There is a point raised in this connection, which I have never seen alluded to by any writer I have come across, and that is the way the quotations in the New Testament from the Old Testament are made. It only furnishes an added proof of Divine inspiration.
A Modernist author, a professor of a Theological College, writes as follows: -
" Out of 275 quotations it has been found that there are only fifty-three in which the Hebrew, the Septuagint (or Greek version of the Old Testament) and the New Testament writers verbally agree; there are ninety-nine in which the New Testament quotation differs from both (which also differ from one another), and seventy-six in which the correct Septuagint rendering has been wrongly altered. This is quite incompatible with the position that all the words of Scripture are equally inspired; for can we believe the Holy Spirit would misquote Himself?'
On the surface this statement seems to score a heavy point against the inspiration of Scripture. In reality it does not show up the Bible, but the ignorance and simplicity of the Modernist writer who makes it. Perhaps an illustration will best convey the complete answer to it.
Suppose I have two volumes of science, and the one book quotes from the other. If the books are written by different authors, then the quotations must be exact word for word. This is a strictly recognized law in such matters.
But suppose the books are written by the same author, and he quotes his own statements. Suppose the first book was published for beginners; the second, for advanced pupils. The author would be quite in order to vary the quotation, nay he might enlarge on his previous statements, and amplify them to meet the needs of his advanced students. The statement in the first volume would be his and his alone; the enlarged and altered quotations found in the second volume would be also his and his alone. This would be quite in order. The only point to make clear would be that in whatever way he used his previous book, he would not have to contradict it, unless he frankly acknowledged a mistake to be rectified.
To apply this illustration to the Bible. If the writers of the Bible were not inspired, then it follows any writer quoting another would have to quote with care and exactitude. But if the writers were inspired, as we fully believe they were, in short if GOD Himself is the Author of the Book, using human pens—Moses, Isaiah, Matthew, Peter, Paul, etc.—then it would be quite in order to use a quotation from the Old Testament in the New Testament, taking what is desired for this purpose, enlarging upon it, if so desired, in order to give fuller light and instruction. Of course this would never contradict the Old Testament in any way.
If it were a mere question of exactly repeating word-for-word quotations from the Old Testament, a mere copyist could perform that task to the satisfaction of the narrow mind of this Modernist writer. An office boy could have been set to a task like this. But what should we not have lost, if this had been so. An illustration or two will help.
In the Old Testament we have the following Scripture; in the New Testament a quotation from it, altered by the Divine hand to suit the fuller teaching of the New Testament:
Why is the "IT" of the Old Testament altered to the "HE" in the New Testament? This Modernist writer sees in it no more than the mistaken bungle of the writer of the quotation in the New Testament. He is looking at it from the standpoint of a mere mechanical copyist. He fails to see the beauty and design of the alteration in the New Testament quotation.
The fact is both passages are equally and verbally inspired. In the Old Testament we get the hope of Israel; in the New Testament, the hope of the Christian.
The former is for Christ to come back to this earth, subdue His enemies, " take out of His kingdom all things that offend," and set up His glorious kingdom, making Israel the head of the nations, because in that day He will be King of Israel in manifest power. Such a prospect is rightly described as a vision, and a glowing, wonderful vision it is, which a groaning creation is waiting and longing for. Reference to this vision is rightly marked by the word " IT."
But when we come to the hope of the Christian, another point of view is taken up. Before the believer is called upon to take his part to reign WITH Christ, Christ will come FOR him, and take all His people "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor. 15:5252In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:52)) to be with Himself in glory. The Christian thus waits for a Person, and the quotation is altered designedly and of set purpose from the " IT " of Habakkuk to the “HE" of Hebrews. Both the Old Testament passage and the altered quotation in the New Testament are alike verbally inspired, and equally Scripture, for God is the Author of them both.
One more instance must suffice:
Why should the New Testament quotation substitute the word Church for the Old Testament word Congregation? The answer is very simple. David wrote Psa. 22, and God in inspiring it had in view the day when Israel in the great congregation shall praise the Lord in the fullest possible way, when the praises beginning with "the seed of Jacob" shall widen out until "all the kindreds of the nations" shall praise the Lord. The New Testament quotation is designedly altered. The writer addresses Hebrew Christians, Jews who had renounced Judaism and embraced Christianity. They belonged to the Church of God.
The result of the redemptive work of Christ will be that not only God's earthly people will praise Him, but also His heavenly saints, the Church of God, will praise Him. ALL who come under the blessing of the cross will glorify their Lord with songs of praise. Therefore the word Congregation in the Old Testament is designedly by Divine inspiration altered to the word Church in the New Testament.
How much we should lose if the beauty and scope of Scripture were confined to the dull accuracy of a mere mechanical copyist, or a compiler of dry statistics. The Word of the living God cannot be so bound.