379
August 1930
T h e
K i n g ’ s B u s i n e s s
ment is also only a human production. Then, indeed, is the human race left in impenetrable gloom. T he M arvelous T eaching of the B ible But the internal argument for the Bible as a God- breathed book may be 'carried further and made still stronger. When we examine the character of its teach ing, we feel intuitively that its claim to come from God must be true. It does not seem to be a false book. It does not carry the marks o f double-dealing on its luminous pages. Everywhere it upholds righteousness and rebukes sin. If its authors imposed falsehood upon the world, they continually pronounced upon themselves the most severe condemnation. It maintains the highest ethical standard and insists on the deepest and clearest spiritual experiences. One passage among hundreds will illustrate: “ God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” Does that sound as if it might have come from a false or fanatical source? Surely not! It bears upon its very face the insignia of verity and sin cerity. A book that incorporates in its contents such a statement cannot be a bad book. Let us reflect further on the wonderful teaching of the Bible. Note how adequately it solves for us the problem of origins. There is the origin of the universe. It is here, all around us, and we are a part of it. Whence came this wonderful cosmos? How many learned tomes have been written in the attempt to explicate that problem! No human solution has ever been satisfactory either to the intellect or to the emotion. But when we turn to the first verse of our Bible, we read the simple and majestic state ment : “ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” What could be more cogent and convincing than that statement? Can you imagine a better way to account for the origin of the universe? How satisfying that doctrine i s ! For if a personal, all-wise and all-powerful God cre ated the universe, He can uphold it and guide it to its glorious pre-determined destiny. Is not that an appealing doctrine? Is it possible that there are people who would prefer to live in a world that has just happened to come along somehow, nobody knows how and nobody knows „why ? Such an agnostic world View leads to pessimism and despair. It is no wonder that the skeptics of our age are reciting “ sob stories” in detail ing their views about the human family and its fate. One of them declares that “man is a sick fly on the dizzy wheel of the universe” ! Another wails and weeps in this strain: “ Man is but a parasite on the epidermis of a midge planet; an ape who chatters to himself of kinship with the arch angels, while filthily he digs for ground-nuts” ! There you have the logical outcome of rejecting the teaching of the Bible. But when men accept the Bibje as God’s Word and- have experienced its truth in their hearts, they do not cherish such lugubrious ideas .about man and his destiny and purpose. And'this brings us to the crucial problem of the origin of the human family. Here the teaching of the Bible is luminous and uplifting, for the Bible gives us this pellucid and rhythmic statement: “And God created man in his own image, in the image o f God created he him; male and female created he them ” (Gen. 1 :27). Can any body imagine anything better than that? If man had so high and holy an origin, then it follows as the day the night that he was created for a high and holy purpose and will eventually attain the same kind of a destiny. It is not: likely that a merely fabricated book would place so
Peter, who says: “ Knowing this first, that no prophecy o f the scripture is o f any private interpretation” (2 Pet. 1 :20). The literal translation is, “ o f its own unloosing.” That is, the Old Testament Scriptures did not originate spontaneously nor come from a merely human source. Then Peter connects what follows with a logical conjunc tion, saying: “ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will o f man: but holy men o f God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” This is a most vital statement. The apostle Peter de clares that the prophets of the Old Testament spake as they were “ borne along” by the Holy Spirit, and that their prophecies did not come “ by the will o f man.” Thus the apostle bears witness to the divine inspiration of the Old Testament for the term “ prophet” was currently used to designate all the writers of the Old Testament. Now, the crucial question is, was Peter divinely in spired? If he was, he spake by divine authority, and therefore it follows logically that the Old Testament “ came not by the will o f man,” but by the inspiration o f the Holy Spirit. If Peter was not led to write by the Spirit, then who was ever thus inspired? If Peter was not in spired, what reason have we for believing that any of the rest of the New Testament writers were inspired? That simply means that the Bible is a humanly composed book, and is without divine authority; and so we are simply groping about in spiritual darkness with no “ sure word of prophecy ” to guide us. Then of all men we are the most miserable. On the other hand, if Peter was divinely in spired, we may confidently know that the other writers of the Bible wrote by divine direction. S t . P aul ’ s T estimony The like value attaches to the witness of St. Paul to the inspiration of the Old Testament (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16). Judging from the context, there can be no doubt that he refers in this famous passage to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Indeed, it is unreasonable to think that he could have alluded to any other writings in his instruction to young Timothy, whom he calls his son in the Lord. Read verses 13 to 15. Then note what he says of those Scriptures: “All scripture ' is inspired o f God, and is profitable,” etc. The literal translation is, “ Every scrip ture is God-breathed” (Greek, theopneustos). This can mean nothing else than that every part of the Old Testa ment has God as its source; He breathed it out by His Spirit into the minds of the writers, and that spells divine inspiration. Even if the American revisers were correct in translating this passage, the meaning would be the same, for then it would read thus: “ Every scripture, being God-breathed, is also profitable for instruction,” etc. Thus we have Paul’s testimony that the whole Old Testament comes from God. Now, pressing our argument, we must ask, Was Paul divinely inspired? If he was, it follows that the whole Bible—or, at least, the Old Testa ment and Paul’s contributions to the New Testament—is divinely inspired. That gives us plenary inspiration for the Bible, and we have a sure rule and standard of faith and life. On the other hand, the one who denies divine inspira tion to Paul, practically annuls faith in any divine revela tion at all; because, if Paul was not inspired, nearly half of the New Testament is of merely human origin, and that a most vital part of it. Morover, if Paul was not inspired, there is no reason for believing that the other writers of the New Testament were inspired, and so the whole New Testament goes by the board* I f that is so, the Old Testa
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker