OBJECTIONS TO VERBAL
INSPIRATION
T.P. Simmons
The objections that are brought against verbal inspiration are
many and varied. We shall not attempt to note all of them, but shall take only
some of the most common ones; trusting that our discussion may indicate how reasonably and easily all other objections may be disposed of.
These objections concern:
I. FALLIBLE COPIES AND TRANSLATIONS
1. OBJECTION STATED.
The first objection we shall consider may be stated thus: "Of
what value is the verbal inspiration of the original manuscripts
of Scripture, since we do not have these original manuscripts, and since the
great majority of people must depend upon translations of the original
languages, which translations cannot be held to be infallible."
2. OBJECTION ANSWERED.
(1) This objection is correct in stating that translations of the
original languages of Scripture cannot be held to be infallible.
Nowhere does God indicate that the translators were to be
preserved from error. Verbal inspiration means the verbal inspiration of the original manuscripts of Scripture.*
__________
*Let no one be disturbed
by the fact that translations are not infallible. Our two great English
translations (the King James or "Authorized Version" and the American
Standard Version of 1901) are good basic translations. Such
errors as they contain do not leave any doctrine of the Bible in doubt.
Speaking of translations, the author wishes to make it clear that he does not
recommend the most recent revision of the Bible under the sponsorship of the
International Council of Religious Education known as the Revised Standard
Version. This is manifestly the work of modernists who have done everything
they dared to do (and modernists are very daring) to obliterate
the deity of Jesus Christ. This translation is neither sound nor scholarly, but
is rather a piece of modernistic propaganda.
__________
(2) This objection is also
correct in stating that we do not now have a single one of the original
manuscripts of any part of the Scripture.
(3) But this objection does not bear against the fact of verbal
inspiration; it only questions the value of it.
(4) And the objection is wrong in supposing
that an admittedly imperfect copy of an infallible original is not better than
the same kind of copy of a fallible original.
It is even better to have an imperfect copy of an infallible
original than to have a perfect copy of a fallible original.
(5) The objection is wrong again in implying that we do not have a
substantially accurate copy of the original.
By means of comparison of the many ancient copies of the originals
of the Scripture, textual criticism has progressed to such a point
that no doubt exists as to any important doctrine of the Bible. While God did
not preserve the original manuscripts for us (and He must have had good reasons
for not doing so), He has given us such an abundance of ancient copies that we
can, with remarkable exactness, arrive at the reading, of the originals.
(6) And the study of Hebrew and Greek has
progressed to such a point and this knowledge has been made available to even
the common people in such a way that all can be assured as to the meaning of
the original language in nearly all cases.
II. IMPRECATORY PSALMS
Another objection is brought against what is known as the
"imprecatory psalms."
1. OBJECTION STATED.
It is said that the psalmist "indignantly
cries out against his oppressors," and that we find him using language
"which would be unfit for the lips of our Lord," in which we are told
can be detected "traces of human prejudice and passion." Such are the
objections raised by J. Patterson Smith, in "How God Inspired The
Bible."
The objector is wrong here in assuming that the
imprecatory psalms express David's personal feeling against his enemies merely
because of what they had done to him. David was the sweet singer of Israel, and
was not given to manifestations of personal bitterness and vindictiveness.
Notice his princely attitude toward King Saul, even when Saul sought his life
for no good reason.
2. SPECIFIC INSTANCES CITED BY THE OBJECTOR.
(1) "Break their teeth, 0 God, in their mouth" (Psa.
58:6). A study of this psalm reveals that the above words do not refer to
David's personal enemies, but to the unrighteous in general. David was here
only voicing the indignation of Him who "hatest all workers
of iniquity" (Psa. 5:5). And notice that nothing is said here by David
about this judgment being inflicted immediately. We have here only David's
inspired sanction of God's final judgment on the wicked. This is evident
through a comparison of Psa. 58:9-11 with Rev. 19:1-6. In these Scriptures we
have prophecy and its fulfillment.
(2) "Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let
them seek their bread out of desolate places" (Psa. 109: 10).
Acts 1:16 shows that this was not spoken of David's personal
enemies, but was a prophetic utterance concerning Judas. And Peter
says that the Holy Spirit spoke this by the mouth of David. This imprecation on
the children of Judas is according to God's own revelation of Himself as he who
visits "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of the third and
fourth generation of them that hate Him" (Ex. 20:5).
(3) "O daughter of Babylon, who art to be
destroyed, happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us, happy
shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
(Psa. 137:8,9).
But note that the words are not a prayer, nor an imprecation, but
only and wholly a prophecy. Then note that this doom was to
be meted out to Babylon because of the way she had treated Israel. And then
recall the words of God spoken through Balaam: "Blessed is he that
blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee" (Num. 24:9), in which
we have an echo of God's assurance to Abraham (Gen. 12:3).
David's words, like those of Isaiah (Isa. 13)
concerning Babylon, have a double meaning. They refer immediately to the
destruction of Babylon by the Medes (Isa. 13:7), but ultimately to God's
punishment of the wicked at the coming of Christ to the earth (Isa. 13:9-11;
34:1-17; Zech. 14:1-7; Rev. 19:11-21).
As the agent of God, David revealed God's
indignation against the wicked, but, so far as his own personal feeling was
concerned, he had only mercy and benevolence toward his personal enemies. He
refused to molest King Saul when he had opportunity and human justification,
and after Saul was dead, he inquired: "Is there any left of the house of
Saul, that I may show him kindness?" (2 Sam. 9:1,2,11).
These instances are sufficient to show how empty are the
objections of the critics in regard to the imprecatory psalms.
III. NOAH'S IMPRECATION AND DEBORAH'S PRAISE
Similar objections are likely to be brought against the Bible
because of Noah's imprecation upon Canaan (Gen. 9:25), and because of Deborah's
praise of Jael for murdering Sisera by treachery (Judges 5:24-31).
The reply here is simple and brief. The Bible
does not justify either Noah or Deborah for the utterances mentioned; it merely
records the fact that the utterances were made. It is true that Noah uttered a
truthful forecast of the nations descended from his sons, but whether God moved
him to utter this curse upon Canaan, or merely permitted him to utter the truth
in an outburst of anger, is not stated.
The Bible, by no means, sanctions every word and act recorded in
it. It records the words and actions of evil men, such as King Saul and Ahab;
and oftentimes passes no verdict thereupon. God has revealed His law by which
all actions are to be tried. Therefore, it was unnecessary that He should have
cumbered the Bible with appraisal of every word or action recorded. Verbal
inspiration means simply that those chosen to write the
Bible were preserved from error in what they wrote. If their writings represent
a bonafide conviction of their own, it is true; but if a statement of some
other person, it may be true or false, according as to whether it harmonizes
with the Bible as a whole.
IV. SO-CALLED "OBSCENE CHAPTERS"
Then we are told that certain chapters of the Bible "reek
with obscenity from beginning to end."
In reply to this objection, R. A. Torrey says:
"That there are chapters in the Bible that cannot be wisely dealt with in
a mixed audience, we have no desire to deny; but these chapters are not
obscene. To speak in plainest terms of sin, even of the vilest sin, in order to
expose its loathsomeness and in order to picture man as he really is, is not
obscenity. It is purity in one of its highest forms. Whether a story is obscene
or not depends entirely upon how it is told and for what purpose it is told. If
a story is told in order to make a jest of sin, or in order
to paliate or excuse sin (or in order to gratify lust), it is obscene. If a
story is told in order to make men hate sin, to show men the hideousness of
sin, to induce men to give sin as wide a berth as possible, and to show man his
need of redemption, it is not obscene; it is morally wholesome"
(Difficulties and Alleged Contradictions and Errors in the Bible).
If these chapters were obscene, they would make favorite reading
in the dens of vice. But did any one ever hear of wicked people reading the
Bible for lustful gratification? These get no pleasure out of reading the
Bible, but they revel in hearing the obscene remarks of the critics. It is the
critic that is obscene and not the Bible. Col. Ingersoll objected to the Bible
for relating vile deeds "without a touch of
humor," as though it would have made it all right if the Bible had made a
jest of sin and immorality.
V. NUMERICAL VARIATIONS
An objection is brought against verbal
inspiration because of numerical variations.
In regard to the number of Jews, we find that the sum given in 1
Chron. 21:5 for Israel is 1,100,000, and for Judah, 470,000, making a total of
1,570,000; while the number given in 2 Sam. 24:9 for Israel is 800,000 and for
Judah it is 500,000, making a total of 1,300,000. This discrepancy is easily
explained by noting that the number given by Chronicles for
Israel was of men "that drew the sword," by which is meant that there
was this number of men subject to military service. While Samuel tells us that
in Israel there were so many "valiant men that drew the sword," by
which is meant that there was that number of men that had distinguished themselves
for bravery in actual combat. The difference in regard to Judah was occasioned
by the fact that Samuel gave the total number of men in
Judah, while Chronicles gives the number of men subject to military service.
In other places, such as 1 Kings 7:26; 2 Chron. 4:5; 2 Sam. 8:4;
and 1 Chron. 18:4, the numerical differences are probably due to errors in
transcription. Numbers are indicated in Hebrew by letters, and a small alteration of a letter greatly changes its numerical value.
It should not seem strange to us that present copies of the Bible
contain some minor errors. It should not surprise us any more than the finding
of some printer's errors in our Bibles. We have no more reason for believing in
infallible copyists than we have for believing in infallible printers.
Realizing the laborious task of copying the Scriptures by
hand, it is marvelous that there are not more minor errors.
In another place a numerical difference (Num. 25:9; 1 Cor. 10:8)
is to be explained as the perfectly legitimate use of round numbers of exact
ones.
VI. MATTHEWS ALLEGED MISTAKE
It is alleged that Matthew attributes to Jeremiah a prophecy that
should have been credited to Zechariah.
This supposed mistake of Matthew is found in Matt. 27:9,10.
Matthew here seems to quote Zech. 11:13, but that this is not absolutely
certain appears from a comparison of the two passages. Matthew does not make a
verbal quotation from Zechariah, therefore it cannot be maintained with
certainty that he meant to be quoting from Zechariah. And, while we do not have
in the extant writings of Jeremiah any passage that really
resembles Matthew's quotation, we are far from the necessity of admitting that
Matthew made a mistake. We do not know that we have all the prophetic
utterances of Jeremiah. In Jude 14 we have a prophecy of Enoch mentioned that
we do not find elsewhere in the Bible. We have heard of no objection being
brought against this passage. But suppose some other writer in the Scripture
had said something similar to the words attributed to
Enoch. Then the critic would have said that Jude made a mistake.
Moreover, it may be that chapters nine to eleven of the book
attributed to Zechariah were written by Jeremiah. Many critics believe that
only the first nine chapters of Zechariah compose the actual writings of this prophet. Matthew was in far better position than any of his
critics to know from whom he was quoting. To suppose that he carelessly wrote
Jeremiah when he meant Zechariah, and left it without subsequent correction, is
to suppose an absurdity. And there is no indication that a copyist made the
error.
VII. STEPHEN'S SUPPOSED MISTAKE
Our next objection to consider is an alleged contradiction between
Gen. 23:17,18 and the words of Stephen in Acts 7:16.
1. Even if a contradiction could be made out here, it would prove
nothing against inspiration, for Stephen was not one of the inspired writers.
Luke merely records what Stephen said.
2. But no contradiction appears here.
The two Scriptures do not refer to the same thing. The sepulchre
mentioned in Genesis was in Hebron. The one mentioned by Stephen
was in Sychem. This makes it clear that Abraham purchased two sepulchres. In
the case of the one at Hebron, he purchased the field surrounding the
sepulchre; but, in the case of the one at Sychem, no mention is made of the
purchase of the surrounding field.
This latter fact explains another alleged
contradiction. It is charged that Gen. 33:19 states that Jacob bought the
sepulchre at Sychem. But no such thing is stated in Gen. 33:19. Gen. 33:19 says
simply that Jacob bought the field in the vicinity of Sychem; and, since the
bones of Joseph were buried in this field, in all probability it was in this
field that Abraham's second sepulchre stood. This also appears from the fact that
Abraham's second sepulchre and the field purchased by Jacob formerly belonged to the same owners. So in this last case we
simply have Abraham buying a sepulchre, while later Jacob buys the field in
which the sepulchre stood.
VIII. THE GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST
The two genealogies of Christ are held to be contradictory. For
these genealogies see Matt. 1 and Luke 3. The explanation here is:
1. Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, because he
was presenting Jesus as king of the Jews.
Therefore, he desired to show his legal right to the throne, which
required that he be descended from David through his paternal (supposed to be)
parent.
2. Luke gives the descent of Jesus through
Mary, because he was interested in presenting Christ only as the Son of Man.
Hence it is natural that he should have given Christ's actual
human descent, rather than His supposed and legal descent. But, instead of
inserting the name of Mary, Luke inserted the name of Joseph, because it was not customary for the names of women to stand in genealogical
tables. Joseph is said to be the son of Heli, but, in a loose sense, this may
mean no more than that he was the son-in-law of Heli. The Targums tell us that
Heli was the father of Mary.
3. A further difficulty as to the father of
Shealtiel, Matthew giving Jechoniah and Luke giving Neri, is to be explained by
the fact that Luke gave the full ancestry, while Matthew gave only the royal
line back as far as David.
Jeconiah is the same as Jehoiachin, one of the last Kings of
Judah.
IX. THE INSCRIPTION OVER THE CROSS
The four accounts of the inscription over the cross have been
subjected to criticism. But let us note:
1. We have no indication that each of the writers meant to be giving
all that was in the inscription.
2. No one of the writers actually contradicts another.
We can best see this fact by arranging the accounts of the
inscription as follows:
Matt. 27:37- "This is Jesus,... the King of the Jews."
Mark 15:26- "... the King of the Jews."
Luke 23:38- "This is... the King of the
Jews."
John 19:19- "... Jesus of Nazareth, ... the King of the
Jews."
Total... "This is Jesus of Nazareth, -the King of the Jews.
3. Just as it requires the four gospels to give us a full picture
of Jesus, so it requires the four gospels to give us a full account of the inscription on the cross.
The different aspects of Jesus and His ministry, as they are set
forth in the gospels, are indicated in the following verse:
"Matthew, Messiah, Israel's King sets
forth, by Israel slain; But God decreed that Israel's loss should be the
Gentiles' gain. Mark tells how in patient love this earth has once been trod by
One, who in a servant's form, was yet the Son of God. Luke, the physician,
tells of a more skilled physician still, Who gave His life as son of Man, to
heal us from all ill. John, the beloved of Jesus, sees in Him the Father's Son;
The everlasting Word made flesh, yet with the Father one."
It may be that the inscription differed in the three languages,
and that this accounts, in part, for the differences in the accounts.
Objections are brought because of supposed contradictions in the
different accounts of the resurrection.
1. Matthew mentions only the appearance of an
angel to the women at the sepulchre (Matt. 28:2-8), while Mark says that it was
a young man (Mark 16:5-7), and Luke says that there were two men (Luke 24:4-8).
There is no contradiction here. The young man mentioned by Mark is
evidently the angel mentioned by Matthew. Angel means
"messenger." God's messenger to the women was a supernatural
appearance in the form of a young man. An angel is a spirit and has no material
body of its own, but may assume a body temporarily.
2. Mark says that the message of the angel was delivered to the
women after they entered the tomb. Matthew makes no mention of
the entering into the tomb.
But there is here no contradiction, because Matthew does not say
that the women did not enter into the tomb before the angel gave the message.
3. Luke mentions the two men as standing while
Mark mentions the one as sitting.
This is easily explained by supposing that the one who did the
talking (and, doubtless, the other also) was sitting when first seen, and that
he arose, as would be natural, before addressing the women. Luke does not say
that the two men were not sitting when the women entered the tomb, and Mark
does not say the one he mentions did not arise before
speaking.
4. Luke says, in reporting the message to the women: "They
said unto them," while Mark says: "He saith unto them."
One of these men likely did the talking; they
would not have been likely to recite the message in unison as school children
might do. But the other concurred in the message. Therefore the statement of
each writer is valid. When one person speaks and another concurs in what is
said, it is perfectly proper to say that they both said whatever is said.
5. The message of the angels is not reported
in the same words by all the gospel writers.
But this presents no real difficulty, for none of them indicate
that they are giving the message verbally.
(John 20:11-13 is not considered here in
connection with the foregoing because it records a later occurrence.)
XI. SLAUGHTER OF HEATHEN NATIONS
The command concerning the slaughter of the
heathen nations in the land of Canaan has given rise to an objection. See Deut.
20:16,17.
1. God asserts that He will punish the wicked in hell throughout
eternity.
If He has a right to do this (and who will
deny it?) does He not have a right to command the taking of their physical life
when it pleases Him to do so? Why, then, should it be doubted that God inspired
this command?
2. It was a stroke of mercy to cut these people short in their
iniquity, for additional days would only have gotten them greater punishment in hell.
None of the adults that were slain in their wickedness were of the
elect; for all the elect that reach accountability, come to Christ before
death; hence it is true that continued life could only involve these peoples in
greater punishment.
3. As for the infants among these nations: If God was pleased to
take them on to Heaven in their infancy, who should object?
God knows best and does all things well. The salvation of infants
who die is treated in the chapter on Human Responsibility.
XII. JOSHUA'S LONG DAY
Objection has been brought against verbal inspiration because the
Bible records that the sun stood still at the command of Joshua,
thus prolonging a certain day. Josh. 10:12-14.
1. Objection has been made to the language.
It is said that the language of Joshua's command and that of the
Bible record of the occurrence implies that the sun moves
in its relation to the earth. But this is no more true of this language than it
is of our language when we speak of the sun as rising and setting. In both
cases we have the language of appearance, which is common both in the Bible and
in our everyday language.
2. Objection is made to the authenticity of
the occurrence. It is said that such a thing as the prolonging of the day could
not occur without dire results. But, absurd as it may seem to our would-be-wise
critics, records of this long day have been found in Egypt, China, and Mexico.
Moreover the fact that an extra day has been added to astronomical chronology
is witnessed by three eminent scientists, viz., W. Maunders, formerly of the
Royal Observatory of Greenwich, and Professors Totten and
Pickering, formerly of Harvard Observatory.
The author freely admits that a slowing down of the rotation of
the earth would be attended with dire results, unless the laws of nature had
been suspended or some natural causes which we cannot imagine were brought into
play. But since we believe in a miracle-working God, we have no difficulty in
believing that God could circumvent the calculated natural
consequences in either one of the ways suggested.
XIII. JONAH AND "THE WHALE"
It is said that a whale could not have
swallowed Jonah. We will note first that, when correctly translated, the Bible
does not say that it was a whale that swallowed Jonah. The Greek word for whale
in Matt. 12:40 means simply a "sea-monster." On the other hand we
will note that the idea that a whale cannot swallow a man is another ignorant
assumption. In the "Cruise of the Cachalot," Frank Bullen
characterizes the idea that a whale's gullet is incapable of admitting any
large object as "a piece of crass ignorance." He
relates how "a shark fifteen feet in length has been found in the stomach
of a sperm whale," and he describes this monster as "swimming about
with the lower jaw hanging down in its normal position, and its huge gullet
gaping like some submarine cavern." Into this Jonah could have slipped so
easily that the whale would have been scarcely conscious of his entrance. Another
remarkable testimony from Mr. Bullen is "that when dying
the sperm whale always ejected the contents of its stomach," and he says
that when caught and killed, one full-grown whale ejected from its stomach food
"in masses of enormous size . . . some of them being estimated to be of
the size of our hatch-house-viz., eight feet by six feet by six feet!" And
yet the critics say the Bible is wrong! And despite the confident assertion of
would-be-wise critics that a man could not survive the action of the gastric
juices in a fish's stomach, there are cases on record of
men being swallowed by sharks and coming out alive. However, a natural
explanation is unnecessary in that the Giver of Life could have preserved Jonah
alive miraculously.
XIV. ANIMAL SACRIFICES
On the basis of Isa. 1:11-13; Jer. 7:22; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8
it has been asserted that the prophets denounced all animal sacrifices and did
not recognize them as being of divine institution. Such a notion, of course,
represents the prophets as being in conflict with the Pentateuch. To see that
the Pentateuch represents God as commanding animal sacrifices we have only to
examine such chapters as Ex. 12; Lev. 4; 8; 12; and 16.
In reply to the affirmation that the prophets denounced all animal
sacrifices and did not recognize them as being of divine origin let us note.
1. Jeremiah speaks elsewhere of sacrifices as
being among "the crowning blessings of a happier day."
See. Jer. 33: 18. This is to be fulfilled in a day when God says
Israel shall be to Him "for a name of joy, for a praise and for a glory,
before all the nations of the earth" (Jer. 33:9). Israel shall then be no
longer a rebellious nation, walking in stiffnecked
disobedience. They shall then do the things that please the Lord, and one of
the things they shall do, according to Jer. 33:18, is to offer, through their
priests, burnt offerings and sacrifices continually. Jeremiah speaks of this
with utmost approval.
2. Amos condemned the sacrifices of Israel
only because that along with their sacrifices to God they had borne the
tabernacle of Moloch.
See Amos 5:25,26. Along with this idol worship they had neglected
judgment and righteousness. For these reasons God hated their feast days. See
Ezek. 20:39. They were hypocritical pretensions of respect for
Jehovah. For the same reasons God was displeased with their songs. Shall we
then conclude that God rejected all singing?
3. The meaning of Jer. 7:22 is that God did not speak to Israel
primarily about sacrifices in the day when He led them from Egypt, and that He
did not commend sacrifices as an end within themselves.
"The difficulty is removed when the precise point of the text
is recognized. The word 'concerning' should he rendered 'with a view to the
matter of sacrifices.' That is, they are not the end contemplated. They were
but means for securing a higher end; and therefore those were altogether
mistaken and wrong who limited their view to the formal
sacrifice" (Robert Tuck, in A Handbook of Biblical Difficulties).
4. The language of the other prophets is no stronger than language
used elsewhere in Scripture, which manifestly cannot be taken in the absolute.
In Exodus 16:8 Moses declared to Israel: "Your murmurings are
not against us, but against the Lord," while in verse two of the same
chapter it is said that the children of Israel "murmured against Moses and
Aaron." And in Psa. 51:4, David said, in his prayer to God: "Against
thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight," when it
is certain that he had sinned against Uriah. Hence we read:
"It is a way of speaking usual in Scripture, to express the preference
that is due one thing above another, in terms which express the rejection of
that which is less worthy" (Lowth). Again: "Henderson remarks
suggestively that it is not infrequent in the Scripture for a thing to be
stated absolutely, which is true only relatively. Absolutely God did command
sacrifices, but not such as they offered, nor of final obligation" (Tuck,
ibid). Further: "The negative in Hebrew often supplies
the want of the comparative; not excluding the thing denied, but only implying
the prior claim of the thing set in opposition to it" (Commentary by
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown).
Corresponding to the above we find in Hosea 6:6 both a negative
and a comparative clause so placed together as to indicate that they both express the same truth. And the latter clause,
"and knowledge more than burnt offerings," provides the key for
interpreting all prophetic denunciations of the sacrifices of Israel.
XV. THE LYING SPIRIT IN THE MOUTH OF AHAB'S PROPHETS
In 2 Chron. 18:22 Micaiah is represented as declaring to Ahab:
"The lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy
prophets." This record causes us to ask if God caused this lying spirit to
be in the mouth of Ahab's prophets. The answer is that He did not. The record
here, together with a number of other passages, gives a strong expression of
what took place according to God's permissive providence or
purpose. See discussion of God's permissive will in Chapter on "The Will
of God." See also Isa. 45:7, where
God is said to create evil. This is to be explained in the same way as the
foregoing passage.
This explanation is enforced by a comparison of 2 Sam. 24:1 with 1
Chron 21:1. In the former passage it is said that God moved David
to command the numbering of Israel, and in the latter it is said that Satan
"provoked David to number Israel." God moved David permissively. All
of these passages taken together are mutually explanatory.
XVI. NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD
An objection has been brought because of verbal differences
between some passages of the Old Testament and the quotation of them in the New
Testament.
But as we have already noticed, instead of this being against
verbal inspiration, it is argument in favor of it. If God put more meaning into Old Testament passages than the language could convey
to men, was it not altogether His privilege to bring out this meaning in the
New Testament? God has a right to interpret His own words. Indeed these
quotations show the depth and breadth of Scripture, and thus witness to its
inspiration.