What isipsissima vox? What isipsissima verba?

The exact meaning is: Inspiration of such fulness that it extends to the control of the very words of the utterance or writing. Verbal is an adjective derived from the Latin verbum = a word. There are those who will allow a modified inspiration, extending as far as the thoughts are concerned; an inspiration differing in degree but hardly in kind from that state of mental exaltation and rapture which produced the finest passages from Shakespeare, Milton, or Dante.

274 Would any man say of these, that any one was not a true account? It would be a great deal truer if the object be to communicate God's mind in the discourse to me; and what else can it be if God inspired the account of it? I repeat, we have not a hundredth part of Jesus's discourses. We have what the Holy Ghost was sent to give for the permanent good of the Church — the very words Jesus used, if needed, for the divine teaching, perhaps the substance perfectly fitted for future ages, or some of the words which had a permanent application.

Again, suppose there were a question of blaming me for taking some one to a distance, and it were affirmed that I had, on the contrary, said to him, "Come into the next room;" whereas I had said, "The next room is airy and will suit you: come into it." The report made to justify me is not literal, but it is exactly true. Now I do not doubt that the Holy Ghost, by the apostle, has given the discourses of Jesus, not necessarily in every case literally, but in the way alluded to in the example I have given, so as that they exactly communicate the mind of God in them which He meant to be preserved in writing, and word for word when that was needed so to do. Many things may have been said, and undoubtedly were, by which what He said was adapted to the persons and circumstances which surrounded Him, but made no part of the truth to be conveyed. These would be only so far preserved as would be needed to give a perfect idea of what He said to them, and how. Hence the force of the discourse would be, as the Holy Ghost used the mind and pen of John, or any other writer, exactly what the Holy Ghost meant to communicate.

275 Now this is much more really a divine communication by the Holy Ghost, than a mere repetition by human memory of what the Lord meant only for the good of the individuals at the moment, or forms of expression adapted to suit what He said to them, and not for the permanent good of the Church, and the full revelation of Himself. I have His instructions with divine perfection, as He meant them to be given for the permanent use of the Church, written by the power of the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost employed John or Matthew to convey a particular part of the truth as to Jesus, as He undoubtedly did, their writings would necessarily take the form of the particular truth or aspect of Christ they were employed to set forth. Thus Emmanuel shines through Matthew, and Jehovah King in Zion; in John, the Son's relationship in every way with the Father, both in nature and mission: Judaism is quite set aside. The vessel used was fitted for its use, but conveyed exactly what it was meant to convey. The form, as we have said, of the jet was according to the fountain-maker's design, but the water which took that form was unmixed and pure.

The Spirit of God in recording does not limit Himself to the bare words that Jesus spoke. This I hold to be a matter of no little importance in forming a sound judgment of the Scriptures. The notion to which orthodox men sometimes shut themselves up, in zeal for plenary inspiration, is to my mind altogether mechanical; they think that inspiration necessarily and only gives the exact words that Christ uttered. There seems to me not the slightest necessity for this. Assuredly the Holy Spirit gives the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The differences are owing to no infirmity, but to His design, and what He has given us is incomparably better than a bare report by so many hands, all meaning to give the same words and facts. … Matthew and Luke alike give us the parable of the sower, but Matthew calls it the word of the kingdom, while Luke calls it the word of God. The Lord Jesus may have employed both in His discourse at this time. … The Spirit of God did not give us to have both in the same Gospel, but acts with Divine sovereignty. He does not lower the Evangelists into mere literal reporters. … The mere mechanical system can never explain inspiration. It finds itself entirely baffled by the fact that the same words are not given in all the Gospels. Take Matthew "Blessed are the poor" (verse 3), and Luke (verse 20) "Blessed are ye poor." This is at once an embarrassing difficulty for the mechanical scheme of inspiration; it is none at all for those who hold to the Holy Spirit's supremacy in employing different men as the vessels of His various objects. The last paragraph has been drawn from "Lectures on the Gospels," pp. 287-289. See further note 13 in Appendix.

Verse 29 is remarkable as compared with the corresponding portion (verses 39, 40) of Matthew 5. They both deserve our particular consideration and well illustrate the difference of the Gospels, and, what is also of the greatest importance, the manner of inspiration generally. It is a mistake to think that the Spirit of God is limited to a mere report even of what Jesus said. He exercises sovereign rights, while He gives the truth and nothing but the truth; and inasmuch as His aim is to give the whole truth, He is not tied down to the same expression, even while He is furnishing the substance of all that is needed for God's glory. Cf. "Exposition of Mark," p. 10f, and note 6 in Appendix here.

"3. The above diversities show that the ipsissima verba spoken by God cannot be in both, because both do not exactly agree.

"4. It is possible, however, that the ipsissima verba may be in one or other. Accordingly the majority of expositors take the record in Exodus for the exact one, supposing that, as Moses was speaking to the people in the latter case, he recited from memory, not from the tables of stone, and therefore there is some variation of terms. A few, however, think that the record in Deuteronomy is the more exact, because when Moses recorded the words in Exodus he had heard the decalogue pronounced; whereas, when he repeated it in Deuteronomy, it was in his hands, inscribed in permanent letters.

85 John 4:7 ff. — Dr. Abbott, on the ground alleged that "no disciple was present," says that "it is practically certain that the dialogue did not occur in the exact words recorded" ("Encycl. Bibl.," col. 1,801). As to the absence of all disciples, see in note 61 above, to which may be added here the consideration that we are not to suppose all persons with whom Christ spoke kept the knowledge of such conversations to themselves. It is practically certain that they would reproduce at least the substance of Christ's words to them. For this cf. what the expositor has said in the volume on Mark (p. 10, foot).

As to the objection raised from the several evangelists reporting the same thing in different words, see Carson, p. 39 ff. He selects as example the different wording of the inscription on the Cross (cf. note 349 in "Exposition of John" ). A living writer has remarked, "Jesus did not use both forms of expression at one and the same time … not that they are always literally and exactly the very words Christ used" (Orr on "Verbal Inspiration," and so W. Kelly, as cited above). The Glasgow professor illustrates his view by reference to Luke 6:22 compared with Matt. 5:11; Luke 9:27 with Matt. 16:28; Luke 12:5 f. with Matt. 10:28; Luke 23:28 with Matt. 27:37; also Mark 15:26 with John 19:19.

The inconsistency is flagrant of scholars who belittle "verbal" inspiration in the sense of this note, and yet insist on discriminating the exact force of particles, etc.

It may be well here to say a few words on the manner in which the discourses of the Lord would be given to us, assuming the Holy Ghost to record them. For it is the character which would result, not the proof of the fact by evidence, that I now seek. First, it is perfectly certain, that we have a very small portion indeed of the discourses of Jesus. The Holy Ghost would give us those which divine wisdom considered permanently useful to the Church in all ages — that which brought out great principles and abiding doctrines; and such is in fact the case. Take the sermon on the Mount, Matthew 13 Luke 15, 16, and the discourses in John, and the like: all bring out some special view of Christ's person, God's ways with men, or the principles of His rule as Father. Even in the same discourse He would give us, according to the connection in which it was recorded, that part which applies to the subject treated. Thus, supposing it had been said, "They killed at Jerusalem the Son whom the Father had sent," I might say, if the guilt of favoured Jerusalem was in question, "They killed the Son at Jerusalem;" if the mere extent of their guilt in respect of the dignity of His person, "They killed the Son." If I sought to shew the slight of the Father and the contempt of His love, I might say, "They killed the Son whom the Father had sent." And all these representations would be perfectly true; and in the pursuit of an object, such as God must have in recording these things, my leaving out a part which did not immediately bear on the purpose of God in the revelation would only give a truer force to the words — more of the sense and meaning, according to the mind and teaching of God. Now each gospel might give only one of these (much more pertinent and instructive, but) incomplete citations; and hence there would be a difference. But so far from there being an inconsistency, there would be a great help to understanding the mind of God in the word.

Verbal Inspiration Vol. III. 295. — I am of opinion that the Holy Ghost, citing in the New Testament the language of the Old Testament, while always and only communicating perfect truth, is not limited to the mere literal primary sense which the sentence conveyed. He could even make use of an imperfect version like that of the LXX, not, of course, as if he vouched for its representations as a whole, but adopting any particular phrases and thoughts, even where they differed from the original Hebrew, if they expressed additional truth which bore upon the object he had in view.

There is however, special emphasis put upon the fact of the apostles having the Spirit of God, by whom they communicate the truth of God to others. They spoke in words, not of man's wisdom, but as taught by the Holy Spirit, "communicating spiritual things by spiritual means" (J. N. Darby Trans.). It should be evident that spiritual things can be no more communicated by natural means than that they could be understood by natural intellect. Therefore, it must be by the power of the Spirit of God that they are both understood and communicated to others. Let us closely observe too, that it is not merely the thoughts or concepts involved that are inspired of God, but the "words." Every word as it was given was precisely right, exactly expressing (in the original languages) the mind of God. Translators are not at liberty therefore to merely translate what they conceive to be the meaning of any given passage. An honest translation must translate the words as faithfully as they can possibly be translated, in strict consistency with the meaning of the words in the original language.