Different Forms of Revelation. We begin with the distinction already noticed in a cursory way,1 between that form of revelation which is purely outward (objective), and that which is wholly inward (subjective); between which lie some forms of an intermediate character. The purely objective form, addressed to men through the medium of their outward senses, they being awake and their minds in a normal state, is manifestly the very highest mode of revelation. A notable example of this we have in the giving of the law from Mount Sinai. "All the people," we are told, "saw the thunderings and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking." 2 "These words," says Moses, "the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice." 3 Such also was the entire revelation made to men by Jesus Christ. He was more than a prophet speaking by inspiration of God. He was himself God clothed with humanity, and speaking to men through this humanity. It is true that his human nature was the recipient of the Holy Ghost, given to him without measure; but it is no less true that he, as the eternal Son of God, is, in conjunction with the Father, the divine Sender, and not merely the receiver, of the Spirit.5 His communications of truth to men are never prefaced with the words: "Thus saith the Lord," but always with his own authority-"Verily, verily, I say unto you." They are therefore eminently objective in their form. It is to be understood, of course, that such purely outward revelations might be accompanied by the inward operation of the Divine Spirit on the hearts of the hearers, a condition indispensable, indeed, to their saving efficacy. To 1 See Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxiv. pp. 596, 597. 2 Ex. xx. 18. 8 Deut. v. 22. Matt. iii. 16; Mark i. 10-12; Luke iii. 22; iv. 1; John iii. 34; Acts x. 38. 5 Luke xxiv. 49; John xv. 26; xvi. 7; xx. 22. such an inward operation Moses alludes, in a mournful tone, when he says: "Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great temptations which thine eyes have scen, the signs and those great miracles "here we have, in part, the outward revelation; "yet the Lord hath not given you," he adds, "a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day "1-a thing to be accomplished by the inward work of the Spirit in the hearts of those who had witnessed all these outward signs. So, again, when the Saviour says to Peter: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is in heaven," he refers, here as he does elsewhere, to the inward illumination of the Spirit, common to all believers, and which should be carefully distinguished from inspiration in the proper sense of the word.4 This inward operation, however necessary and precious, is not itself the revelation, but rather the application of the revelation to the souls of those to whom it is made. The revelation itself, in the form which we are now considering, is purely objective; that is, addressed to the outward senses. It is not given by inspiration, though inspiration is necessary to make the record of it divinely authoritative. At the other extreme, in respect to form, stand those revelations which are purely subjective-made inwardly to the mind of the recipient, and not outwardly through the medium of the senses. We give two examples, one from the Old Testament, the other from the New. When Gehazi, Elisha's servant, ran after Naaman's chariot, and obtained from him by falsehood two talents of silver, and two changes of raiment, the prophet received from God an inward knowledge of the whole transaction. "Went not my heart with thee," says he to Gehazi," when the man turned again from 1 Deut. xxix. 2-4. 8 Matt. xi. 25-27; John vi. 44, 45-65. See Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxiv. pp. 595, 596. 2 Matt. xvi. 17. his chariot to meet thee?" When, again, “ Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet," Peter knew by an inward revelation of the Spirit the falsehood and hypocrisy of the transaction. "Ananias," said he, "why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?"2 In these two instances the knowledge seems to have been given by a sort of supernatural intuition, without the help of any inward vision or voice addressed to the internal sense. How the knowledge thus received was certified to the recipients as coming from God it would be vain to inquire. Equally vain would be the attempt to disprove the possibility of such a certification. It must be assumed as an axiom of revealed religion that God could and did reveal his presence to the consciousness of the prophets in such a way as to remove all doubt as to the reality of the revelation received by them.3 Intermediate between the two forms of revelation that have been considered the purely outward and objective, and the immediate inward intuition-there are several others. Thus we have the record of visions in dreams and in trance, with and without the accompaniment of spoken words; voices from heaven and from the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle; appearances of angels; and the like. In respect to some of these it would be difficult to determine whether they are to be regarded as objective or subjective. Nor is the question one of importance, since, either way, the end proposed was the communication of divine truth. Proper Application of the Term Inspiration. The term inspiration does not once occur in the Bible, and the adjective inspired of God (OeóπVEVOTOS) appears only once. But the idea expressed by these terms is found abundantly in both the Old and the New Testament. In theological usage they have become household words, be1 2 Kings v. 20-27. 8 See Appendix, Note A. 2 Acts v. 1-3. cause they were needed to express a definite scriptural idea; and to this they ought to be restricted. The supernatural illumination and guidance enjoyed by all believers is an exceedingly precious gift of God. But to call it inspiration would be to confound things that differ; and to bridge over, also, the gulf that exists between the evangelical faith and rationalism. For if worldly men were to hear Christians, who give, alas! convincing evidence of their fallibility, continually spoken of as inspired of God, what inference could they draw but that inspiration is not such a gift as raises its possessor above error, so as to impart to his words the sanction of divine authority? Thus, while the intention was to exalt in 'human apprehension the gift of the Holy Spirit, the practical effect would be to bring men upon the rationalistic ground that the writings of scripture contain a mixture of truth and error, which each one is to separate for himself by the light of his own reason. Let then the term be restricted to that plenary illumination of the Holy Spirit which gives to the words and writings of inspired men the sanction of divine authority. The attempt has been made, in the interest of a certain theory (to be considered hereafter), to transfer the seat of inspiration, so far as the sacred writings are concerned, from the mind of the writer to the words recorded by him. Thus Haldane says: "The word 'inspire' signifies to breathe into, and literally corresponds to the original in 2 Tim. iii. 16, all scripture is inspired of God, or breathed into the writers by God. It is, therefore, of the writing that the inspiration is asserted." Carson everywhere insists upon making a distinction between the inspiration of persons and the inspiration of scripture. "It is," says he, a fundamental error with our opponents, that they confound inspiration, as it respects the enlightening of the minds of the inspired persons, with inspiration as an attribute of scripture. Now, while it is very proper to speak of the writers as inspired, it must be borne in mind that the 1 Haldane on Inspiration, p. 113. Edinburgh, 1845. 66 passage which speaks of inspiration, speaks of it solely as it concerns what is written."1 Again: "I have again and again shown my antagonists that inspiration is asserted, 2 Tim. iii. 16 not as it respects the minds of the writers, but as it respects their writings." 2 The same distinction is also made by Lord: "Moreover," he says, "in the discussion of the subject, it has been taken for granted, that it was the writers personally, instead of that which they wrote, which was alleged to be inspired."3 Again: "The difficulty, we apprehend, arises altogether from an erroneous view of the nature and subject of inspiration; as if it were the writers, instead of what they wrote, that was inspired."4 Accordingly, throughout a volume of more than three hundred pages, he carefully avoids the term "inspired writers," but speaks abundantly of the inspired writings of scripture. This he does because he maintains that inspiration consists not in the divine illumination and guidance enjoyed by the sacred writers, but, as we shall see, in the direct communication to them of the contents of scripture; as well those contents which were already known to them, as those that were received by a new revelation. The office of the writer, according to this view, is simply to record the things which he receives from the Holy Ghost, and the communication or breathing into him, of these things is inspiration. We cannot assent to this distinction between the inspiration of the writer and that of the record as either natural or tenable. All Christians are, indeed, accustomed to speak of the inspired writings; but they rightly regard the writings as inspired because they proceeded from the pen of inspired men; a metonymy so simple and natural that it need not stumble any one. We do not affirm that the Holy Ghost never communicated directly the identical words to be spoken or written (as in the gift of tongues and other cases to be considered hereafter), but we say that the ordinary representation of scripture is that the men themselves were 1 Refutation of Dr. Henderson's doctrine in his late work on Inspiration, etc., p. 33. 1837. & Plenary Inspiration, p. 10. New York. 1858. 2 Ibid. p. 43. |