From this it appears that under the impulse of the Holy Spirit he uttered words the full import of which he did not understand, until in God's good time their full meaning was made known to him by a special revelation. This is an unmistakable instance of being led to employ words expressive of a meaning which was in the mind of the Spirit, but not in that of the speaker; an instance, in other terms, in which the inspiration affected the words and not the thoughts of the speaker. It is much like those predictions of the older prophets in which there was a reference in the mind of the Spirit which was not perceived or thought of by the prophet. See I. Pet. i. 10, 11.

We find both in Acts and in the Epistles that the inspired Apostles, though possessing and exercising all the wonderful powers of the Spirit promised by Jesus, were still imperfect men in heart and life. This is apparent not merely from such exhibitions of it as Peter's dissimulation and the contention between Paul and Barnabas, but also from John's confession: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us;" "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (I. Jno. i. 8, 10). This shows that the inspiration of the Apostles was not a purification of their spiritual natures, so as to free them from sin; but an enlightenment of their minds, so as to enable them to teach the truth. The two conceptions are often confounded, but they are widely different, and either may exist in a person without the other. It is doubtless true that to be the subject of inspiration was calculated to elevate men spiritually; and that (rod usually elected only good men for this heavenly gift; but still to be inspired and to be spiritually good are two distinct conceptions never to be confounded.

We find in the Epistles, and especially in those of Paul, many remarks of a personal character which do not contribute to the doctrinal purpose of the documents; such, for example, as Paul's many salutations of persons not conspicuous in the history, and such as his request of Timothy to bring to him his cloak, his books, and his parchments, which he had left at Troas with Carpus (II. Tim. iv. 13); and for all these he needed no aid from the Holy Spirit either to know them or to express them. In such instances it appears that the guiding power exercised by the Spirit was at its minimum, and yet even in these instances there was room for its exercise. One of the most puzzling questions to the author of a serious document, on which the welfare of others depends, is what of all that he knows relating to the subject and the persons he should insert, and what he should omit. It is often more difficult to make a wise selection than it is to obtain the knowledge. This problem would certainly have confronted Paul if he had enjoyed no supernatural guidance, and he would probably have omitted these apparently small matters from his Epistles, and written them, if at all, in an accompanying note. Especially would he have done so if he had anticipated that his Epistles would be read in distant nations long after his decease. But if he had omitted them, how much the world would have lost. We should have known nothing of that warm-heartedness toward his fellow workers, and that tender gratitude toward his benefactors, which are revealed in his personal salutations and messages. We should not have known that in his Roman prison, when winter was coining on (II. Tim. iv. 21), he anticipated the need of that cloak, that he wanted his books to read in those lonely hours, and that he desired his parchments in order to do more writing. By the introduction of these matters a cord of sympathy has been drawn out from the heart of Paid to the hearts of millions of believers the world over, and an incalculable amount of spiritual good has been thereby accomplished. This shows the consummate wisdom of the arrangement by which not his own shortsighted judgment, but the divine Spirit who foresaw all the future, guided him as to what he should insert, and what he should omit.

CONCLUSIONS.

We have now gone over the ground of the statements and facts relating to the inspiration of the Now Testament writers, and we are prepared to sum up the results. We state them numerically as follows:

1. The promise of the Holy Spirit to abide permanently in the Apostles with miraculous power was made by Jesus, and it was realized in the experience of the Twelve from and after the first Pentecost following the resurrection. The Spirit was also from time to time and in divers places imparted by the Apostles to other faithful persons. This was their inspiration.

2. The Spirit thus abiding in the inspired, brought to their remembrance, to the full extent that was needful, the words and the acts of Jesus. It guaranteed, therefore, a record of these words and acts, precisely such as God willed.

3. It brought to the inspired persons revelations concerning the past, the present and the future; and when occasion required, it revealed to them the secret thoughts of living men. For this reason we can rely implicitly on the correctness of every thought which these men have expressed on these subjects.  

4. The Spirit within them taught them how to speak the, things thus revealed, by teaching to the full extent needed the words in which to express them; yet, in quoting others, not always the exact words; and it demonstrated this fact to lookers-on by causing the inspired at times to speak in tongues which they had never learned, but which were known to those who heard. This affords a perfect guarantee that these revelations were really made, and that they are expressed in the most suitable words.  

5. By thus acting within and through the inspired men, the Spirit enabled them to speak on all occasions, even when life was at stake, without anxiety as to how or what they should say, and to speak with consummate wisdom, yet without premeditation. It brought about the fact expressed in the Hebraistic formula: "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you."  

6. The Spirit enabled the inspired on all suitable occasions to demonstrate the presence of its power within them, by manifestations of it in the way of physical "powers, signs and wonders "--a demonstration which the human mind has ever demanded of men claiming to bear messages from God.  

7. From the fact that these men spoke and wrote as the Spirit willed, it follows that what they wrote out of their own personal experience and observation, as well as that which was revealed to them, has the Spirit's approval as a part of the record.

1 See the discussion of this question by Canon Cook in Additional Notes on Matthew's Gospel, Speaker's Commentary.