02.13 - Limitations of Inspiration

(13) Limitations of Inspiration

Though Prophets and Apostles were inspired of God, their inspiration had its limitations. Inspiration did in no wise affect the free personality or hinder the self-conscious activity of the individual. The inspired agent retained the free use of his mental and physical powers, and used his ordinary intelligence.

He was an active and not a passive agent: a living, conscious, free agent, and not an unconscious instrument. He was a “ labourer together “ and an underworker with God: not the pen, but the penman of the Spirit. All the individual peculiarities and distinctive characteristics of the writers their excellences and their defects, their individuality of thought and style, of culture and training, of life-character and occupation are manifest in their discourses and writings. They wrote and “ spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” but wrote and spake in their own language as “the Spirit gave them utterance.” When the prophet was seized, moved, and borne along by the Spirit to utter an unwelcome message, and to perform an unpleasant task, he was made to yield to the constraining force within, to conform to the mind of the Spirit, so that he became a conscious, willing agent in discharging his task. The Prophet’s inspiration on these occasions was indisputable.

Inspiration did not render the agent infallible.

Sometimes the sacred writers are spoken of as in fallible and inerrant, as possessed of a truth and knowledge little less than Divine; so that they were more than mere human beings, that they were the very mouth of God, the Spirit of God speaking not in but through them. The sacred writers were themselves, and retained the full conscious possession of all their powers and faculties, so that they could say: “ We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen.” x John speaks of “ that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled concerning the word of life.” 2 Paul says: “We know in part and we prophesy in part.” 3 These statements imply that they were conscious, but limited in their knowledge; that they were them

1 John 3:2

2 1 John 1:1.

3 1 Corinthians 13:9. selves, and possessed and exercised all their powers and faculties.

Inerrancy in every statement, and infallibility in every particular are not essential to the Scriptures as an authoritative rule of faith and practice. It is sometimes said, “ if the Scriptures are not infallible in every particular we can have no confidence that they are infallible in any”; and if “ mistaken and errant in matters unimportant, then they may be mistaken and errant in matters of greatest importance.” Patterson Smyth says in reply to this, “ This is not how we reason in respect of any other book, or any other authority. We do not say that an error in numbers, dates, or names in a book of history would discredit its claim to be regarded as history, nor should we on that account declare it to be unreliable and untrustworthy.” Mistakes of this kind are found in some of the greatest authorities, when found, we correct the mistake and still continue to use our authority. We do not say because a man is not infallible in every utterance, or inerrant in every statement, that he is unreliable and untrust worthy in all matters whatsoever. What politician, scientist, philosopher, historian, professionalist, or preacher, would claim to be so tested? A teacher or preacher must not necessarily be infallible and inerrant in every statement and in every detail of that statement, to be regarded as an efficient and trust worthy teacher and preacher. Slips of memory, of tongue, and of pen may occur; and there may be unimportant errors of various kinds found in a preacher’s sermon, and yet it may be an adequate and trustworthy declaration of truth and doctrine, and worthy of acceptance and confidence. And the Bible, as our authoritative record of the revealed will of God, and as a sufficient rule of faith and practice, is not invalidated because scientific, chronological, and historical errors are to be found in it. Despite these errors, the record is still true “ That God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.” And these “ things are written that ye may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in His name.”, Because Revelation is historical and progressive, and because the Scripture records cover a period of hundreds of years, it is to be expected that statements of fact and truth made at one time will receive fuller elucidation and enlargement at another time, and by means of development assume a difference of form and expression at these different periods; yet the facts and truths are substantially the same.

There were differences of view as to the time of Christ’s second coming among the Apostles, and the same Apostles had different conceptions of the “ Parousia “ at the beginning and the end of their Apostleship; but this difference of view, as to the nearness of that event, does not destroy confidence in the Apostles as inspired agents, nor yet in the reality of the fact of Christ’s second coming for judgment as a revealed truth. The fact was revealed to the Apostles, but the time was not made known; and because the fact was certain to the Apostles mind it was declared as “ at hand,” that it would be immediate, in their day, whereas the “ day “ was the “ day of the Lord,” which is “ as a thousand

1 John 20:31, years.” Variations in expression and differences of statement in parallel histories and narratives, whether in the Old or the New Testament, must not be considered as mistakes and errors in the sense of being false, contradictory, and untrustworthy. The differences and divergencies are similar to those found in parallel accounts of any important event made by different narrators, reporters, or historians at the present day, who give an independent and unbiassed account of the fact, but written at a different time and viewed from a different standpoint. So with those parallel accounts in Kings and Chronicles and the Gospels, different and divergent as they are, are to be regarded as the testimony of other witnesses to the reality of the facts and truths recorded, and as confirmatory of their reality and historicity; and because they differ in some particulars we may be assured the writers were not mere copyists, but had recourse to various sources, or viewed it from different standpoints, and are independent witnesses, and were not guilty of collusion. But the so-called errors and discrepancies in the Bible may be the result of copying, translating, or printing, and so belong to the transmission rather than the origination of the Scriptures; are secondary and not primal, the work of scribes, translators, and printers, and not the work of inspired writers. As inspiration did not secure the sacred writers against literary mistakes, nor render them infallible and inerrant in matters of knowledge and statement, neither did it secure them against moral mistakes, nor render them immaculate in life, or holy and spiritual in heart and conduct. Speaking generally, inspiration was alone the experience of “ holy men “, spiritual holiness was the basis of its operation. It was men called and spiritually fitted to receive divine revelations and visions to whom the vision came; while it was only the spiritually-minded who could compare and judge and discern spiritual truths; yet inspiration and holiness are not correlative and consequential terms, nor is inspiration a guarantee of spiritual holiness or a pledge of moral character.

Hence Balaam and Saul, among the Old Testament prophets, and Caiaphas and Judas, among the New Testament ones, were not holy men; nor were Moses and David, Peter and Paul, perfect andunblamable in life and character. Indeed, inspiration itself was not always the constant experience of Prophets and Apostles. It was occasional rather than continuous, and for special ends and purposes rather than for ordinary and religious ends: and so the Holy Spirit, as the agent of Divine inspiration, was not always with the Prophets and Apostles, nor always operative in their minds, thoughts, deeds, and utterances. The Prophets speak of the Spirit coming to them, seizing and moving them specially and suddenly, of His departing from them and coming again after a lapse of days, weeks, and months; while the Apostles tell us how they speak and act of them selves and not of the Spirit; while at other times they were constrained and moved by the Spirit, so to speak and act. Again, Paul tells us how at times he spoke “ foolishly,” and after “ the manner of men,” while in his defence before Ananias, he “ spoke against God’s high-priest “ and the “ law of Moses “unwittingly, or unknowingly. At other times we hear of “ contentions,” slips of memory, errors of judgment, cherished purposes, and expectations not realised. Peter, moreover, was not perfect, unblamable, and without defect, as may be seen in his denial of his Lord and Saviour, in his conduct at Antioch, when Paul “withstood him because he was to be blamed,” and the difference that arose between him and other of the Apostles on various matters.

While Inspiration was not the constant possession nor the ceaseless experience of the sacred writers, neither was it the same in kind and decree in all of them, nor did it place all on the same level as to knowledge and understanding of the truth, nor did it impart to their utterances and writings a uniform significance and authority. Inspiration was imparted to holy men of old according to their needs and requirements, and with a view to the work they had to do. The Prophets as announcers of God’s will and purpose, as statesmen, social reformers, preachers of righteousness, counsellers of kings and people, and foretellers of coming events, and as writers of history and prophecy, had an inspiration imparted to them sufficient for the task assigned them. So with the Apostles there was a diversity of gift imparted to them suited to the diverse and varied tasks they had to perform. It is this fact that led apologists and theologians to speak of “ degrees of inspiration “the “inspiration of incitement,” “enlightenment,” “ invigoration,” and “ elevation “; the inspiration of “ superintendence “ and “ guidance,” of “ direction and assistance,” of “ suggestion and communication,” as suited to the needs of the agents and the character of their writings. The inspiration was, therefore, adequate but not uniform: it was not the same in kind and degree in all and through all, but it answered the end for which it was given, and served the purpose for which it was needed.

Inspiration did not raise all agents to the same plat form of knowledge and the realisation of divine truth, neither did it secure to them a full, perfect, and immediate knowledge of the meaning and significance of the truth and vision they received. The prophets, we are told, “searched diligently” to under stand the salvation made known to them “ searching what time or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.” 1 Jeremiah and Ezekiel were perplexed respecting the revelations they received, and the meaning of the symbolic acts they were commanded to perform. The Angel Gabriel was sent to instruct Daniel concerning the vision he saw; while an angel unfolded to Peter the meaning of the vision he saw in a trance at Joppa. The seer at Patmos understood not the visions and revelations of the Spirit; while Paul speaks of having “heard unspeak able words which it was not lawful for a man to utter.” From this we gather that revelation and inspiration had to do with the truth imparted, and not with the form, manner, and method of its reception and expression, 2 Peter 1:11.