_5_Objections to the Doctrine of Inspiration

The objections raised against the inspiration of Holy Scripture constitute an exceedingly sad chapter. They are as harmful as the objections voiced against the satisfactio vicaria of Christ. Whoever denies the substitutional satisfaction of Christ denies the very essence of the Christian faith, because only the reliance on Christ’s vicarious satisfaction (1 Cor. 2:2; 15:1-3; John 1:29) is the Christian faith. And whoever denies the inspiration of Scripture, i. e., denies that the Word of the Apostles and Prophets is God’s own infallible Word, destroys, as far as lies in his power, the foundation of the Christian Church, because, according to Eph. 2:20, the Christian Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Nor dare we forget that everyone who denies the inspiration of Scripture eo ipso becomes a critic of Scripture and as a critic of Scripture — which as God’s Word is not to be criticized but believed — is subject to the divine judgment described in Matt. 11:25. None of us, even though he were a doctor in all four of the learned professions, can deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture without suffering an impairment of his natural mental powers. The arguments advanced against the inspiration of Scripture are below the level of the natural powers of mind which mankind still possesses since the Fall. Among the arguments against the inspiration of Holy Scripture we note:

1. The different style in the various books in the Scripture.42 The different writers do have different styles. Isaiah writes in a style different from that of Amos; the style of John differs from that of Paul, etc. The old dogmaticians point out this difference. Quenstedt (Systema I, 111) writes: “Great is the diversity among the sacred writers as to style and manner of speech.” One need not be conversant with the Hebrew and the Greek original text in order to recognize such a diversity; the translations, too, show this difference of style. This difference of style is said to contradict the inspiration of Scripture. The argument runs thus: If God were the true Author of the Scriptures, or, in other words, if the Scriptures actually were the Word of the one God, there would have to be one and the same style in all books of Scripture; the difference in the style — that has been the emphatic declaration — gives the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures the deathblow. In Nitzsch-Stephan (p. 251) one finds the ironical remark that the old Lutheran theology was not in the least disconcerted by the variety of styles, but clung to the Verbal Inspiration without faltering. We say: That was very sensible on the part of the old Lutheran theologians. For, as a matter of fact, the diversity in the style does not contradict inspiration, but is demanded by it. God did not speak through one man, but through a number of them, each one of whom had his own distinctive style, which God used in communicating His Word. There is, to resort to more learned language, no human style in abstracto but only in concreto, that is, the style of individual persons. No man has ever observed a style which was severed from the person who used it. But why did God not have the Scriptures written in His own divine style? Would that not have been the incontrovertible external proof that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God”? Scripture has the answer. Scripture tells us that God could not use His own divine, or heavenly, style because it was a celestial style, unsuited to men here on earth. According to 2 Cor. 12:4 Paul was caught up into the heavenly Paradise and heard words there. But they were “unspeakable words, which it is not lawful [margin: possible] for a man to utter” (Luther: “welche kein Mensch sagen kann”). This celestial style of speech, which is not fitting for this world, we shall someday understand in heaven. It follows that the objection to inspiration taken from the diversity of styles reveals anything but good reasoning.

Our old dogmaticians take a very sensible view of the matter. Quenstedt says (Systema I, 109): “According as the holy writers were trained or accustomed to speak or write either in an elegant or in a simpler style, so the Holy Ghost used them and was ready to accommodate Himself to the natural aptitude of the men and to condescend to it.”43 We have an analogy to this “condescension” in Christ’s humbling Himself while in the State of Humiliation. If Christ was to fulfill the Law and suffer and die in our stead, it was necessary that He go about in Palestine not in His divine glory (else everyone from Dan to Beersheba would have fled from Him), but that He humiliate Himself and “become in fashion as a man” (Phil. 2:7). Similarly, if God would speak to men, He had to refrain from using His divine, or celestial, style and condescend to use the human style (condescendere, attemperare). How this was possible is, indeed, beyond our “rational discernment” (“erkenntnismaessigen Erfassung”), just as the unio personalis of God and man, and particularly the fact that the Son of God could condescend to die on the Cross without renouncing or reducing His deity, remains an impenetrable mystery to us. But as this latter fact is incontrovertibly true — for the Lord of glory, God’s Son, was crucified (1 Cor. 2:8; Rom. 8:32) — so, too, this fact is incontestable that God’s speech in Scripture, through His condescension to human speech and the human style of the writers, does not cease to be fully and entirely God’s Word, as is evident from all passages that identify the Word of Scripture and God’s Word.

It is certain, then, that God has given us through men (.) a Word which is not, as modern theology claims, in part the Word of God and in part the word of men, but so wholly and entirely God’s Word that not one word of it can be broken (John 10:35); on which, as on an adamantine foundation, the whole Church rests with its faith to the Last Day (Eph. 2:20); in compliance with which all events in the world take place, or, to use Rudelbach’s striking phrase: “The Scriptures are, so to say, the spiritual hour hand in the Kingdom of God; the strokes of the clock of the world correspond to it or rather are determined by it.” 44

Modern theology raises the charge against the old dogmaticians that they emphasized the “divine side” of Scripture so strongly that they neglected the “human side.” Even Philippi was misled into joining, at least to some extent, in this accusation (Glaubenslehre I, 179 f.). Now, it is a fact that the dogmaticians placed a strong emphasis on the divine side of Scripture. But in doing that they merely followed the example of the Evangelists and Apostles of Christ and of Christ Himself. In the first four chapters of the Gospel according to Matthew, for instance, Scripture is quoted nine times, and every time the “divine side” is emphasized. For it is certainly stressing the divine side of Scripture when we are told that what is reported in those chapters from the life of Jesus happened in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. In obedience to the word of men no events occur; events occur only in obedience to the Word of God. And the fact that Christ overcomes the temptations of the devil, as reported in the fourth chapter, with the “It is written,” again definitely stresses the divine side. For by the word of man the devil cannot be vanquished; the Word of God, however, is the sword of the Spirit, with which the fiery darts of the devil are victoriously beaten back (Eph. 6:16-17).

If we ask why Scripture itself so strongly emphasizes the divine side of Scripture, the answer is simple. There is no danger that the “human side,” rightly understood, will be overlooked. Everyone sees the human side, because the Scriptures are written in the human language. But the “divine side” was and is in danger of being overlooked. Because our human understanding since the Fall is darkened in spiritual things and we are alienated from the life of God through the ignorance in us, through the blindness () of our heart, this fact that the Word written through men, entirely in the human language, is not the word of men, but altogether God’s Word, , is apt to recede into the background, yes, to fade out entirely — just as the Jews did not recognize Christ’s Word as God’s Word, just as the modern theologians do not recognize the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word and have therefore deposed Scripture from its office of being the source and norm of theology. — By the way, the modern theologians do not really mean the “human side” of Scripture when they say that the human side has been overlooked by the dogmaticians. By the human side, about which they are so concerned, they mean the alleged errors in Scripture. They want Scripture to be broken in order that the Scriptures will not be regarded as the “textbook” of the Christian religion, but that “the pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject” may have liberty of action.

2. The appeal of the holy writers to their historical research has been advanced against the inspiration of the Bible. True, the holy writers did make historical research. The Evangelist Luke refers to the fact that he had “traced the course of all things accurately from the first” (Luke 1:3, R. V.). And Paul refers to historical facts communicated to him by others (1 Cor. 1:11: “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you”). This is turned into an argument against inspiration: “If God gave the holy writers by inspiration what they were to write, why do they appeal to their own research and to communications given them by others?” This argument lies on the same plane as the one regarding the different styles. As the Holy Ghost employed the literary style which the several writers possessed, so He also used the historical knowledge which they had acquired by their own experience or by their own research or by communications from others. Take what happened on the first Pentecost. By their own experience the Apostles knew of the resurrection of Christ before Pentecost. Yet on the day of Pentecost they preached of this event, as of the other great deeds of God, “as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Again, it has been urged against the inspiration of the Psalms that it would be absurd to assume that the Holy Ghost spoke through David what he, David, felt in his heart. Thus Kahnis says: “Should we assume that the Holy Ghost dictated to David in the form of a Psalm the emotions David experienced in his heart?”45 But that the experience of his own heart does not cancel the inspiration David himself affirms when he says (2 Sam. 23:1-2): “David, the son of Jesse, said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob and the sweet Psalmist of Israel, said: The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His Word was in my tongue.” For this reason also Luther saw no contradiction between the “feelings of the heart” and “inspiration,” but rather praised this combination highly as the Holy Ghost’s method of teaching; and at the same time he warns us all against casting aside David’s Psalms, so filled with his heart’s feelings, as containing only human instruction. Luther comments on 2 Sam. 23:1-2 as follows: “What an excellent, bold glorying that is! Whoever can boast that the Spirit of the Lord speaks through him and that his tongue speaks the words of the Holy Ghost, he must be very sure of his case. That cannot be David, the son of Jesse, born in sin, but he who has been raised to be a Prophet by God’s promise. Should you not expect delightful Psalms from him who has such a Teacher to teach him and speak through him? He that has ears to hear, let him hear. My speech (nota bene in the Psalms) is not my speech, but whoever hears me hears God; whoever despises me, despises God. For I see that many of my descendants will not give ear to my words, to their great harm. Such a boast neither we nor anyone who is not a Prophet may utter. What we may do if we are also sanctified and have the Holy Ghost is this, that we boast of being catechumens and pupils of the Prophets, who repeat and preach what we have heard and learned from the Prophets and Apostles and are also sure that the Prophets have taught it. Such men are called in the Old Testament ‘the children of the prophets’ as offer nothing of their own and nothing new, as the Prophets do, but teach what they have learned from the Prophets, and they are the ‘Israel,’ as David calls them, for whom he writes the Psalms.” (St. L. III:1890.)

3. The variant readings (variae lectiones) found in the copies () of the originals () are said to disprove the doctrine of inspiration. Variant readings in the copies do exist. But, first of all, let us bear in mind that it is not fair to argue from the variant readings in the copies against the inspiration of the originals. We have never held that the copyists of the holy writings were inspired. Spelling mistakes or slips or attempted corrections in the copies have absolutely nothing to do with the inspiration of the originals. To adduce an analogous case: If it is discovered that in copying or printing an act of the legislature, say of the State of Missouri, mistakes crept in, no sensible person would conclude that the act was never adopted with a definite wording. That is generally admitted. Accordingly, men ought not to argue from the mistakes which are found in the copies of the Bible against the inspiration of the originals.

But now the objection to the inspiration of Scripture assumes another form, namely, that an inspired Scripture becomes useless and should no longer be urged, since the presence of variant readings makes it, after all, uncertain which is the original Word of God. The critics make much of this objection. Theodor Kaftan claims in his Moderne Theologie des alten Glaubens, 2d ed., p. 96 f.: “Every theologian knows that there is no authentic text,” “that the number of variant readings is legion,” and “that it must give the verbal inspirationist quite a jolt when he realizes that no one, not even he himself, is able to tell which text is the one that is verbally inspired.” The exact opposite is true! In spite of the variants in the copies of the Bible we have a reliable Bible text. Referring to this reliable Bible text, Luther uttered the words: “The Word they still shall let remain.” With reference to the text of the New Testament (of which in particular the “legion of variant readings” is asserted) we have two ways of knowing that in the copies the Word of the Apostles or, what is identical with it, the Word of Christ, has been preserved for us.

a. We know we have this Word a priori, that is, prior to any human investigation, on the basis of the divine promise. When our Savior says in His high-priestly prayer (John 17:20) that all those who will come to faith to the end of time will come to faith through the Word of the Apostles, He therewith promises us that the Word of the Apostles will be present in the Church to the Last Day. Again, when Christ admonishes all believers to continue in His Word (John 8:31-32: “If ye continue in My Word, then are ye My disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth”), He guarantees that His Word will be present for us to continue in it. If there are such as do not recognize the Word of Christ which they have as Christ’s Word, such failure is certainly due to their blindness, that, seeing, they do not see and, hearing, they do not hear, because they do not understand. (Matt. 13:13 ff.) Again, when Christ instructs not only the Apostles, but His Church (Matt. 28:20) to teach all nations all things () whatsoever He has commanded them, He gives the Church the guarantee that His doctrine in all its parts will be clearly and surely known to it to the end of time. Christ also comes to the defense of the text of the Old Testament. When Christ says in particular of the entire Scriptures of the Old Testament that they cannot be broken (John 10:35), He is certainly affirming that the text of the Old Testament is reliable. Similarly He states (Luke 16:29): “They have () Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them.” Likewise in His temptation (Matthew 4) Christ operates with the as with an immovable certain text. We do not read that the devil brought up the matter of “variant readings.” So we know a priori, before any investigation, from the promise and the testimony of Christ, that in the Scriptures now at the disposal of the Church we have a reliable text, or, in other words, the authentic doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, that is, of God, in spite of the variae lectiones in the copies.

b. We reach the same result also a posteriori, on the basis of scientific investigation. Human scientific investigation establishes the fact that not a single Christian doctrine has been rendered doubtful in any point by the “legion” of variant readings. Also neologists have said as much. Luthardt (Komp., 10th ed., p. 334): “We may be certain, and investigation confirms it, that the text of the Bible has been preserved for us in all essentials.” This is admitted also by the genuine textual critics, those who are to be taken seriously. Luthardt’s remark that the Biblical text has been preserved “in all essentials” might be understood to say, and has been so understood, that on the basis of the Biblical text, as we now have it, the Christian doctrine could be determined merely approximately, not in all its parts or with complete certainty. But that is a mistake. Exactly the opposite holds true. Compare, e. g., the newer critical editions of the New Testament text, those by Tischendorf or by Westcott and Hort or by Nestle, with the textus receptus of Erasmus in the sixteenth century, which was established “when the science of textual criticism was unborn,” as A. B. Bruce of Glasgow expresses it in The Expositor’s Greek Testament I, p. 52, and you will be completely cured of the fear that the collection of many thousands of variant readings 46 which modern textual criticism has recorded demand a change in a single Christian doctrine. There is much in the five volumes of the Expositor’s Greek Testament of which we cannot approve. It is written from the modern theologian’s standpoint. But we have no fault to find with the action of the editor and his collaborators in agreeing to reproduce the textus receptus, “representing the Greek text as known to Erasmus in the sixteenth century.” Variations from the textus receptus are added in notes. Two reasons are advanced for retaining the old text: 1) the fact that this text is the basis of the Authorized Version, and 2) the fact that “while the modern textual critics have done much to provide a purer text,” “their judgments in many cases do not accord and their results cannot be regarded as final” (loc. cit., p. 52). Bruce is an out-and-out modern theologian and has given up the “inerrancy” of Scripture. Still he insists that a great number of the variations are of so little weight that they can be entirely disregarded since they do not affect the sense.47 In short, the situation is this: A comparison of recent critical editions of the text of the New Testament with the textus receptus, which is also substantially the basis of Luther’s translation, convinces us of the fact that the establishing of the Christian doctrine does not depend in the least on modern textual criticism.

We are not saying, however, that textual criticism should be eliminated entirely from our theological curriculum. We, too, in our theological seminary at St. Louis introduce our students to modern textual criticism. That is a part of the complete external equipment of a theologian of our day. But we point out two things to our students: 1) We know a priori from the divine promise that in our present Bible we have the Word of Christ which is to be taught in the Church and by the Church to the Last Day. 2) We recognize, too, a posteriori, that the divine providence has so wonderfully held its protecting hand over the Bible text that in spite of the variae lectiones not a single Christian doctrine has become a matter of doubt.

This, then, is the situation: God has arranged the Bible so that one and the same doctrine is set down in several, usually in numerous places. That is also brought out by the words of the Apostle (Phil. 3:1): “To write the same things [ one and the same] to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.” Now, if because of a variant we must relinquish a certain prooftext for a certain doctrine — which, by the way, is seldom the case — we have ample proof for that doctrine in other passages which have not been touched by textual criticism. Here is a precaution which is important in disputing with opponents: Disputandi causa refrain from establishing a challenged reading. To illustrate, in a dispute with Unitarians on the doctrine of the Trinity relinquish 1 John 5:7-8 as prooftext. The words which mention the three witnesses in heaven: “The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost,” are not found in the older Greek transcripts. One may indeed be convinced, on the basis of scientific investigation, that these words are nevertheless genuine, that is, that they were in the original autographs. We personally hold this conviction, because Cyprian quotes these words as Scripture.48 But in a dispute with a Unitarian, who denies the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, we at once disregard this passage as prooftext. That does not make the doctrine of the Holy Trinity doubtful in any way, since this doctrine is taught clearly — also with the co-ordination of the three persons in God — in such passages of Scripture as are not questioned by the critics, e. g., Matt. 28:19: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” and 2 Cor. 13:13: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all.”

4. The alleged contradictions in Scripture and erroneous statements in general are stressed particularly by the opponents of inspiration. At the time when Philippi had not yet gained the right attitude toward Scripture and still admitted the possibility of errors in Scripture, he nevertheless censured the “furious search for discrepancies” on the part of the moderns, which was “due primarily to the wicked attitude which boasts of having eliminated all assumptions and presuppositions; they claimed the right to cut loose from the presupposition that Scripture is the Word of God, but in place of that sat down in the temple of God and presupposed that they were God” (Glaubenslehre, 1st ed., I, 199). With regard to the alleged contradictions in Scripture the situation is briefly this: if only there is some readiness to come to an understanding, the possibility of harmonizing the seemingly contradictory statements can easily be shown; and no fair-minded person will ask more than that. Ebrard 49 should not have reproved Chemnitz for “offering the probable when he could offer nothing certain.” Chemnitz’s principle is the only sensible one. In recent years A. T. Robertson has written these apt words: “In explaining a difficulty, it is always to be remembered that even a possible explanation is sufficient to meet the objector. If several possible explanations are suggested, it becomes all the more unreasonable for one to contend that the discrepancy is irreconcilable. It is a work of supererogation to show that this or that explanation is the real solution of the problem. Sometimes, owing to new light, this might be possible, but it is never necessary. And by reason of the meager information we have on many points in the Gospel narrative, it may always be impossible in various cases to present a solution satisfactory in every point. The harmonist has done his duty if he can show a reasonable explanation of the problem before him. It is to be remembered also that there is as much prejudice against the supernatural element in the Gospels as there is a favorable opinion for the accuracy of the narratives.” 50 We shall have to agree with Robertson. This might be added: If we should meet with a case where we can discover no way of adjusting the difference, we leave the matter in abeyance, since as Christians we believe, on the authority of the Son of God, in the infallibility of Scripture—“the Scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35). All objections against the inerrancy of Scripture disgrace the Christian, because they oppose a human judgment to Christ’s judgment.

Luther knew very well how to deal with the unbeliever and the Christian according to his flesh in an apologetic way, but when he describes the attitude toward the Scriptures which is becoming to the Christian, he uses firm, yes, strong language. He says, for example: “They [the sophists] say the Scriptures are far too weak that we should silence heretics with them; reason must do it, and it must come forth from the brain; thus one must prove that the faith is the right one. But our faith is above all reason, and it alone is the power of God. Therefore, if the people will not believe, then be silent; for you are not held to compel them to receive Scripture as God’s book or Word; it is enough if you give the reason therefor. But if they take exceptions and say: You preach that one should not hold to man’s doctrine, and yet St. Peter and Paul, and even Christ, were men — when you hear people of this stamp, who are so blinded and hardened as to deny that what Christ and the Apostles spoke and wrote is God’s Word, or doubt it, then be silent, speak no more with them, and let them go. Only say: I will give you reasons enough from Scripture; if you will believe it, it is well; if not, go your way. Will you say: Then God’s Word must suffer defeat? Leave that to God!” (St. L. IX: 1238 f.) According to Luther, it is utterly unworthy of a Christian to refuse to accept as God’s Word and inerrant what Christ and the Apostles spoke and wrote. This judgment Luther also applies to the historical trustworthiness of Scripture in all cases where there is a discrepancy between secular writers and the statements of Scripture. He says: “I make use of the secular writings in such a manner that I am not forced to contradict Scripture. For I believe that in the Scriptures the God of truth speaks; in the histories good people display, according to their ability, their diligence and fidelity (but only as men) or at least that their copyists have perchance erred” (St. L. XIV:491). Likewise Luther maintains the inerrancy of the Scriptures when they differ with the natural scientists. He says with regard to the doctrine of the creation of the world: “When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and all that is therein in six days, then let it stand that it was in six days, and you dare not find a gloss how six days were one day. And if you cannot understand how it could have been done in six days, then accord the Holy Ghost the honor that He is more erudite than you” (St. L. III:21). As to the accommodation of the differences in the reports of the Gospels, Luther (just like Chemnitz in his Evangelienharmonie) is content with pointing out several possible ways of solving the apparent discrepancies. (St. L. VII:1780 f.) He is so far from doubting the correctness of the reports that he even declares the apparent disorder in them to be God’s work and wisdom (St. L. VII: 1297).

The right attitude toward the apparent contradictions in Scripture was set forth about thirty years ago at the “August Conference” by Pastor Schulze of Walsleben. He said among other things: “As the historical person of Jesus Christ, so also single historical events may be considered from various viewpoints. It is pettiness to construct contradictions out of this. Other things we leave in abeyance and patiently wait for the time when they will be clarified and, even if that does not take place, die in peace, our lips and our hearts bearing testimony to the truth of Scripture… . We find no cause to give up the attitude toward Scripture which the Church has taken toward it from the beginning, and we shall continue to praise as its glory that through it God is speaking to men and that it is His infallible Word. That is also the position of Christ and His Apostles.” (See Lehre und Wehre, 1891, p. 379.) Philipp Schaff (Geschichte der apostolischen Kirche, 1854, p. 101) said: “The full and perfect awe for the Word of God, which we miss more or less among the entire school of Schleiermacher, demands in such cases where science cannot yet dispel the darkness a humble bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ or suspension for the time being of any definite judgment, in the hope that a further and deeper research will succeed in arriving at satisfactory results” (quoted in Philippi’s Glaubenslehre, 1st ed., I, 200). Just recently we read in the Deutsche Lehrerzeitung the following on “contradictions” in Scripture: 51 “You point to contradictions that you cannot solve with your reason; but you also emphatically state that you are convinced of the conditionality of your knowledge. The same holds true of me. The ‘facts’ you mention — I could easily increase the number — are not unfamiliar to me nor to any attentive reader of the Bible. But can and dare we positively claim that everything which appears as a contradiction to your reason and to mine will under no circumstances ever be harmonized, that the things which at present appear discordant to us will not, in the light of a better and unconditional knowledge, after all pass from dissonance to concord? ‘Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known.’ Might this word of the Apostle not be applicable to our case and your ‘facts’? We both acknowledge that Holy Scripture contains ‘contradictions’ for our reason, but the deductions which we draw from these premises are diametrically opposed to each other. You conclude on the basis of the ‘primitive’ use of your reason: there appear contradictions in Scripture, therefore Scripture cannot be inerrant. I conclude: the Scriptures are according to the statements of Him of whom they bear witness inviolable truth; therefore the ‘contradictions’ must resolve themselves in the light of a higher or more perfect knowledge. You, though you are convinced of the insufficiency and conditionality of your knowledge, take the rationalistic standpoint. I, because I do not believe my limited reason capable of a reliable judgment in divine matters, take the standpoint of my Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. For you the question at issue is a matter of reason, for me it is a matter of faith.”

The neologists certainly cannot blame Philippi for speaking of a “furious search for discrepancies” on their part. Take the case of the difference in the numbers given 1 Cor. 10:8 – 23,000; and Num. 25:9 – 24,000. Men like Volck of Dorpat find a plain contradiction here, while, in fact, the solution of the apparent contradiction is clearly indicated in these very passages. Lehre und Wehre, 1886, p. 319 f., says of this case: “If one reads these two passages and dispenses with all further reflexion, the thought may take root that only one of the two sums can be correct. But on closer examination of the narrative in Numbers 25 one observes a difference among those struck down by the wrath of God. The heads of the people, the real instigators who had misled Israel to commit whoredom and idolatry, were to be hanged, others to be slain by the judges with the sword (Num. 25:4-5). Most of them were swept away by the plague, possibly a pestilence. How now, if Paul in 1 Cor. 10:8 had in mind those stricken down directly by God, the 23,000, in distinction from those slain by human hands, of which there may have been a thousand, while Num. 25:9 gives the total number of those who perished? Or if the entire 24,000 mentioned by Moses died of the pestilence, still it is not said that the 24,000 died on one day, while according to Paul the 23,000 fell on one day. Paul describes the scourge of that one day, While Moses speaks in general of the punishment provoked by the whoredom of Israel. It is plainly a rash judgment, also according to the reckoning of natural reason, if the one figure is made to contradict the other. And the same holds true in other cases.”

Lehre und Wehre goes on to call attention to the thought we expressed above, namely, that common reason demands that we be content with a possible solution of apparent contradictions. “When one and the same event is described in two different places in the Bible in two different ways, it is manifest that different features, different aspects of the same thing are brought out in the two reports. We should have to know exactly all minor circumstances and particulars of the central fact spoken of to recognize how these various features fit together. Since, however, as a rule, only a few data are given, since various circumstances are unknown to us, since all kinds of links are missing, it is often impossible for us to say definitely how the various circumstances fit together and find room in one frame. Here various possibilities suggest themselves. And it is subjective arbitrariness, yes, a crying wrong is inflicted on the Scriptures if the difference in the reporting is turned into a dissension and contradiction of the reporters. As long as proof is not furnished that the two reports are diametrically opposed, the recognition of contradictions demanded by the scientific theology of our day is nothing less than a scientific swindle… . Harmonistics is confined within narrow limits. In numerous cases it is impossible to construct from the different statements of the Evangelists concerning one and the same miracle of Jesus a complete and exact picture of the whole event and assign to each of the minor circumstances reported by the individual Evangelist its place in the whole structure. It is much better to answer the question what the connection between the various individual circumstances is and what the sequence of the individual incidents had been with a non liquet [it is not clear] than to palm off a self-conceived combination as evangelical truth. But as long as the various features do not mutually cancel and exclude one another — and it will never be possible to prove that they do — so long, even from a purely human standpoint, it is foolish and foolhardy to stamp the variations as contradictions.” After exemplifying this procedure in the case of the Easter Story, the article finally states: “Moreover, we see from this dissimilarity in the reports of the Evangelists that the holy writers were not led in composing their writings by cunning calculation and consideration of the impression their readers might gain from their Gospels. Else they would have practiced more harmonization. The second writer would have followed more closely and more scrupulously the writing of the first. No, a higher hand has been here arranging and forming things. The Spirit of God has here managed and governed things as He saw fit, entirely unconcerned und unaffected, so to say, by any fear that the future criticism of His holy work might in some way harm His authority.” 52

5. Furthermore, a whole series of real or merely assumed facts has been advanced against the inspiration of Holy Scripture, for example, “inaccurate quotations” from the Old Testament by the writers of the New Testament, insignificant matters unworthy of the Holy Ghost, solecisms and barbarisms, etc., also single passages, like 1 Cor. 7:12, and longer passages from Scripture.

As to the inaccurate quotations, Kahnis asks whether it comports with the dignity of the Holy Ghost to ascribe to Him “all the inaccurate quotations” from the Old Testament found in the New.53 And the Englishman Row says: “The mode in which the Old Testament Scriptures are referred to and quoted in the New is fatal to all theories of mechanical [!] or verbal inspiration” (quoted by Dr. R. Watts, The Rule of Faith, p. 233). We insert here, in a somewhat abbreviated form and with a few additions, what we wrote in Lehre und Wehre 32, 77–82, at the time of the Bible controversy in the Baltic provinces under the heading “Die Form der alttestamentlichen Zitate im Neuen Testament”: When the Evangelists and Apostles narrate those things which happened “among us” (Luke 1:1), or when they present the saving doctrine, they introduce statements of the Old Testament with an “as it is written,” “as the Scripture hath said,” thus showing the fulfillment in the New Testament of events prophesied in the Old Testament or adducing the testimony of the Old Testament for their doctrine. Here, however, it is surprising to note the phenomenon, at first sight somewhat disturbing, that the words expressly quoted as the words of the Old Testament by the clauses “as it is written,” “as the Scripture hath said,” frequently depart in form, and that quite considerably, from the exact reading in the Old Testament. Luther writes: “We see again and again that the Evangelist quotes the Prophet in a somewhat altered form” (St. L. XI:12). According to our count, there are in the Epistle to the Romans forty-seven quotations from the Old Testament, only twenty-four of which can be classed as literal. The deviations in form from the wording of the Old Testament texts are of various kinds. In some cases the New Testament writers have expanded the Old Testament text (e.g., Is. 61:1; Luke 4:18); in numerous other cases contracted it (Is. 8:22; 9:1 f.; Matt. 4:15); in several instances the order of the sentences has been inverted (Hos. 2:23; Rom. 9:25); frequently several passages are blended into one (Jer. 32:6 ff.; Zech. 11:12-13; Matt. 27:9). That this method of quoting always preserved the original sense of the Old Testament words is a priori certain to all who believe that the Evangelists and Prophets spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It can also be proved a posteriori, in the light of the New Testament, that the intended sense of the Old Testament text is none other than the one expressed in the New Testament. Luther writes in the place quoted above: “One must know that the evangelists are not concerned about citing every last word of the prophets; they were satisfied if they gave the same sense and showed the fulfillment… . But it is all done without prejudice to the sense and the meaning.”54

But still the question remains as to the true reason why the writers of the New Testament frequently chose a form which departed so strikingly and radically from the wording of the Old Testament. If a preacher today quotes Scripture with an express: “Thus writes St. Paul, or St. John,” etc., we expect him to give the exact words of the passage. We would consider it improper if he were to disregard the form of the words he is quoting — and that is exactly what the Evangelists and Apostles did in quoting from the Old Testament. Various explanations of this procedure have been offered. Some have advanced the opinion that the form as given in the New Testament is the original one, that the text of the Old Testament has been — at least in these passages — very much corrupted.55 That would, indeed, explain the difference in the wording. But this explanation is inadmissible. Disregarding other considerations, we find that the textual criticisms of the Old Testament know of no such corruption of the text. Others have sought the reason in a lapse of memory on the part of the holy writers, who imagined that they were quoting the Old Testament — but were mistaken in that. Just recently these “inaccurate quotations” have been advanced as disproving the inspiration of Holy Scripture (Kahnis, Row). But disregarding the fact that such an assumption of “mistakes” on the part of the Apostles contradicts their own statements that the Holy Ghost is speaking through them (1 Cor. 2:13; 14:37; 2 Cor. 13:3; 1 Pet. 1:12), even a purely human reflection must regard the theory that the deviation from the Old Testament was due to “slips” or “lapses of memory” as untenable, as will be shown hereafter.

There is but one explanation for this often bold manner of quoting the wording of the Old Testament in the New Testament. This explanation is found in such passages as 1 Pet. 1:10-12, which expressly state that the same Spirit of Christ who spoke through the Old Testament Prophets also testified through the Evangelists and Apostles. And this testimony naturally included the explanation of the Old Testament passages. Thus in quoting the Old Testament the Holy Spirit is in a manner quoting Himself. And He has the authority to use His own words as He chooses; in quoting He makes of the Old Testament Scripture passage, so to say, a “new text” (Luther’s phrase), which at the same time explains the Old Testament text. The Evangelists and Apostles, inspired by the Holy Ghost, are therefore not so much quoting as rather “taking hold” of the Scriptures. Luther says of the Pentecost sermon of the Apostles: “How amazingly they take hold of Scripture, as though they had studied it a thousand years and knew it inside out. I could not take hold of Scripture with such certainty, although I am a doctor of the Holy Scriptures… . Thus God displays the greatest wisdom that has come into the world through the foolishness and ignorance of these miserable weak beggars, so that no one can do what they did, neither Annas nor Caiaphas nor any man on earth.” (St. L. XIII:2053 f.) Flacius writes: “It must be maintained that the Old Testament is usually cited by the holy writers of the New Testament in such a manner that they observed the sense and produced rather the fulfillment of the prophecy than the words of the prophecy. That will not appear strange or rash to him who takes the right view of the matter and is convinced that the Spirit who spoke through the mouth of the Evangelists was the same who opened the mouth of the Prophets and, furthermore, that the function of the Prophets was to foretell the future, the function of the Evangelists, however, to narrate the fulfillment. Since therefore the Spirit of God does not write out, but expounds the prophecies of the former in the New Testament, the demand must not be made that He enumerate the exact words.” (Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, P. II, p. 103.) A. Pfeiffer remarks: “That the passages of the Old Testament are not always adduced verbatim () in the New Testament is not due to a corruption of the text as we have it, but is due to the fact that by inspiration of the Holy Ghost an explanation of the true sense of the passage is given” (Thesaurus Hermeneuticus, 1704, p. 59). The same writer says: “In the New Testament the statements of the Old Testament are not always quoted according to the wording, but often according to the sense, and that freely, sometimes from the Hebrew text, sometimes from the Septuagint, sometimes from both. Why make much ado about it, since there is here no contradiction? The Holy Spirit has revealed the Old Testament, and He has reserved the right to interpret it in the New. Where this was done by the Septuagint, its translation was retained; where this was not the case, the original text was quoted. Repeatedly the Holy Ghost has bound Himself neither to that translation nor to the words of the original text, but has given the sense in new words. Whatever may be the case, the same Holy Ghost, the best Interpreter of His own words, spoke in both places.” (Critica Sacra, p. 109 f.)

Dr. Watts (in The Rule of Faith, London, 1885, p. 236 ff.) has well said: “The New Testament writers often vary the language of the passages they quote from the Old Testament in order to give an authoritative interpretation of them. It is true they might have given the sacred text as it stood, and then have added their own explanatory comments; but in this, as in other matters, the Apostolic admonition may not be out of place for those who would prescribe rules for men acting under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit: ‘For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?’ (Rom. 11:34.)… . Inspired by the free Spirit … they reveal that freedom wherewith the indwelling Spirit, by the very fullness of His habitation, has made them free, and they quote from the Septuagint where it differs from the Hebrew, and from the Hebrew where it differs from the Septuagint, and often cite a passage in a form in which it is not found in either the Hebrew or the Greek. In moving the New Testament writers to deal in this manner with the Old Testament, the Spirit, who is the Author of both the New Testament Revelation and that of the Old, was but asserting His own authority, while He was acting in conformity with a law of authorship which no one ever thinks of questioning as applied to uninspired writers. No one ever holds that an author, when reiterating a statement, must keep the exact phraseology of the first utterance of it. Surely, if such license is given to man, and is considered almost the birthright of human authorship, it is as irreverent as it is unreasonable to abridge, by such limitations as the objector would impose, the liberty of the Spirit of the Lord.”

The form of the Old Testament quotations as given in the New Testament does therefore not prove “fatal” to the theory of “verbal inspiration,” but is, on the contrary, a mighty proof of inspiration. Suppose that the Evangelists and Apostles had not been inspired, but, like other writers, had only their own good judgment to fall back on. Would that not have affected the form of their citations? Would they not have carefully refrained from shocking men with their free manner of quoting and have quoted more literally? To say that the exact context and the exact wording of the quoted passage were not present at the moment to the mind of the Apostles, is a rather weak objection. Suppose they had forgotten context and wording, a simple means of supplying the want was at hand. They could simply look up the matter! That is what we do, and the Apostles had the Old Testament at hand. Or could anyone reasonably assume that the Apostles did not take the trouble to assist their faulty memory by consulting the text, hoping that their readers would not notice their inaccurate citations? St. Paul knew better than that; he knew that his readers knew the Law (Rom. 7:1). We are of the opinion that human reason, if it be reasonable, must refrain from explaining the departure of the New Testament quotation from the wording of the Old Testament by assuming “mistakes” or “slips of memory” in the holy writers. There is but one explanation: the Holy Ghost is speaking through the Apostles and is “taking liberties” with His own Word. And as the apparent contradictions in the Scriptures prove that the Scriptures are not a fabrication of designing men, so particularly the manner in which the Evangelists and Apostles quote the Old Testament is a powerful proof that they have not spoken and written of themselves, not by purely human deliberation, but that they wrote by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

The many “unimportant human matters” or the “trivialities” (levicula) mentioned in the Bible are said to impeach the inspiration of Holy Scripture: it does not comport with the divine dignity of the Holy Ghost to mention such things. Paul’s cloak and the parchments he had left in Troas (2 Tim. 4:13) are usually designated as such trivialities; and special emphasis is laid on the prescription Paul gave Timothy for his diet, that Timothy should drink not only water, but use a little wine for his “stomach’s sake” (1 Tim. 5:23). This objection reveals an entirely wrong conception of the “ethical principles” of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is of the opinion that faithfulness in small matters is decidedly proper and necessary. We read Luke 16:10: “He that is faithful in that which is least () is faithful also in much (); and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” Even the unbelieving world, when it uses its reason, pays tribute to this virtue; it recognizes the great man by his trustworthiness in small matters. And the Christian ought to agree with Luther when he writes: “You should not wonder or ask in surprise why the Holy Ghost took pleasure in describing such common and contemptible things [in the life of the patriarchs], but you should listen to what St. Paul says Rom. 15:4: ‘Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.’ If we firmly believed, as I believe, though weakly, that the Holy Ghost Himself and God, the Creator of all things, is the true author (auctor) of this Book [The Bible] and of such mean and despicable things — mean and small to our carnal eyes — we should, as St. Paul says, derive the greatest comfort therefrom… . This is what the Holy Ghost would teach us when He condescends to write about the saints and their petty affairs: the lowliest works of the saints please God. Behold the glory and worth of a Christian man: there is nothing so lowly about him but it pleases God. To shed one’s blood, to die, to sweat, to strive and battle against the devil is in truth a great thing and pleases God much. You must conclude thus: After you have come to faith, then also the natural, carnal, and physical works please God, whether you eat or drink, are awake or sleep, these are surely nothing but bodily and natural works. Such a great thing is faith. Therefore see to it first that you become a Christian and that your person becomes acceptable and pleasing to God through the Word, through Baptism and the Sacrament. When the person believes and becomes attached to the Word, no longer persecutes it, but thanks God for it, then all you are to do is what Solomon tells you in Eccl. 9:7-8: ‘Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.” (St. L. 11:469 ff.)

Accordingly, also the teachers of old, including the old dogmaticians, point out what weighty lessons are contained in these insignificant matters mentioned by the Apostle Paul in 2 Tim. 4:13 and 1 Tim. 5:23. We see from these and other passages that the Apostle Paul was no “Enthusiast.” He might have asked God to have angels bring him the coat and the parchments he left in Troas. But because the Apostle knows that God asks us to use the natural means appointed by Him, as long as such means are at our command, he instructs Timothy to bring along the cloak and the parchments. The same applies to his dietary advice. In Timothy’s illness and bodily weakness Paul directs not only to prayer: “Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Lord” (Eph. 6:18) and: “Cast thy burden upon the Lord and He shall sustain thee” (Ps. 55:22), but also to the use of natural remedies: Timothy is to refrain from the exclusive use of water and use a little wine.56 In Paul’s concern about his cloak old teachers find an indication of his poverty, which, however, did not make him weary and unwilling to perform the duties of his apostleship. They have also found that Paul’s desire for the parchment revealed his zeal in the performance of his office. (Lehre und Wehre, 32, p. 297.) The Apostle’s statement (1 Tim. 5:23) is, further, a warning against imposing Prohibition, a law of men, upon the Church as a law of God. The State, or, as Luther usually expresses it, the “Kaiser,” may enact laws concerning meat and drink, and the Christians will obey such laws. But when “the Church” presumes to make such laws, it falls under the sharp judgment of the Apostle (1 Tim. 4:1-5): “Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,” since in that case “the Church” is “commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.” The practical result of the imposition of such commandments of men by “the Church” is stated by Christ Matt. 15:6: God’s doctrine and commandment is displaced by the commandments of men. The sectarian bodies of our country furnish plenty of examples of such aberrations. In short, in these “trivialities” in the Bible there are important lessons for eyes that are able to see. Whoever imagines that these levicula are unworthy of the Holy Ghost knows little about the Holy Ghost or about the Christian life or conduct.57

In general, he who talks as though it were beneath the dignity of the Holy Ghost to refer to such small matters as eating, drinking, clothing, etc., in the Scriptures must have completely forgotten that the eternal Son of God did not consider it beneath His dignity to assume a true human nature from the Virgin Mary into His divine person, to be wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger. He who stands in adoration before the miracle in the manger of Bethlehem will not consider it strange, but altogether in order that mention is made in the Scriptures, which are God’s Word, of “human trivialities.” For God loves men and their trifles. Luther: “Moses says to Pharaoh (Exodus 10): ‘Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not a hoof be left behind.’ Not only are the men, women, and children, and the cattle to leave Egypt, but we shall leave nothing behind, not even one mean hoof… . Yes, and hear what Christ says, who uses stronger language (Matthew 10): ‘But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.’ Friend, what can be more insignificant and of less account on the body of men than a hair or a nail? But they are all counted, and the Father in heaven cares about them. In this manner we are to consider the examples of the lowly and ordinary works of the saints in order that we may be instructed and comforted by them.” (St. L. II.470.) When we take offense at these human trivialities in Scripture, that is proof positive either that we do not at all believe the incarnation of the Son of God or that this central truth has so far receded into the background as to be almost forgotten. This matter Luther had in view when he wrote the well-known monitory warning: “I beg and faithfully warn every pious Christian not to stumble at the simplicity of the language and the stories that will often meet him there. He should not doubt that however simple they may seem, these are the very words, works, judgments, and history of the high majesty and wisdom of God. For this is the Scripture that makes fools of all the wise and prudent and is open to the small and foolish, as Christ says in Matt. 11:25. Therefore let your thoughts and feelings go, and think of the Scripture as the loftiest and noblest of holy things, as the richest of mines, which can never be worked out, so that you may find the wisdom of God that He lays before you in such foolish and simple guise, that He may quench all pride. Here you will find the swaddling clothes and the manger in which Christ lies, to which also the angel directs the shepherds (Luke 2:11). Simple and lowly swaddling clothes they are, but precious is the treasure, Christ, lying in them.” (St. L. XIV:3-4.)

The foes of inspiration make very much of the “solecisms,” “barbarisms,” faulty sentence construction, and similar things which they find in Scripture. Kahnis, who has drawn up a lengthy list of all those matters which according to his notion conflict with the dignity of the Holy Ghost, writes: “Is not that conception of inspiration which ascribes all solecisms and barbarisms of the Apostolic Scriptures, all faulty constructions of Paul, to the Holy Ghost derogatory of the Holy Ghost?”58 The dogmaticians are charged with narrowness because they are ready to admit Hebraisms in the Bible, but no solecisms and barbarisms.

As to solecisms, it should be noted that this term solecism has not always been employed in the same sense. Quenstedt already observed and proved that.59 If by it is meant a “faulty dialect,” or a departure from the so-called classical Greek, we shall take care of that when we discuss the “barbarisms.” But if by “solecism” is meant a violation of the grammatical rules of a language, Winer answers the objection in his Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms (6th ed., p. 36) thus: “The New Testament is written in correct Greek and observes the Greek grammar.” Whoever tests the New Testament in this respect will agree with Winer. But also the wild talk of “barbarisms” makes no sense. The New Testament, as everyone knows, is written in the so-called , the language of international intercourse since Alexander the Great. Ebeling writes: “The New Testament writers wrote in Hellenistic Greek, in the language used in their day by the people throughout the entire Roman Empire.” “The vocabulary and grammatical usage of the New Testament presents no isolated case, but belongs to the and is found, above all, in letters, reports, applications, bills, contracts, testaments, and the like, in the language of daily intercourse and of the people.” 60 Robertson states: “It is not speculation to speak of the as a world speech, for the inscriptions in the testify to its spread over Asia, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Sicily, and the isles of the sea… . The was in such general use that the Roman Senate and imperial governors had the decrees translated into the world language and scattered over the empire. It is significant that the Greek speech becomes one instead of many dialects at the very time that the Roman rule sweeps over the world.” 61 The reason is thus clear why the holy writers wrote in the , in the world language, or the vernacular of the people, and why they should write in that language according to the intention of the Holy Ghost, who was in them (1 Pet. 1:12; 1 Cor. 2:15; 2 Cor. 13:3). For they had a call into all the world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Luke 24:46-47). They desired to be understood, as in their preaching, so in their writing, not only by a part of the people, the people, for instance, with a classical training, but by all the people. The salvation of all the people, of the whole human race, was at stake! 62

How well the use of the universal popular speech served the purpose of the Apostles of being generally understood is apparent from the fact that they did not deem it necessary to send commentaries along with their letters. The epistles of the Apostles were understood not only by the teachers of the congregations, but by the congregations themselves, by the common people, when the epistles were read to them. St. Paul writes to the Christians at Colosse: “When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea” (Col. 4.16). And to the Thessalonians he writes: “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren” (1 Thess. 5:27).

But even apart from the fact that the Apostles made use of this language for the purpose of being understood in their letters by all, it reveals great foolishness to call deviations from the “classical Greek” barbarisms. The folly is so great that one takes notice of it only reluctantly. To call the deviations from classical Greek barbarisms amounts to the absurd thought, contrary even to the natural reason, that it would have been more becoming to the Holy Ghost to talk like Demosthenes or Plato than to use the language of the common people. It is certainly also true of language: “Before God nothing is small, since before Him nothing is great.” And therefore the dogmaticians are right when they maintain that all opinions of the New Testament Greek which express a censure are improper and should not be found among Christians.63 The Greek language as we have it in the New Testament and of course also the Hebrew language of the Old Testament are holy languages, above all other languages which the world contains. Even Cremer64 says of the New Testament Greek that it “became the organ of the Spirit of Christ” — though these words hardly fit the position which Cremer takes toward the inspiration of Scripture. And even Rothe declares: “One can, in fact, on good grounds speak of a language of the Holy Ghost.” 65 We should never forget this: The Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament is that Greek which God speaks to the world to the end of time and to which God binds all the world to the Last Day; it is God’s original text, which, of course, all translations must follow. Finding fault with the New Testament Greek is therefore indeed offensive, because it is finding fault with God. For this reason the dogmaticians, as already stated, are so sensitive when men speak of solecisms and barbarisms in the New Testament; for in their days, as also in our day, these terms were used in a derogatory sense.66 As insulting and offensive as it would be to call the Son of God a “barbarian,” because in the fullness of (the) time He assumed the human nature from the Virgin Mary, so insulting and offensive it is to speak of “barbarisms” in Holy Scripture, because this Word appeared in the fullness of the time, in the dress of that Greek which was then the universal language of the people.67

The so-called “Hebraisms” (“das juedische Kolorit”) which we find in the New Testament68 properly belong there. The New Testament does not bring a new religion, but is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Dr. A. L. Graebner (Theol. Quarterly, 1897, p. 22) writes: “The Greek of the New Testament was to bear the stamp and imprint of the country where Jesus lived and died, and of that Church and people of which New Testament Christianity is, not in form, but as to its spiritual nature, the true continuation, its adherents living by the same faith in the same Savior as Abraham their father according to the faith.” The dogmaticians also point this out when they show that Hebraisms in the New Testament are a matter of course and entirely in order because of its connection with the Old Testament, while they deny solecisms and barbarisms since they imply a censure of God.69

The “faulty constructions of Paul,” which according to Kahnis’ view conflict with the dignity of the Holy Ghost, are, we imagine, mainly the so-called anacolutha (Gal.2:6; 1 Tim. 1:3ff.; Rom.5:12). We call an anacoluthon the forsaking of the grammatical sequence in a sentence by a speaker or writer under the rush of strong emotions. It is a legitimate figure of speech. As to the genesis of thus breaking off the sentence structure, Winer says (Grammar, 6th ed., p. 500): “Lively intellects, concerned more with the thought than with the grammatical expression, are the more apt to resort to such anacolutha.” In popular language it is known as “aus der Konstruktion fallen” — to forsake the construction of the sentence. The sensible speaker or author will, instinctively or intentionally, violate the coherent sentence structure when he feels that this will contribute to the clarity of his presentation or help to stress important thoughts. We find plenty of anacolutha in the Greek and Roman classics, and old and modern grammarians have much to say in favor and praise of the anacolutha. They do not call them blunders, but point out the psychological reason for them and then also their benefit: they serve to clarify the presentation and to emphasize important thoughts. And now, since the Holy Ghost is concerned with the clarity of the presentation and the emphasis of especially important thoughts, He certainly did not consider it beneath His dignity to use not only the human language in general but also, in particular, the anacolutha.70 What the grammarians say in explanation and in praise of the anacolutha the reader may look up in the advanced grammars, old and new. We would like to submit here what the venerable Matthiae says in his Ausfuehrliche Griechische Grammatik (p. 1296) on the “deviations from the regular construction.” He writes: “The best Greek writers very often deviate from the order or relation of the words in a sentence which is demanded by logic or else sanctioned by usage, in order either to increase the emphasis upon some word or words or the clarity or to give the speech the unconstrained lightness of the conversational tone and thus to heighten the charm. The classical Attic authors always do this for one of those considerations; the later stylists, however, lose the sought-for elegance by the very striving after it. Such deviations from the grammatical sequence are called anacolutha, that is, constructions in which a sentence ends differently than one would expect, or wherein that which the initial structure calls for, does not follow ( with the privativum). Such departures from the grammatically or logically correct construction are not due to an oversight, but to the intention of the author and always have a cause.” 71

Certain Scripture statements are said to contradict inspiration. Thus 1 Cor. 7:10, 12, 25, where, they tell us, Paul expressly says that not everything he is writing is the Lord’s command. While we read in v. 10: “Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,” he adds in v. 12: “To the rest speak I, not the Lord,” and in v. 25: “Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord.” Luther’s words on this passage will suffice to refute this objection. “When St. Paul here testifies that in this matter not the Lord, but he is speaking, he would have us understand that God did not command to do so or so, but left it free. For he distinguishes his own word from the Word of the Lord, making the Lord’s Word a commandment, his own word, however, only advice.” (St. L. VIII: 1058.) In other words, the Apostle is here not distinguishing between inspired and non-inspired portions of his epistle, but between an inspired divine command, binding the conscience, and inspired apostolic advice which does not bind the conscience. Luther’s distinction between command and advice in this passage must be observed; otherwise the passage will be misunderstood, and the inattentive reader will be perplexed. Philippi first makes the entirely correct statement that the Apostle here distinguishes between an “unconditional commandment of the Lord in regard to an ethical necessarium and free advice on his part regarding an ethical .” But when Philippi adds that the , etc. (v. 40: “I think also that I have the Spirit of God”), “in the mouth of the Apostle admits of no contradiction in the contents,” he labors under a misunderstanding which makes the Apostle contradict himself. Paul declares repeatedly and expressly that everyone who does not consider his advice good is free not to take it.

The objection against the inspiration of Scripture taken from 1 Cor. 1:16 is due to a confusion of two things which have nothing in common. It has been said that since the Apostle in this passage concedes the possibility of a lopsus memoriae with regard to the number of those whom he baptized personally, his epistles could not have been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, since the Holy Ghost is not subject to lapsus memoriae. This objection has been answered briefly and pointedly: As inspiration did not make the holy writers personally sinless in their lives, so it also did not make them infallible or omniscient as to their past lives.

The brief personal letter to Philemon has also been used as an argument against the inspiration of Scripture, because this letter has been written in such a tender and courteous tone. Kahnis: “Would you have us believe that when the Apostle wrote that tender urbane letter to Philemon tinged as it is with some humor [!], he recorded what the Holy Ghost dictated to him?” (Quoted in Baier-Walther, I, 102.) Indeed we believe that; for we know that the Holy Ghost makes it His business to teach Christians tender, gracious, courteous, well-sounding speech. Col. 4:6: “Let your speech be alway with grace.” Phil. 4:8: “Whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue and if there be any praise, think on these things.” The gentle “humor” which Kahnis considers beneath the notice of the Holy Ghost, he most likely finds in vv. 18-20, where Paul asks Philemon to charge any debt the runaway slave might owe his master to Paul’s account. The Apostle here uses a term which reminds one of a business transaction. “I, Paul, have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it” — that sounds like our: “I promise to pay.” But to Christians this “business” ought not to be entirely unfamiliar, and they ought not to take offense at it. The “I will repay” is simply a concrete way of expressing the universal Christian obligation of love: “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). And this commandment of the love with which Christians love one another flows from the love shown us by Christ, since the debt of all sinful mankind was charged to His account. Paul unites the two kinds of love that assumes the other’s burden when he writes: “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us and hath given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor” (Eph. 5:2). If we were to call what Paul says concerning the transfer of debt “humor” which is not worthy of the Holy Ghost, we would be passing a judgment which does not flow from the knowledge which is of God. The ancient Church has therefore, without hesitation or opposition, granted the Epistle to Philemon a place in the canon.72 In his Preface to the Epistle to Philemon, Luther has this to say: “This Epistle gives us a masterly and tender illustration of Christian love, for here we see how St. Paul takes the part of poor Onesimus and advocates his cause with his master all he can and acts no differently than if he were himself Onesimus, who has done wrong. And yet he does this not with force or compulsion, as he had a right to do, but he lays aside his rights and thus compels Philemon also to waive his rights. What Christ has done for us with God the Father, St. Paul does for Onesimus with Philemon. For Christ laid aside His rights and overcame His Father with love and humility, so that He had to put away His wrath and rights and receive us into favor, for Christ’s sake, who so earnestly advocates our cause and takes our part so tenderly.” (St. L. XIV: 122.) 73

Finally, the evil consequences which allegedly follow the “old doctrine of inspiration” are marshaled against the inspiration of Holy Scripture. Modern theology, including the “positive” wing, sees, as we have repeatedly pointed out, in the identification of Scripture and God’s Word an “evil heritage,” bequeathed to us by the Apostolic Church, the Church of the Reformation, and particularly by the dogmaticians. “Intellectualism,” a Christianity which is lodged merely in the mind, is said to be the natural product of Verbal Inspiration or the equating of Scripture and God’s Word. At present we wish to call attention to two evil consequences which Professor Zoeckler of Greifswald, in the Kier controversy, especially emphasized and used as an argument against “a return to the 17th century treatment of Scripture.” These evil consequences are said to be the downfall of “scientific theology” and the transformation of the State Churches into Free Churches. Pastor Schulze of Walsleben had declared in an essay read at the “August Conference” in 1891: “There is no reason for us to give up the position toward Scripture which the Church has from the beginning taken toward it, and we shall persist in praising as its glory the fact that God speaks through it to men and that it is God’s infallible Word.” In answer to this statement Professor Zoeckler wrote a lengthy article in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, whose editor he was at that time, and closed his discussion with these words: “Do not entertain the hope of obtaining from the universities of our State Churches men who will be fitted out to put such repristination plans into execution, or of being able at all to keep up contact with the theological science of the State Churches, if you seriously intend to take the road leading back to Lutheran scholasticism and to absolute ‘theopneusty.’ The end result of believing in an absolute Verbal Inspiration is the ‘free church.’ Adopt the position which at the present time is so earnestly maintained in the American West [the “Missourians” are meant], and soon the separation from our State Churches would take place.” If we recall what Zoeckler and the entire modern theology mean by “theological science,” they have reason to fear for it. They mean by it that theological science which no longer accepts the Word of the Prophets and Apostles as Christ’s Word and which has therefore undertaken a change of base — which refuses to derive and determine the Christian doctrine from the Word of Christ, the Holy Scripture, but makes the heart of the theologian its source and norm.74 A scientific theology of this sort does not, of course, agree with a which is . Holy Scripture, which is by inspiration God’s infallible Word, condemns every theological science which engages in any way in an away-from-Scripture movement. Scripture says: “If any man consent not to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ … he is proud, knowing nothing” (1 Tim. 6:3-4). This scientific theology, which has made the “impregnable fortress” of the theologian’s Ego instead of Scripture its basis, fares as did the idol Dagon: “And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. And they took Dagon and set him in his place again. And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him.” (1 Sam.5:3 ff.) One can easily see why the people of Ashdod said in a spirit of self-preservation: “The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us; for His hand is sore upon us and upon Dagon, our god.” It is easy to see that the modern theologians are urged by the spirit of self-preservation not to permit the Scriptures to prevail in the Church as God’s infallible Word; such a Scripture would be too hard on them and their “theological science.” As for the Church, let her retain the Word of the Apostles and Prophets, for that is her one foundation [, Eph. 2:21], and let her get rid of modern theology with its “theological science,” for in forsaking the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, this “science” is based on illusion and ignorance (, l Tim. 6:3-4).

The fear, too, that “the end result of the absolute ‘theopneusty’ ” may be the Free Church is not without basis. For the inspired Scriptures teach two things that must be considered here, (1) that the “Free Church,” that is, the Church independent of the State, is God’s ordinance;75 (2) that Christians are under the divine command to avoid all teachers who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which the Christians have learned from the Apostles, that is, from Christ (Rom. 16:17; 2 John 9-11). But it is generally admitted that the State Churches are full of such (1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3). And that applies at present in the same degree to the “People’s Churches” (“Landes-Volkskirchen”) in those localities where the separation of Church and State has been officially declared. “The end result of believing in an absolute Verbal Inspiration” — and that is the true faith — impels Christians at all places and at all times, also under a Free Church constitution, to cling to the unadulterated doctrine of Christ, as it is expressed clearly and inerrantly in the inspired Holy Scriptures and to deny church fellowship to all false teachers.