The Old Testament freely and frequently marks its Divine authorship. Time and space would fail us to prove this. (Warfield's work, The Inspiration And Authority of The Bible, chronicles in informative detail the Old Testament attestation of its wonderful inspiration.) But we are told the New Testament has far fewer declarations of its inspiration, and this witness is true. However, this limitation is one of necessity. The New Testament Scriptures by reason of the newness were not able to receive direct proof of their Divine origin from Christ himself which the Old Testament received in such ample and admirable measure. Since their composition continued until the close of the first century and the life of the last apostle, they could scarcely bear a collective stamp, such as the Old Testament Scriptures bore, from the apostles themselves.

The affirmations of inspiration in the Old Testament may differ frond the New in number though not in nature, character, and verity. (1) David truly said, "The Spirit of the `Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue" (2 Sam. 23:2). Who is prepared to say that this is a stronger statement than that of Paul, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14:37). (2) When the Old Testament prophets spoke they often began, "Thus saith God" (2 Chron. 24:19). Does this differ in content with the New Testament apostles who said, "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:15)? (3) The Old Testament penman, as he prayed, said the words "by (God's) servants the prophets" were "the voice of the Lord our God" (Dan. 10:9). The New Testament writer similarly wrote that his word was not "the word of men, but :1, . the word of God" (1 Thess: 2:13). (4) The Old Testament "minor" prophet spoke of those who "made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear ... the word which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets" (tech. 7:12). Correspondingly, one of the New Testament's "minor" letters says, "We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error" (1 Jn. 4:6). (6) When the people of God in the Old Testament "mocked the messengers of God," they "despised the word of God" (2 Chron. 36:16; Jer. 11:10). Accordingly, in the New Testament, when people despise the message of the Lord's apostolic messengers, they despise the Lord, His word, and eternal life (Lk. 10:16; Acts 13:46).

What, then, is the difference between these records? There is none says Paul in writing to Timothy, wherein he equates and associates his own teaching as of equal weight, currency, and authority with the Old Testament Scriptures, "Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and bast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God"' (2 Tim. 3:14-16).

Of course, the afore-mentioned passage in 1 Corinthians 14:37 is a direct declaration of inspiration, as in Eph. 3:3-5, which is a sublime statement of a divine fact. Revelation also records many succinct testimonies of its Spirit source. (Rev. 1:19; 2:7; 14:13).

Remarkably clear are two Thessalonian-passages, which when paired together, give proof of the Divine utterance of the New Testament. "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (1 Thess: 2:13). "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15). The word Paul preached or penned was "the word of God." What the Thessalonians "heard" was "the word of God." As they received his oral words, so they were to receive the written epistle of the apostle. Why receive the epistle as (in the same manner) they received what they had heard, if, what was written was any less than the word of God? The argument to receive both alike argues that the written word was equivalent to what they heard, that is, "the word of God." Thus, could Paul in writing say, "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:15).

Most are readily familiar with Peter's stamp of "Scripture" on the writings of Paul (2 Pet. 3:16). No higher appellation could be given, for Scripture saying it means God said it (Cf. Gal. 3:8).

A direct and forceful declaration of New Testament inspiration is no where clearer than in 1 Tim. 5:18. "For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle' the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, the labourer is worthy of his reward." Paul's first clause is from Deut. 25:4. The second is a word for word citation of Lk. 10:7. Both are here termed "Scripture." The words in Luke are the Lord's, yet they are called "Scripture." Is any more complete testimony required to establish the inspired authority of the third gospel account? No, for we are assuredly used to such designations with regard to the Old Testament, and we accept them bound and confirmed as the very word of God. Hence, Luke's treatise is as much Scripture as Moses' law. (Note also how early this gospel had acquired recognition in its place as Scripture-in the lifetime of both Paul and Luke.)

Let all eschew any who dare despise the New Testament as "the imperfect utterances of fallible men." They are the oracles of God, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him," which shall surely and certainly judge us in the last day (Rev. 1:1; Jn. 12:48).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:4, p. 2
November 22, 1973