It is somewhat difficult to describe the writings of Rev. Ophoff in the field of Old Testament History. This difficulty arises from the fact that his writings are voluminous. He compiled massive syllabi for use in the school and he wrote literally hundreds and hundreds of pages for the Standard Bearer in this field. It was truly his specialty.

There were few men who knew the Old Testament Scriptures as Rev. Ophoff did. And there were few who could make these Scriptures live the way he did. This was true in his writing as well as in his preaching. Those who remember hearing him preach will surely recall that he preached from the Old Testament most of the time, and that these sermons on the Old Testament were preached as few men could preach. He had a knack for bringing his audience into the history with him so that one felt he was actually present at the events which were described. All of this could characterize his work only because the Old Testament was his one great love.

Yet he preached in such a way that one heard the gospel as it is in these Old Testament Scriptures. He did not busy himself with story-telling. He was not content with pious moral homilies. He preached the gospel.

So extensive are his writings, that one could pick almost at random to find a sample of his labors in this area. I have chosen a section from his Old Testament history notes which does not deal directly with the subject of Old Testament History. It deals rather with Ophoffs views on inspiration. It is rather interesting, be­cause Ophoff faced the same questions then already which are currently being faced in the Church. Ophoff is dealing with various views of the inspiration of the Scriptures—especially the Old Testament. In the section from which we quote excerpts, he is dealing with what he calls “a would-be Reformed position”. He writes:

“What the men of this position hold is plain from the notes of Dr. Albertus Pieters of Hope College, Holland, Michigan. The doctor writes, The position taken by the author of these notes (the author is Dr. Pieters himself) is that the Bible is the word of God in all its parts–the position usually designated in theo­logy as belief in the plenary inspira­tion of Holy Scripture.

‘He believes also that inspiration involves the trustworthiness of the Old Testament in its statements of facts of whatever kind, as well as in all its teachings with regard to religious truth and duty.

‘It is to be carefully noted however that the trustworthiness of the Old Testament is not the same as inerrancy in every detail. (Notice here how Pieters makes the same distinc­tions which De Koster, the editor of The Banner, made in his controversy with Lindsell, H.H.) When it comes to statistics, dates, and similar matters, there are certainly errors in the Bible as we have it. It is possible that many, perhaps most, of these errors are errors in transmission, and did not exist in the original documents; but no one can be sure that this is true of them all. If the inerrancy of the original documents is asserted, this is not on the basis of evidence, but merely as an inference from the doctrine of verbal inspiration. This is not the same as plenary inspiration. The author of these notes holds to plenary inspiration, but not to verbal inspiration…. A document can be a trustworthy source of information even though minor errors exist in it; and therefore it is not inconsistent with the position here assumed to believe that some minor errors may have existed in the original documents’ So far Dr. Pieters.

….“Our position is that inspira­tion was certainly plenary in the sense of verbal. What is meant thereby is that the men of God through whom God gave us His Word wrote under the infallible guidance of His Spirit so that their productions are in truth God’s very own infallible Scriptures and thus incapable of error as to the form of all their words without a single exception, incapable of error therefore also in such matters as numbers and statistics.

‘‘The position of Dr. Pieters raises unanswerable questions. Why should God have withdrawn His infallible guidance respecting state­ments specifying times (dates)? Did the greatness of God prevent Him from troubling Himself with matters so trivial? But the greatness of God does not stand in His way of numbering the hairs of each man’s head. Besides, the dates of Scripture are not of trivial importance. Further, if the organs of revelation could err in their statements speci­fying time, and thus could err as historians, why could they not have erred as teachers of religion and ethics? Why limit the fallibility of the Scriptures, of the autographs, to statements respecting time and to the genealogical tables of the Old Test­ament? What is there to prevent one from going all the way? Nothing at all. For the proposition that the autographs are infallible in their religious and ethical teachings is purely an article of faith. Likewise the proposition that the autographs are infallible regarding their statements of historical facts, in particular as to their statements specifying time. Hence, to reject the infallibility of the autographs regarding their historical date, is to forsake the position of faith. Now if the student of Holy Writ forsakes the position of faith with respect to the historical data of the Scriptures, what is there to prevent him from forsaking the position of faith with respect to the whole of the Scriptures? Nothing at all.

“Dr. Pieter’s position is not that of faith. …. The doctor actually advocates… applying to the historical data of the Scriptures the touchstone of archeological findings to determine whether or not that data can be accepted as fact. What is there to prevent him from submitting the religious and ethical teachings of the Scriptures to the authority of the teachings, let us say, of Confucius, for the same purpose, or to the authority of his, Dr. Pieter’s own reason? Nothing at all. To be consistent, the doctor should do one of two: he should either accept verbal as well as plenary inspiration or reject both. And any man who can occupy his position, will eventually do the latter, if he has not already done so in his heart….

“Our Bible, then, is a compe­tently correct reproduction of the autographs. It makes therefore all the world of difference whether the autographs are the infallible or fallible Word of God. If the latter, our Bible is nothing more or less than a competently exact reproduction of fallible autographs and in this case we know not whether it can be said of a single phrase in our Bible whether it is the very infallible Word of God. But if the autographs are infallible, our Bible is the competently exact reproduction of infallible writings and thus the very infallible Word of God.

“The question may be asked whether there is on hand external historical evidence-evidence not con­tained in the Scriptures—to prove that the autographs were and that our Bible is the infallible Word of God. The question of course must be answered in the negative. The pro­position that the autographs were and that the Bible is the infallible Word of God as to the form of all their words, is an article of faith. The proposition can be proved only by the testimony of the Scriptures themselves. But this testimony has worth only for God’s believing people. God’s people be­lieve, are firmly convinced, that the Bible is God’s infallible Word, only because God tells them so in their hearts by His Spirit testifying with their spirits through the Word, thus only because God causes the light of His Word to shine in their hearts unto the salvation of their souls. The believers need no other testimony. They rejoice at the findings of the archaeologist corroborating the state­ments of fact contained in the Scriptures. But their faith does not lean on these findings; and therefore should these findings clash with the Scriptures, they cleave to the Scrip­tures and they say with Paul, ‘Let all men be liars and let God be true.’

“It is also said by men who want to be known as Reformed that the testimony of the Holy Spirit gives certainty only regarding the religious and ethical teachings of the Bible and in particular of the Old Testament Scriptures but not regarding their statements of historical facts, such as the deliverance of the people of Israel from their Egyptian bondage. Thus the truth or falsity of the historical data of the Bible must be determined by external evidence. Such was the position of Dr. Janssen of Calvin Seminary. The doctor, sad to say, has many followers in the Christian Reformed communion of Churches. The position is thoroughly modernis­tic, liberal. As has already been said, the religious and ethical teaching of the Bible is so intimately bound up with the history that it narrates, that the testimony of the Spirit necessarily involves both. The religious and ethical teachings of the Old Testa­ment Scriptures lie firmly embedded in Israel’s history. The history of Israel is symbol, type, and prophecy. As such it signifies and pre-indicates the great truths of the religion of the Scriptures.”

After asking the question whether or not the presence of seeming contradictions in Scripture militate against its infallibility Rev. Ophoff quotes Dr. Vos:

“The contradictions in themselves do not prove anything as long as:

1. They can be harmonized
2. The differences explained on other grounds.

And it can be confidently claimed that all of them have met with satisfactory solution long ago.”

Rev. Ophoff himself goes on to say:

…‘‘Why then is the position taken that (the autographs leave errors?) Because it cannot be proved that in a positive way that the autographs were flawless? If God causes His Word to dwell richly in our Hearts, we do not demand such proof. We then have all the evidence we need and desire. And that evidence is our faith. Then we refrain from saying that the mistakes in the transcriptions may also have existed in the autographs. What causes otherwise believing men to forsake the right position is their fear of the ridicule and contempt of higher critics, of the renowned scholars among the unbelieving students of Scripture. But there is nothing as unscholarly, truly unscholarly as the scholarship of the unbelieving man.”

And this was written over thirty years ago!