My Dear Sir,
The divinely illuminated soul is convinced beyond all manner of doubt that the Holy Scriptures display the dealings of God with mankind. He sees also that they are, on their own testimony, Theopneustic; and that, as the writers recorded the (original) words, their statements expressed exactly what God intended to impart, and expressed the same exactly as He willed it, yet retaining the style of the penman. He observes, further, that every part is essential, and occupies just the necessary position in order to sustain the unity of the whole. He next inquires as to the character of the several parts; for, though all is equally inspired, it does not follow on that ground alone that all is warranted as true.
Thus erroneous acts and sayings of men may be used (as indeed they are) for our instruction. However, there is obviously enough, no difficulty with the words of God, of the Lord Jesus, direct or through angels; none with the prophets, apostles and others “filled with the Holy Ghost “; none with the sayings of men whose errors of speech are demonstrated in the Word itself; none with the historical facts given as true. But by what criteria is the believer to try the truth of (say) the speeches of Job and his friends or (as some would add) the writings of Solomon in the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes? It seems unaccountable to suppose that God has allowed parts of His word to be so vague that we are to be in doubt whether such and such a passage is absolute truth or merely an illustration of man's liability to err.
Is Job 19 a prophetic intimation of the coming Redeemer and of the resurrection? or is it only rhetorical figures used by an excited man in self-vindication? Is Ecclesiastes to be valued only for the ability and the experience of the writer? Are the words “I said in mine heart” (Eccles. 2:1, 15; 3:17, 18; 9:11I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity. (Ecclesiastes 2:1)
15Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity. (Ecclesiastes 2:15)
17I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. 18I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. (Ecclesiastes 3:17‑18)
1For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them. (Ecclesiastes 9:1)) as in any way parallel to those phrases in 1 Cor. 7 where a plain distinction is drawn between revealed truth, i.e. truth having a divine claim on the soul, and spiritual wisdom? It seems indeed calamitous to suppose the human alternative. Opportunity is thus given for a most arbitrary position, if they happen to oppose a pet theory. For instance, a recent writer who has broached the theory that the Hebrew word for “spirit” is restricted in its use to man, found Eccl. 3:1919For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. (Ecclesiastes 3:19) adverse to him. He is not however alarmed, but proceeds, “In one place only where man is questioning about things existing under the sun, is rooagh ascribed to beasts, and then it is by one who confesses his own ignorance of what he is writing about” (p. 7, “Spirit, Soul, and Body;” H. C. A., Broom). Is there not the germ, and more, of rationalism there? Is not the principle of interpretation false? But the fact also is untrue; for “rooagh” is also so used in Psa. 104:2929Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. (Psalm 104:29) (compare also Gen. 6:17; 7:15, 2217And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. (Genesis 6:17)
15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. (Genesis 7:15)
22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. (Genesis 7:22)); so that, unless the Psalmist is likewise untrustworthy, Solomon is not so philologically ignorant as he is represented; and the writer's conclusion is overthrown. But is his mode of argument sound? Does God allow men to write what is untrue without its falseness being plainly discernible to the spiritual mind? If so, our confidence in the word of God is shaken. The Spirit inspired Solomon to record infallibly his impressions of what he saw “under the sun;” but was the preacher permitted to indite a wrong impression or to employ misleading language? Was not his view of things of God from his own standpoint? And in fact has not a beast “spirit” or its own peculiar instinct, besides the living principle which is called “soul:” in both of wholly inferior character to man's which come from God Himself and goes upward? If so, inasmuch as varied aspects of truth are never contradictory, the class of argument adduced above is not only invalid and unintelligent, but dishonoring to scripture and. dangerous to man.
If we cannot rely absolutely on Solomon's writings how are they to be interpreted? Or to state the main question again—Are we called upon to sit in judgment on the truth or falsehood of the statements of Solomon &c., as we do on the recorded words of inspired men? If so, by what means? W. J. R.