BOTH David and St. Paul tell us about inspiration. "The Spirit of the Lord," wrote David, "spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." (2 Sam. 23:2.) And, again, "My tongue is the pen of a ready writer." (Psa. 45:1.) " Which things we speak," said St. Paul, "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, communicating spiritual things by spiritual means." (1 Cor. 2:13.)
Revelation, then, is one thing, and inspiration is another. The former has respect to the unveiling of truth, the latter to the giving it out in the manner, the form, God would have it expressed in. Hence a man might be inspired to set forth what had not been known previously, as the prophets often did, or he might recount by inspiration things with which he was well acquainted, as Moses recounted in Numbers and Deuteronomy things about the wilderness journey; and John recounted certain things about the crucifixion, of which he was an eyewitness.
But, though a man might be used to write by inspiration, it did not follow that he was always inspired. Witness David answering Achish (1 Sam. 27:10; 29:8), and Abimelech. (1 Sam. 21:2.) Yet the record we have of his answers is inspired, the sacred writer having recorded them in the very language in which God willed that they should be set forth. One sees then the value of the scripture statements, that the sacred writings are inspired (2 Tim. 3:16), whereas the word never calls the men inspired men. They were inspired when used of God to record what He intended, and in the words that He intended (2 Peter 1:21), but all that they ever uttered was not necessarily inspired. Hence the reference made by your correspondent to 1 Thess. 2:4,5, is beside the point. The apostle is there describing how he preached. He does not claim inspiration for that, though the account he gives us there of it is inspired, being part of God's written word.
Inspiration, then, has to do with the enunciation of God's mind in words chosen of God; and both David and Paul expressly declare that it was verbal. " His word," said the former, " was in my tongue." " We speak in words which the Holy Ghost teacheth," writes Paul. And the prophets constantly affirmed it, as they said, " Thus saith the Lord." " Words " in 1 Cor. 2 do not mean " arguments." Arguments there are, of course, in the written word, but all Scripture is not argument, and no one would talk of speaking in arguments. Your difficulty in 1 Cor. 7 will be cleared up, I think, as you remember that he is drawing a distinction between a positive command of God, and the wisdom of the Spirit, to which he gives expression. As regards marriage, God had vouchsafed a direct command (1 Cor. 7:10); as regards virgins, He had not. (1 Cor. 7:12,25,40.) But that distinction made by the apostle does not touch the question of inspiration, which, abstractedly has not to do with the truth or falsehood of anything stated, but only with the fact that what is stated is set forth in words which the Holy Ghost taught. So the words of wicked people are recorded in Scripture, for example, those of the fool, who said in his heart there was no God: of course the fool was wrong, but the statement that he said that in his heart is inspired, and is part of God's written word.
Next, as to Luke 1:1-4. The sacred historian does not say he had " traced up all things from the first," hut that he had perfect acquaintance from the origin with all things accurately. By what means he had that is not told us, nevertheless, he draws a distinction between himself and those who received their information from eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. All such he puts in one class, and himself in another. Could one writing consciously under inspiration do more? Observe, too, his " order " is not that of time, but a moral order, the carrying out of a design.
And he does all this, that Theophilus might know the certainty of the things in which he had been instructed, evidently by this remark distinguishing between what he wrote, and that which others had written. With these writings Luke was apparently familiar, certainly conscious of their existence, and of their source, the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, who, he says, declared them to us. Yet he turns from them all, and, when describing the compilations made from such sources, he does not use about them one single term, which he uses about his Gospel. In every way, then, he distinguishes between his Gospel and the efforts of the writers to whom he refers.
I would remind your friend that the word translated "having had perfect understanding" is the same as we meet with translated "fully known" (2 Tim. 3:10), and "attained." (1 Tim. 4:6.) How he was made perfectly acquainted from the outset with the things of which he writes he does not state. That it was not just what he had heard from others is clear. That he had not been an eye-witness he himself leads us to conclude. Whence, then, did he become acquainted with the things of which he writes, but from God? But had he been personally acquainted with all that he wrote, that would not have affected the character of his inspiration. Let your friend keep in mind the distinction between revelation and inspiration, and she will see that.
Now, as to the inscriptions on the cross. It was trilingual as John tells us, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, for that is the right order, as you will see in " Textual Criticism." Now this at once opens the door to differences in the inscriptions, according as an Evangelist gave either the Hebrew, the Latin, or the Greek.
Further, if you attentively read the statements. of the Evangelists, you will see that, whilst John and Luke give professedly a full inscription, the former calling it the title, and the other the inscription, Matthew only professes to give the accusation, and Mark tells us he records the inscription of the accusation. (John 19:19,20; Luke 23:38; Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26.) From this I conclude Matthew only professes to give a statement of the charge against Him as put over His head. He said he was the King of the Jews, and for that ostensibly Pilate condemned Him. But John and Luke give the full text of the inscription, the former the Hebrew, and the latter, I believe, the Greek one. John mentions the Hebrew one first, and Luke, if the common reading can be relied on, mentions first the Greek.
Now examining the inscription as found in these two Evangelists, I think you will agree, that the one in John is more suited to be the Hebrew one, adapted for the Jews to read, " Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews." To a Greek the mention of Nazorean would be nothing. To the Jew it would mean a good deal. Hence in the title a Jew would naturally read, that term of contempt, Nazorean, is found. For a Greek, the simple statement, "the King of the Jews" would be sufficient to arouse his scorn.
Probably, then, the different inscriptions did not agree word for word. But there were but three, and Matthew clearly gives the full text of none. He only professes to give the cause of the Lord's condemnation, the αἰτία, not the τίτλος, as John, or ἐπιγραφὴ as Luke. Mark gives what he calls ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας, whether he intends by that to mean only the charge against Him, as Matthew gives, or a full inscription, may be a question. If the latter, it may be the Latin one, for Latin words are much met with in his Gospel. But whichever may be the right thought about Mark, it is plain that Matthew does not give a full inscription as John and Luke clearly do.
So far, then, from the difference in the Evangelists on this point militating against verbal inspiration, I have long felt they confirm it. And the terms they use, αἰτία, τὶτλος, ἐπιγοαφὴ, when noticed, help us to clear up any difficulty which has been based on the inscription.
C. E. S.