OBJECTIONS
TO VERBAL INSPIRATION
T.P.
Simmons
The
objections that are brought against verbal inspiration are many and varied. We
shall not attempt to note all of them, but shall take only some of the most
common ones; trusting that our discussion may indicate how reasonably and easily all other objections may be disposed of.
These
objections concern:
I.
FALLIBLE COPIES AND TRANSLATIONS
1.
OBJECTION STATED.
The
first objection we shall consider may be stated thus: "Of what value is the
verbal inspiration of the original manuscripts of Scripture,
since we do not have these original manuscripts, and since the great majority of
people must depend upon translations of the original languages, which
translations cannot be held to be infallible."
2.
OBJECTION ANSWERED.
(1)
This objection is correct in stating that translations of the original languages
of Scripture cannot be held to be infallible.
Nowhere
does God indicate that the translators were to be preserved from error. Verbal
inspiration means the verbal inspiration of the original
manuscripts of Scripture.*
__________
*Let no one be disturbed by the fact that
translations are not infallible. Our two great English translations (the King
James or "Authorized Version" and the American Standard Version of 1901) are
good basic translations. Such errors as they contain do not
leave any doctrine of the Bible in doubt. Speaking of translations, the author
wishes to make it clear that he does not recommend the most recent revision of
the Bible under the sponsorship of the International Council of Religious
Education known as the Revised Standard Version. This is manifestly the work of
modernists who have done everything they dared to do (and modernists are very
daring) to obliterate the deity of Jesus Christ. This
translation is neither sound nor scholarly, but is rather a piece of modernistic
propaganda.
__________
(2)
This objection is also correct in
stating that we do not now have a single one of the original manuscripts of any
part of the Scripture.
(3)
But this objection does not bear against the fact of verbal inspiration; it only
questions the value of it.
(4)
And the objection is wrong in supposing that an admittedly
imperfect copy of an infallible original is not better than the same kind of
copy of a fallible original.
It
is even better to have an imperfect copy of an infallible original than to have
a perfect copy of a fallible original.
(5)
The objection is wrong again in implying that we do not have a substantially
accurate copy of the original.
By
means of comparison of the many ancient copies of the originals of the
Scripture, textual criticism has progressed to such a point
that no doubt exists as to any important doctrine of the Bible. While God did
not preserve the original manuscripts for us (and He must have had good reasons
for not doing so), He has given us such an abundance of ancient copies that we
can, with remarkable exactness, arrive at the reading, of the originals.
(6)
And the study of Hebrew and Greek has progressed to such a
point and this knowledge has been made available to even the common people in
such a way that all can be assured as to the meaning of the original language in
nearly all cases.
II.
IMPRECATORY PSALMS
Another
objection is brought against what is known as the "imprecatory psalms."
1.
OBJECTION STATED.
It
is said that the psalmist "indignantly cries out against his
oppressors," and that we find him using language "which would be unfit for the
lips of our Lord," in which we are told can be detected "traces of human
prejudice and passion." Such are the objections raised by J. Patterson Smith, in
"How God Inspired The Bible."
The
objector is wrong here in assuming that the imprecatory
psalms express David's personal feeling against his enemies merely because of
what they had done to him. David was the sweet singer of Israel, and was not
given to manifestations of personal bitterness and vindictiveness. Notice his
princely attitude toward King Saul, even when Saul sought his life for no good
reason.
2.
SPECIFIC INSTANCES CITED BY THE OBJECTOR.
(1)
"Break their teeth, 0 God, in their mouth" (Psa. 58:6). A study of this psalm
reveals that the above words do not refer to David's personal enemies, but to
the unrighteous in general. David was here only voicing the indignation of Him who "hatest all workers of iniquity" (Psa. 5:5).
And notice that nothing is said here by David about this judgment being
inflicted immediately. We have here only David's inspired sanction of God's
final judgment on the wicked. This is evident through a comparison of Psa.
58:9-11 with Rev. 19:1-6. In these Scriptures we have prophecy and its
fulfillment.
(2)
"Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread
out of desolate places" (Psa. 109: 10).
Acts
1:16 shows that this was not spoken of David's personal enemies, but was a
prophetic utterance concerning Judas. And Peter says that
the Holy Spirit spoke this by the mouth of David. This imprecation on the
children of Judas is according to God's own revelation of Himself as he who
visits "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth
generation of them that hate Him" (Ex. 20:5).
(3)
"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy shall
he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us, happy shall he be that taketh
and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psa. 137:8,9).
But
note that the words are not a prayer, nor an imprecation, but only and wholly a
prophecy. Then note that this doom was to be meted out to
Babylon because of the way she had treated Israel. And then recall the words of
God spoken through Balaam: "Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he
that curseth thee" (Num. 24:9), in which we have an echo of God's assurance to
Abraham (Gen. 12:3).
David's
words, like those of Isaiah (Isa. 13) concerning Babylon,
have a double meaning. They refer immediately to the destruction of Babylon by
the Medes (Isa. 13:7), but ultimately to God's punishment of the wicked at the
coming of Christ to the earth (Isa. 13:9-11; 34:1-17; Zech. 14:1-7; Rev.
19:11-21).
As
the agent of God, David revealed God's indignation against
the wicked, but, so far as his own personal feeling was concerned, he had only
mercy and benevolence toward his personal enemies. He refused to molest King
Saul when he had opportunity and human justification, and after Saul was dead,
he inquired: "Is there any left of the house of Saul, that I may show him
kindness?" (2 Sam. 9:1,2,11).
These
instances are sufficient to show how empty are the objections of the critics in
regard to the imprecatory psalms.
III.
NOAH'S IMPRECATION AND DEBORAH'S PRAISE
Similar
objections are likely to be brought against the Bible because of Noah's
imprecation upon Canaan (Gen. 9:25), and because of Deborah's praise of Jael for
murdering Sisera by treachery (Judges 5:24-31).
The
reply here is simple and brief. The Bible does not justify
either Noah or Deborah for the utterances mentioned; it merely records the fact
that the utterances were made. It is true that Noah uttered a truthful forecast
of the nations descended from his sons, but whether God moved him to utter this
curse upon Canaan, or merely permitted him to utter the truth in an outburst of
anger, is not stated.
The
Bible, by no means, sanctions every word and act recorded in it. It records the
words and actions of evil men, such as King Saul and Ahab; and oftentimes passes
no verdict thereupon. God has revealed His law by which all actions are to be
tried. Therefore, it was unnecessary that He should have cumbered the Bible with
appraisal of every word or action recorded. Verbal inspiration means simply that those chosen to write the Bible were preserved from error in
what they wrote. If their writings represent a bonafide conviction of their own,
it is true; but if a statement of some other person, it may be true or false,
according as to whether it harmonizes with the Bible as a whole.
IV.
SO-CALLED "OBSCENE CHAPTERS"
Then
we are told that certain chapters of the Bible "reek with obscenity from
beginning to end."
In
reply to this objection, R. A. Torrey says: "That there are
chapters in the Bible that cannot be wisely dealt with in a mixed audience, we
have no desire to deny; but these chapters are not obscene. To speak in plainest
terms of sin, even of the vilest sin, in order to expose its loathsomeness and
in order to picture man as he really is, is not obscenity. It is purity in one
of its highest forms. Whether a story is obscene or not depends entirely upon
how it is told and for what purpose it is told. If a story
is told in order to make a jest of sin, or in order to paliate or excuse sin (or
in order to gratify lust), it is obscene. If a story is told in order to make
men hate sin, to show men the hideousness of sin, to induce men to give sin as
wide a berth as possible, and to show man his need of redemption, it is not
obscene; it is morally wholesome" (Difficulties and Alleged Contradictions and
Errors in the Bible).
If
these chapters were obscene, they would make favorite reading in the dens of
vice. But did any one ever hear of wicked people reading the Bible for lustful
gratification? These get no pleasure out of reading the Bible, but they revel in
hearing the obscene remarks of the critics. It is the critic that is obscene and
not the Bible. Col. Ingersoll objected to the Bible for relating vile deeds
"without a touch of humor," as though it would have made it
all right if the Bible had made a jest of sin and immorality.
V.
NUMERICAL VARIATIONS
An
objection is brought against verbal inspiration because of
numerical variations.
In
regard to the number of Jews, we find that the sum given in 1 Chron. 21:5 for
Israel is 1,100,000, and for Judah, 470,000, making a total of 1,570,000; while
the number given in 2 Sam. 24:9 for Israel is 800,000 and for Judah it is
500,000, making a total of 1,300,000. This discrepancy is easily explained by
noting that the number given by Chronicles for Israel was of
men "that drew the sword," by which is meant that there was this number of men
subject to military service. While Samuel tells us that in Israel there were so
many "valiant men that drew the sword," by which is meant that there was that
number of men that had distinguished themselves for bravery in actual combat.
The difference in regard to Judah was occasioned by the fact that Samuel gave the total number of men in Judah, while Chronicles gives
the number of men subject to military service.
In
other places, such as 1 Kings 7:26; 2 Chron. 4:5; 2 Sam. 8:4; and 1 Chron. 18:4,
the numerical differences are probably due to errors in transcription. Numbers
are indicated in Hebrew by letters, and a small alteration
of a letter greatly changes its numerical value.
It
should not seem strange to us that present copies of the Bible contain some
minor errors. It should not surprise us any more than the finding of some
printer's errors in our Bibles. We have no more reason for believing in
infallible copyists than we have for believing in infallible printers. Realizing
the laborious task of copying the Scriptures by hand, it is
marvelous that there are not more minor errors.
In
another place a numerical difference (Num. 25:9; 1 Cor. 10:8) is to be explained
as the perfectly legitimate use of round numbers of exact ones.
VI.
MATTHEWS ALLEGED MISTAKE
It
is alleged that Matthew attributes to Jeremiah a prophecy that should have been
credited to Zechariah.
This
supposed mistake of Matthew is found in Matt. 27:9,10. Matthew here seems to
quote Zech. 11:13, but that this is not absolutely certain appears from a
comparison of the two passages. Matthew does not make a verbal quotation from
Zechariah, therefore it cannot be maintained with certainty that he meant to be
quoting from Zechariah. And, while we do not have in the extant writings of Jeremiah any passage that really resembles Matthew's quotation,
we are far from the necessity of admitting that Matthew made a mistake. We do
not know that we have all the prophetic utterances of Jeremiah. In Jude 14 we
have a prophecy of Enoch mentioned that we do not find elsewhere in the Bible.
We have heard of no objection being brought against this passage. But suppose
some other writer in the Scripture had said something similar to the words attributed to Enoch. Then the critic would have
said that Jude made a mistake.
Moreover,
it may be that chapters nine to eleven of the book attributed to Zechariah were
written by Jeremiah. Many critics believe that only the first nine chapters of
Zechariah compose the actual writings of this prophet.
Matthew was in far better position than any of his critics to know from whom he
was quoting. To suppose that he carelessly wrote Jeremiah when he meant
Zechariah, and left it without subsequent correction, is to suppose an
absurdity. And there is no indication that a copyist made the error.
VII.
STEPHEN'S SUPPOSED MISTAKE
Our
next objection to consider is an alleged contradiction between Gen. 23:17,18 and
the words of Stephen in Acts 7:16.
1.
Even if a contradiction could be made out here, it would prove nothing against
inspiration, for Stephen was not one of the inspired writers.
Luke
merely records what Stephen said.
2.
But no contradiction appears here.
The
two Scriptures do not refer to the same thing. The sepulchre mentioned in
Genesis was in Hebron. The one mentioned by Stephen was in
Sychem. This makes it clear that Abraham purchased two sepulchres. In the case
of the one at Hebron, he purchased the field surrounding the sepulchre; but, in
the case of the one at Sychem, no mention is made of the purchase of the
surrounding field.
This
latter fact explains another alleged contradiction. It is
charged that Gen. 33:19 states that Jacob bought the sepulchre at Sychem. But no
such thing is stated in Gen. 33:19. Gen. 33:19 says simply that Jacob bought the
field in the vicinity of Sychem; and, since the bones of Joseph were buried in
this field, in all probability it was in this field that Abraham's second
sepulchre stood. This also appears from the fact that Abraham's second sepulchre
and the field purchased by Jacob formerly belonged to the
same owners. So in this last case we simply have Abraham buying a sepulchre,
while later Jacob buys the field in which the sepulchre stood.
VIII.
THE GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST
The
two genealogies of Christ are held to be contradictory. For these genealogies
see Matt. 1 and Luke 3. The explanation here is:
1.
Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, because he was presenting
Jesus as king of the Jews.
Therefore,
he desired to show his legal right to the throne, which required that he be
descended from David through his paternal (supposed to be) parent.
2.
Luke gives the descent of Jesus through Mary, because he was
interested in presenting Christ only as the Son of Man.
Hence
it is natural that he should have given Christ's actual human descent, rather
than His supposed and legal descent. But, instead of inserting the name of Mary,
Luke inserted the name of Joseph, because it was not
customary for the names of women to stand in genealogical tables. Joseph is said
to be the son of Heli, but, in a loose sense, this may mean no more than that he
was the son-in-law of Heli. The Targums tell us that Heli was the father of
Mary.
3.
A further difficulty as to the father of Shealtiel, Matthew
giving Jechoniah and Luke giving Neri, is to be explained by the fact that Luke
gave the full ancestry, while Matthew gave only the royal line back as far as
David.
Jeconiah
is the same as Jehoiachin, one of the last Kings of Judah.
IX.
THE INSCRIPTION OVER THE CROSS
The
four accounts of the inscription over the cross have been subjected to
criticism. But let us note:
1.
We have no indication that each of the writers meant to be giving all that was
in the inscription.
2.
No one of the writers actually contradicts another.
We
can best see this fact by arranging the accounts of the inscription as follows:
Matt.
27:37- "This is Jesus,... the King of the Jews."
Mark
15:26- "... the King of the Jews."
Luke
23:38- "This is... the King of the Jews."
John
19:19- "... Jesus of Nazareth, ... the King of the
Jews."
Total...
"This is Jesus of Nazareth, -the King of the Jews.
3.
Just as it requires the four gospels to give us a full picture of Jesus, so it
requires the four gospels to give us a full account of the
inscription on the cross.
The
different aspects of Jesus and His ministry, as they are set forth in the
gospels, are indicated in the following verse:
"Matthew,
Messiah, Israel's King sets forth, by Israel slain; But God
decreed that Israel's loss should be the Gentiles' gain. Mark tells how in
patient love this earth has once been trod by One, who in a servant's form, was
yet the Son of God. Luke, the physician, tells of a more skilled physician
still, Who gave His life as son of Man, to heal us from all ill. John, the
beloved of Jesus, sees in Him the Father's Son; The everlasting Word made flesh,
yet with the Father one."
It
may be that the inscription differed in the three languages, and that this
accounts, in part, for the differences in the accounts.
Objections
are brought because of supposed contradictions in the different accounts of the
resurrection.
1.
Matthew mentions only the appearance of an angel to the
women at the sepulchre (Matt. 28:2-8), while Mark says that it was a young man
(Mark 16:5-7), and Luke says that there were two men (Luke 24:4-8).
There
is no contradiction here. The young man mentioned by Mark is evidently the angel
mentioned by Matthew. Angel means "messenger." God's
messenger to the women was a supernatural appearance in the form of a young man.
An angel is a spirit and has no material body of its own, but may assume a body
temporarily.
2.
Mark says that the message of the angel was delivered to the women after they
entered the tomb. Matthew makes no mention of the entering
into the tomb.
But
there is here no contradiction, because Matthew does not say that the women did
not enter into the tomb before the angel gave the message.
3.
Luke mentions the two men as standing while Mark mentions
the one as sitting.
This
is easily explained by supposing that the one who did the talking (and,
doubtless, the other also) was sitting when first seen, and that he arose, as
would be natural, before addressing the women. Luke does not say that the two
men were not sitting when the women entered the tomb, and Mark does not say the one he mentions did not arise before speaking.
4.
Luke says, in reporting the message to the women: "They said unto them," while
Mark says: "He saith unto them."
One
of these men likely did the talking; they would not have
been likely to recite the message in unison as school children might do. But the
other concurred in the message. Therefore the statement of each writer is valid.
When one person speaks and another concurs in what is said, it is perfectly
proper to say that they both said whatever is said.
5.
The message of the angels is not reported in the same words
by all the gospel writers.
But
this presents no real difficulty, for none of them indicate that they are giving
the message verbally.
(John
20:11-13 is not considered here in connection with the
foregoing because it records a later occurrence.)
XI.
SLAUGHTER OF HEATHEN NATIONS
The
command concerning the slaughter of the heathen nations in
the land of Canaan has given rise to an objection. See Deut. 20:16,17.
1.
God asserts that He will punish the wicked in hell throughout eternity.
If
He has a right to do this (and who will deny it?) does He
not have a right to command the taking of their physical life when it pleases
Him to do so? Why, then, should it be doubted that God inspired this command?
2.
It was a stroke of mercy to cut these people short in their iniquity, for
additional days would only have gotten them greater
punishment in hell.
None
of the adults that were slain in their wickedness were of the elect; for all the
elect that reach accountability, come to Christ before death; hence it is true
that continued life could only involve these peoples in greater punishment.
3.
As for the infants among these nations: If God was pleased to take them on to
Heaven in their infancy, who should object?
God
knows best and does all things well. The salvation of infants who die is treated
in the chapter on Human Responsibility.
XII.
JOSHUA'S LONG DAY
Objection
has been brought against verbal inspiration because the Bible records that the
sun stood still at the command of Joshua, thus prolonging a
certain day. Josh. 10:12-14.
1.
Objection has been made to the language.
It
is said that the language of Joshua's command and that of the Bible record of
the occurrence implies that the sun moves in its relation to
the earth. But this is no more true of this language than it is of our language
when we speak of the sun as rising and setting. In both cases we have the
language of appearance, which is common both in the Bible and in our everyday
language.
2.
Objection is made to the authenticity of the occurrence. It
is said that such a thing as the prolonging of the day could not occur without
dire results. But, absurd as it may seem to our would-be-wise critics, records
of this long day have been found in Egypt, China, and Mexico. Moreover the fact
that an extra day has been added to astronomical chronology is witnessed by
three eminent scientists, viz., W. Maunders, formerly of the Royal Observatory
of Greenwich, and Professors Totten and Pickering, formerly
of Harvard Observatory.
The
author freely admits that a slowing down of the rotation of the earth would be
attended with dire results, unless the laws of nature had been suspended or some
natural causes which we cannot imagine were brought into play. But since we
believe in a miracle-working God, we have no difficulty in believing that God could circumvent the calculated natural consequences in
either one of the ways suggested.
XIII.
JONAH AND "THE WHALE"
It
is said that a whale could not have swallowed Jonah. We will
note first that, when correctly translated, the Bible does not say that it was a
whale that swallowed Jonah. The Greek word for whale in Matt. 12:40 means simply
a "sea-monster." On the other hand we will note that the idea that a whale
cannot swallow a man is another ignorant assumption. In the "Cruise of the
Cachalot," Frank Bullen characterizes the idea that a whale's gullet is
incapable of admitting any large object as "a piece of crass
ignorance." He relates how "a shark fifteen feet in length has been found in the
stomach of a sperm whale," and he describes this monster as "swimming about with
the lower jaw hanging down in its normal position, and its huge gullet gaping
like some submarine cavern." Into this Jonah could have slipped so easily that
the whale would have been scarcely conscious of his entrance. Another remarkable
testimony from Mr. Bullen is "that when dying the sperm
whale always ejected the contents of its stomach," and he says that when caught
and killed, one full-grown whale ejected from its stomach food "in masses of
enormous size . . . some of them being estimated to be of the size of our
hatch-house-viz., eight feet by six feet by six feet!" And yet the critics say
the Bible is wrong! And despite the confident assertion of would-be-wise critics
that a man could not survive the action of the gastric juices in a fish's stomach, there are cases on record of men being
swallowed by sharks and coming out alive. However, a natural explanation is
unnecessary in that the Giver of Life could have preserved Jonah alive
miraculously.
XIV.
ANIMAL SACRIFICES
On
the basis of Isa. 1:11-13; Jer. 7:22; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8 it has been
asserted that the prophets denounced all animal sacrifices and did not recognize
them as being of divine institution. Such a notion, of course, represents the
prophets as being in conflict with the Pentateuch. To see that the Pentateuch
represents God as commanding animal sacrifices we have only to examine such
chapters as Ex. 12; Lev. 4; 8; 12; and 16.
In
reply to the affirmation that the prophets denounced all animal sacrifices and
did not recognize them as being of divine origin let us note.
1.
Jeremiah speaks elsewhere of sacrifices as being among "the
crowning blessings of a happier day."
See.
Jer. 33: 18. This is to be fulfilled in a day when God says Israel shall be to
Him "for a name of joy, for a praise and for a glory, before all the nations of
the earth" (Jer. 33:9). Israel shall then be no longer a rebellious nation, walking in stiffnecked disobedience. They shall then
do the things that please the Lord, and one of the things they shall do,
according to Jer. 33:18, is to offer, through their priests, burnt offerings and
sacrifices continually. Jeremiah speaks of this with utmost approval.
2.
Amos condemned the sacrifices of Israel only because that
along with their sacrifices to God they had borne the tabernacle of Moloch.
See
Amos 5:25,26. Along with this idol worship they had neglected judgment and
righteousness. For these reasons God hated their feast days. See Ezek. 20:39.
They were hypocritical pretensions of respect for Jehovah.
For the same reasons God was displeased with their songs. Shall we then conclude
that God rejected all singing?
3.
The meaning of Jer. 7:22 is that God did not speak to Israel primarily about
sacrifices in the day when He led them from Egypt, and that He did not commend
sacrifices as an end within themselves.
"The
difficulty is removed when the precise point of the text is recognized. The word
'concerning' should he rendered 'with a view to the matter of sacrifices.' That
is, they are not the end contemplated. They were but means for securing a higher
end; and therefore those were altogether mistaken and wrong
who limited their view to the formal sacrifice" (Robert Tuck, in A Handbook of
Biblical Difficulties).
4.
The language of the other prophets is no stronger than language used elsewhere
in Scripture, which manifestly cannot be taken in the absolute.
In
Exodus 16:8 Moses declared to Israel: "Your murmurings are not against us, but
against the Lord," while in verse two of the same chapter it is said that the
children of Israel "murmured against Moses and Aaron." And in Psa. 51:4, David
said, in his prayer to God: "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done
this evil in thy sight," when it is certain that he had sinned against Uriah.
Hence we read: "It is a way of speaking usual in Scripture,
to express the preference that is due one thing above another, in terms which
express the rejection of that which is less worthy" (Lowth). Again: "Henderson
remarks suggestively that it is not infrequent in the Scripture for a thing to
be stated absolutely, which is true only relatively. Absolutely God did command
sacrifices, but not such as they offered, nor of final obligation" (Tuck, ibid).
Further: "The negative in Hebrew often supplies the want of
the comparative; not excluding the thing denied, but only implying the prior
claim of the thing set in opposition to it" (Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset,
and Brown).
Corresponding
to the above we find in Hosea 6:6 both a negative and a comparative clause so
placed together as to indicate that they both express the
same truth. And the latter clause, "and knowledge more than burnt offerings,"
provides the key for interpreting all prophetic denunciations of the sacrifices
of Israel.
XV.
THE LYING SPIRIT IN THE MOUTH OF AHAB'S PROPHETS
In
2 Chron. 18:22 Micaiah is represented as declaring to Ahab: "The lord hath put a
lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets." This record causes us to ask
if God caused this lying spirit to be in the mouth of Ahab's prophets. The
answer is that He did not. The record here, together with a number of other
passages, gives a strong expression of what took place according to God's
permissive providence or purpose. See discussion of God's
permissive will in Chapter on "The Will of God." See also Isa. 45:7, where God is said to create evil.
This is to be explained in the same way as the foregoing passage.
This
explanation is enforced by a comparison of 2 Sam. 24:1 with 1 Chron 21:1. In the
former passage it is said that God moved David to command
the numbering of Israel, and in the latter it is said that Satan "provoked David
to number Israel." God moved David permissively. All of these passages taken
together are mutually explanatory.
XVI.
NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD
An
objection has been brought because of verbal differences between some passages
of the Old Testament and the quotation of them in the New Testament.
But
as we have already noticed, instead of this being against verbal inspiration, it
is argument in favor of it. If God put more meaning into Old
Testament passages than the language could convey to men, was it not altogether
His privilege to bring out this meaning in the New Testament? God has a right to
interpret His own words. Indeed these quotations show the depth and breadth of
Scripture, and thus witness to its inspiration.