The relation of the inspiring Holy Spirit to the inspired holy writers is clearly described in all those passages of Holy Scripture which tell us that the Lord- or the Holy Ghost- spoke "by the prophets" (Matt. 1, 22; 2, 15) or "by the mouth of the prophets" (Acts 1,16; 4, 25), and this in such a manner that the word of the prophets and the apostles was by this very act the Word of God (Heb. 3, 7; Rom. 3, 2). All these expressions declare that the Holy Spirit employed the holy writers as His organs, or instruments, or that they were "His mouth" in revealing His holy Word, both orally and in writing. To describe this instrumental character of the holy writers, our dogmaticians as well as the ancient Church Fathers called them "penmen," "amanuenses," "the hand of Christ," "scribes and notaries of the Holy Ghost," etc. These expressions are perfectly correct as long as the tertium comparationis in these figures of speech is strictly kept in view. What these terms express is the simple fact that the holy writers were agents of God in handing down His Word, either orally or in writing. It is self-evident that the holy writers were not mechanical, but conscious and intelligent instruments, so that they wrote "ckeerfully, willingly, and intelligently" (Quenstedt). Modern rationalistic theologians therefore ought to accept these expressions as truly Scriptural and not heap mockery upon those who use them. In the final analysis their contempt for these terms is prompted by contempt for the Holy Bible itself and its divine doctrine of inspiration.
The Scriptural phrase "by the prophets" accounts also for the variety of style which is found in Holy Scripture. If the various books of the Bible evince different styles of writing, this is because the Holy Ghost engaged different men (kings, peasants, fishermen, scholars, etc.) to compose His holy Book. Quenstedt remarks on this point (I, 76): "There is a great diversity among the sacred writers in regard to style and mode of speaking, which evidently arose from the fact that the Holy Spirit accommodated Himself to the ordinary mode of speaking, leaving to each one his own manner; yet we do not thereby deny that the Holy Spirit suggested the particular words to these individuals." (Doctr. Tkeol., p. 47f.) Questions such as the following: ''Was the Old Testament written originally with vowel-points or not?" "May the language of the Bible be called classic?" and many others which have been raised in connection with the doctrine of inspiration, are purely historical and have nothing to do with the doctrine of inspiration. For this reason no controversies ought to be waged about them. Let it suffice to say that in all external matters the Holy Spirit accommodated Himself to the peculiar conditions that prevailed at the time when He gave His Word to the world.
The result of their "investigation" therefore is that the Holy Scripture is not the Word of God, but rather a human account of divine revelations ("Offenbarungsurkunde"), which, though more or less influenced by the Holy Spirit, is not without error and must therefore be subjected to the critical judgment of Bible scholars. These theologians still speak of "inspiration"; yet they do not mean that true inspiration by which Holy Scripture has become the unique source and norm of faith until the end of time (John 17,20; Eph.2,20), but merely an intensified illumination, which is found more or less in all Christian authors.
The same may be said of most American theologians, although among them Charles Hodge, William Shedd, and Benjamin Warfield have defended the Scriptural doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration. In Germany there is at the present time hardly a single outstanding university professor who still upholds the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration. This all but universal denial of inspiration is one of the saddest chapters in the history of the Christian Church; for every one who repudiates the inspiration of the Bible subverts the foundation upon which the Christian faith rests and falls under the condemnation of God, Matt. 11, 25. In the last analysis all objections to the inspiration of the Bible flow from the carnal, unbelieving heart, Rom. 8, 7; 1 Cor. 2, 14.
Among the objections raised against the Biblical doctrine of inspiration the following may be noted: -
a. The different style in the various books of the Bible, or more <exactly, the claim that God's peculiar style would be found through<> ut the Bible were He really its divine Author. Our reply to this criticism is that in general God's unique style is indeed noticeable throughout Holy Scripture, which bears the ineffaceable imprint of its divine Author on every page. The simplicity, majesty, and sublimity of the Biblical style are found in no book written by men; in fact, the style of the Bible is so unique that there is only one Holy Bible in the world. We may apply to Scripture the words that were spoken with regard to our Savior: "Never man spake like this man," John 7, 46. If within this general scope the various books of the Bible differ from one another somewhat in style and diction, we must remember that the Holy Spirit, in giving His holy Word to men, always accommodated Himself to the holy writers whom He employed in His holy service. Calov says very fittingly: "There may be recognized in it the Bible a condescension of the Holy Spirit; for He sometimes accommodated Himself to the ordinary method of speaking, allowing the writers their own style of speech." This, correctly understood, is the "human side" of Scripture. This expression, however, must not be taken in the sense of modern rationalistic theologians, who apply it to certain portions of Holy Writ, which they reject as "erroneous" and therefore as "uninspired."
In opposition to modern rationalistic theology the Christian believer stands firm upon the vital truth that Holy Scripture has no "uninspired parts" whatsoever, but that it is in all its parts the inerrant Word of God, given by divine inspiration. Instead of criticizing the different styles of Scripture, men ought to recognize in this fact God's gracious condescension and wonderful love; for by giving us His heavenly doctrines through so many different writers, who address us in so many different ways, He rendered His sublime Word all the more intelligible and acceptable to mankind. Had God spoken to us in the language which is used in heaven, not a single person in this world could have understood His Word and learned from it the way of salvation, 2 Cor. 12, 4.
b. The variant readings in the copies of Scripture. Variant readings (variae lectiones) are indeed found in the copies of the holy writings of the prophets and apostles that have been preserved to us. However, since the variant readings occur only in the copies, they furnish no argument whatsoever against the divine inspiration of the Bible, since the variants owe their origin to lapses in transcription. In spite of the variant readings, however, the texts which we have to-day contain the Word of God both in its original purity and its original entirety. This we know a priori from Christ's direct promise (John 17,20; 8, 31. 32; Matt. 28,20; John 10, 35; Matt. 24, 35; Luke 21, 33; 16, 17) and a posteriori from the fact, ascertained by scientific investigation, that in spite of the numerous variae lectiones not a single doctrine of God's Word has been rendered doubtful or uncertain. God, who has given us His Word, has also graciously preserved it to the present day and will preserve it to the end of time (gubernatio divina). We recognize God's providence also in the many repetitions of His doctrines throughout the Bible. As a result of this, even if entire books (Antilegomena) or entire passages (Mark 16, 9-20) are called into question, we may still prove the divine doctrines from other books and passages in the Bible, which are universally acknowledged as authentic and canonical (Homologume11a).
c. The study and research of the holy writers. Independent study and historical research were indeed carried on at times by the holy writers; for they themselves tell us that they were prompted to write not only new revelations, but also such things as they knew in consequence of their general study and their special experience, Gal. 1, 17-24; Luke 1, lff. However, this fact does not disprove the doctrine of inspiration, since the Holy Spirit utilized for His beneficent purpose of giving to fallen man the Word of God also the general know ledge of the sacred penmen, just as He utilized their natural gifts and talents (experience, style, culture, etc.). Inspiration is not mere revelation, but the divine prompting (impulsus scribendi) to record the truths which God desired that men should know in words He Himself supplied, 2 Sam. 23, 2ff. Some of these truths were given the holy writers by direct revelation, 1 Cor. 11, 23; 14, 37; 2, 7-13; others were known to them by experience, Acts 17,28; Gal. 2, 11-14; others, again, by direct investigation and special research, Luke 1, 1 ff.
In the treatment of the doctrine of divine inspiration the question is not: "How did the holy writers obtain the truths which they wrote?" but rather: "Did the Holy Ghost prompt the sacred writers to write down certain words and thoughts which God wanted men to know?" The fact that this was actually the case is clearly taught in Holy Scripture, 2 Tim. 3, 16; 2 Pet. 1, 21, so that the doctrine of inspiration is beyond dispute. When on Pentecost the apostles proclaimed to the multitude salvation by the risen Savior, who had suffered and died for the sins of the world, they announced facts which to a large extent were known to them by experience, John 20, 20f.; 21, 12; yet of all the words which they proclaimed Scripture says: "They began to speak •.. as the Spirit gave them utterance.'' .Acts 2, 4. Not only in that Pentecostal preaching, but in the composition of all their writings the Holy Spirit "gave utterance" to the apostles.
d. Alleged contradictions in the Bible. In connection with this point we distinguish between external and internal contradictions. By external contradictions we mean the seeming historical discrepancies in the Bible. Internal contradictions pertain to doctrines. With regard to real contradictions in doctrine, we know a priori that none can occur,- though to human reason this often appears to be the case,- since the whole Bible is the Word of the infallible God, 2 Tim. 3, 16; 2 Pet. 1, 21. Even if two doctrines of Scripture seem to contradict each other (e. g., gratia universalis, electio particularis), the Christian theologian never admits a real contradiction, 2 Cor. 1, 18-20, but only a partial revelation, 1 Cor. 13, 9, which will be perfected in glory, 1 Cor. 13, 10. 12. For this reason the Christian believer teaches both doctrines side by side in their given purity, without any attempt on his part to bridge over the gap or to solve the apparent discrepancy, Rev. 22, 18. 19.
External contradictions~ or seeming historical discrepancies, occur in Scripture especially in quotations from the Old Testament, 1 Cor. 10, 8 and N urn. 25, 9. The variants in the manuscripts, owing to faulty transcription, add to the number of these seeming contradictions. The wonder, however, is not that such seeming contradictions do occur in the Bible, - for we must not forget that the copyists were fallible men, who were subject to error in transcribing the sacred text, - but rather that, relatively speaking, there are so few of them and that in most cases they can be satisfactorily adjusted. (Cf. Dr. W. Arndt's Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?)
But even if the Christian theologian cannot adjust an apparent historical discrepancy to his full satisfaction, he does not charge Scripture with error, but leaves the matter undecided, mindful of Christ's declaration that "the Scripture cannot be broken," John 10, 35. Particulars with regard to this subject belong to the domain of Christian isagogics, where they receive detailed consideration; but the dogmatician is concerned with the matter in so far as it is his duty to point out the correct principles which must guide the Bible student in his estimation of Scripture as God's inspired Word. Foremost among these is the basic truth that it is unworthy of a Christian theologian to criticize the inerrant Word of God; for it is his function to teach the Gospel, Mark 16, 15. 16; Matt. 28, 20, and not to oppose the infallible Word by his own fallible views and judgments, 1 Tim. 6, 3-5. (Cf. Luther on the historical reliability of Scripture, St. L., XIV, 490 ff.) In passing, we may add that the seeming historical discrepancies in the Bible never affect the doctrines which Scripture teaches for our salvation.
e. Inaccurate quotations in the New Testament. It is asserted that the Bible cannot be the inspired Word of God because the New Testament so frequently quotes the Old Testament "inaccurately" and even "wrongly." The argument is that, if the Bible were the infallible Word of God, the citations from the Old Testament that are given in the New Testament would always be exact, or literal. This, however, is not the case. Sometimes the apostles quote the Old Testament literally; sometimes they quote the reading of the Septuagint; at other times they quote the Septuagint, but correct it according to the Hebrew original; finally, sometimes they reproduce neither the Hebrew text nor the Septuagint, but state the general scope of the text in their own words. This divergent manner of quoting the Old Testament, however, does not disprove the fact of divine inspiration of the Bible; on the contrary, it rather proves it, since evidently the divine Author of the whole Bible quoted His holy words as it pleased Him. Had the New Testament writers been impostors, they would have been obliged to quote the Old Testament literally in every instance; for it would have been in their interest to prove to their readers their extensive acquaintance and perfect agreement with the Old Testament. As it was, the Holy Spirit, who spoke through them, directed them to cite and apply the Word of God as the occasion required and as His holy purposes were best served, Gal. 4, 21-31. It is always the privilege of an author to quote his writings as he sees fit, and this prerogative must not be denied to the Holy Spirit.
f. Trivial matters in Scripture. The inspiration of the Bible has further been denied on the ground that it contains "trivial things" (levicula) and, besides, bad grammar, poor rhetoric, barbarisms, solecisms, and the like. Examples of trivial matters, it is asserted, are the minutely reported domestic affairs of the patriarchs, their manifold sins and failings, the dietetic prescription for Timothy that he should use a little wine for his stomach's sake, 1 Tim. 5, 23, Paul's request for his cloak, books, and parchments, 2 Tim. 4, 13, and others. These levicula, it is said, are unworthy of the Holy Spirit and would not have been mentioned by Him if He really were the Author of Scripture.