|
|
| |
|
| by Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 the apostle Paul writes, “ “And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God’s message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.”
Paul is here expressing what the church has considered to be the standard position in reference to the Holy Scriptures, that they are nothing less than the very Word of God. However, what the church has regarded as orthodox for centuries, is now being disputed at best and at worst out right denied. Our purpose is to define, and develop, and then defend the Biblical doctrine of the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible.
In seeking to understand “Word of God” and the meaning of “word” we should begin with the basics. We will more readily understand the nature of the Bible as “God’s Word” if we identify clearly what is meant by a “word” itself. Reformed theologian Edward Young writes:
“A word is simply with the vehicle by means of which thought is communicated from one mind to another. And when we then speak of the Word of God, we are employing an expression to designate the means that God uses to convey to us the thoughts of His heart. God has spoken to us in order that we may know what He would have us to do: through the medium of words has revealed His will.” [21]
Having examined in some detail the nature of Biblical revelation, as the Supreme means of special revelation, and believing that God’s “self -disclosure” has come through words, we must then ask ourselves the question, “How did the words of God come through the human authors?” Or “How were them words of the human authors actually considered to be the words of God?”
The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, being necessary corollary to the doctrine of revelation, attempts to provide the answers to such questions. Since revelation gives us the content of God’s message, the study of inspiration addresses the issues of the means of recording the divine message.
“One reason, it may be observed in passing, why many today are willing to embrace new views of inspiration is possibly to be found in the fact that the Scriptural teaching is not well known... If the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration were better known, the newer views would have more difficulty lodging themselves in the modern church. It will be necessary therefore, to examine in more detail what the Bible itself teaches concerning inspiration.” [22]
Therefore, the study of the doctrine of inspiration is absolutely essential for every Christian - and especially so in this age where, one the one hand, the Bible is under such serious attack, and on the other hand, there is such a decline in the theological interest within the church. In order to take our stand with the unwavering position of the church of the past, we as members of the modern church, must become informed on the pressing issues and what is at stake if we fail to do so!
Since the doctrine of inspiration is so important, actually being the determining factor is all of one’s understanding of Bibliology, it is most important that we develop an adequate definitions of the subject. Consider the following definitions:
“Inspiration is that mysterious process by which the divine causality worked through the human prophets without destroying their individual personalities and styles to produce divinely authoritative and inerrant writings.” [23]
“According to the Bible, inspiration is a superintendence of God the Holy Spirit over writers of the Scriptures, as a result of which these Scriptures possess Divine authority and trustworthiness, are free from error.” [24]
“Inspiration is that extraordinary, supernatural influence... exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of our Sacred Books, by which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible.” [25]
There have always been those who have objected to any view of inspiration (later we will look at specific objections to verbal plenary inspiration). A brief review of these objections is included at this point, before we move on to establish the Biblical view and the various theories that accompany it.
One fallacy that I hear quite often, especially in discussing biblical ethics, is the “Christ vs. the Apostles” view. This view maintains a distinction between the supposed beliefs of Christ and those of the apostles. Typically, Jesus is seen as being opposed to the views of the apostles, actually seeking to save them from their old fashioned belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures. One proponent of this position actually stated:
“We conclude with great probability that the Redeemer did not share the conception of His Israelitish contemporaries as to the inspiration of their Bible.” [26]
Thus there is the attempt to discredit the apostles, while exonerating the supposed position of Christ. And thus Jesus is viewed as the one subscribing to the more “modern” and “updated” view, with the poor apostles hopelessly bound to their Jewish traditions.
Then there is the “Accommodation” view. This is a similar idea, suggesting that the apostles actually felt that the old fashioned Jewish high regard for Scripture was unrealistic, but they willingly accommodated their language and message, though contrary to their own beliefs, to the Jewish racial prejudices of their own day. Again, an author subscribing to this position states:
“The New Testament writers were completely dominated by the spirit of the age, so that their testimony their testimony on the question of Scripture inspiration possesses no independent value.” [27]
Another serious fallacy is the “ignorance view” which states that apostles were “unlearned” and “ignorant” men, thus making them predisposed to error. Jesus, because He was only human, could have known little more that what was currently available in His own day. Therefore, Jesus Himself could rise no higher than the level of thought of His own day, making Him subject to the typical Jewish traditions, cultural norms and prejudices. Thus their views of inspiration are not valid for today.
The “Contradiction” view is also the contention of many that the Bible contains so many “contradictions”, “discrepancies,” “inaccuracies,” and “inconsistencies” that it cannot possibly be inspired by God. It is pointed out that if any such book were truly inspired, it would present no such problems. Now, it must be recognized and admitted that there are definite difficulties in explaining the inspiration and received text of the Bible. However, most of the supposed “problems” that have been raised against the Bible in the last 100 years have already been answered. Thus most objections raised are usually an ignoratio elenchi fallacy. While there are some difficulties that remain and are real they are not insurmountable. If God viewed that there were problems in the Bible then the difficulties would be serious, but the fact that the “errors” are according to the views of men leads us to conclude that the problem may be wholly accounted for the mere misunderstanding of men.
The “Internal Evidence” view proposes that the Scriptures themselves deny the reality of inspiration. The texts used to support this position are few, in comparison to the 41,173 verses of the Bible, and some 3,800 times the Bible declares, “God said,” or “Thus saith the LORD.” The texts are Luke 1:3; 1 Corinthians 1:16; 7:6-25; Romans 6:18-19; 2 Corinthians 11:17, 12:2-3. These texts are generally suspect regarding inspiration, for they contain such a demonstrative “human element.” Thus the conclusion that all the Scripture is a human document, and merely witnesses to the revelation of God’s actions in history at best.
Most objectors to the orthodox view of inspiration readily admit that the men who wrote the Scriptures held to the traditional view of inspiration but modern thinkers are contending that the traditional view was actually wrong. Thus the writers of the Bible were themselves deceived, and thereby deceived others in regard to the inspiration of the Bible. Benjamin Warfield comments:
“The third reason why it is not necessary to occupy our time with a formal proof that the Bible does teach this doctrine [i.e. inspiration], arises from the circumstance that even those who seek to rid themselves of the pressure of this fact upon them, are observed to be unable to prosecute their argument without an implies admission of it as fact.” [28]
In contrast to these flawed views we ought to consider first what Scripture itself says on the subject. Edward Young states the following concerning the Scriptural testimony of its own inspiration:
“One who desires to be able to identify counterfeit money should make himself thoroughly familiar with the genuine article. If he knows the genuine thoroughly, he will not have much difficulty in distinguishing genuine from counterfeit. It is for this reason that we intend to spend some time in a study of what we believe to be the true and genuine doctrine of inspiration. If we have a clear picture of what the Bible itself teaches about inspiration, we shall be in a far better position to deal with views and opinions, which, although quite prevalent, are nevertheless to be placed in the category of counterfeit.” [29]
The next section will be a study of what the Scriptures have to say about their own doctrine of inspiration, and this will form the very foundation for the full development of their orthodox doctrine of the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible.
There are many who would object to the use of Scripture itself to support its own doctrine of inspiration insisting that such a methodology is a fallacy of “circular reasoning,” thus the conclusion would necessarily be logically inconclusive. Many Christians, including the majority of theologians in Reformed circles, would reject this methodology arguing “quoting Scripture to support Scripture” is not sufficient sole support for our doctrine. Instead they insist that one must make an appeal to sources external to the Scriptures to validate its inspiration. Such external evidences that are usually appealed to include archaeological evidence to support the historical reliability of Scripture, external historians that collaborate with the Bible (such as Josephus) or philosophical arguments such as cosmological/teleological proofs. While they would acknowledge that the Bible has the write to speak for itself as a witness, they would not allow it to speak as THE witness to the doctrine of inspiration.
The term “inspiration” is derived from the Latin “inspirare” and literally means “to breath upon or into something.” The Greek word translated “Inspiration” is to “enthusuasmos” (en+theos) [from which we get enthusiastic] meaning “God in you” or the first century idea of being “possessed by a god.” The word actually translated “inspired” is the word “theopneustia” which literally means “God-breathed,” in 2 Timothy 3:16. However, in contrast to the English connotation of inspiration of “breathed in”, theopneustia has the idea that God “breathed out” the Word. Thus Jesus states that man is to live by, “every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).
The principle texts regarding the doctrine of inspiration are 2 Timothy 3:16 (quoted above) and 2 Peter 1:19-21, discussed later. The primary or “key” text regarding inspiration is 2 Timothy 3:16 yet it is one of the most contested texts in regard to translation by non-orthodox critics. For example, compare the following English translations:
“All Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” (NKJV, NASB, NIV). These translations convey the idea that all Scripture is inspired by God.
“All Scripture inspired of God is profitable...” (ASV, NEB). These translations convey the idea that while Scripture, which is inspired, is God breathed it leaves open the possibility that there may be portions that are not inspired. In other words, as neo-orthodox proponents argue, it would then be up to the reader to discern which portions of the Scriptures are inspired and which are not due to the fact that the Bible is not the plenary inspiration of God, but rather man’s observations of God’s revelation in history. Thus “those portions of Scripture which are inspired of God are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” would be how the reader should take the translation to mean. While this translation is technically possible it is not required for both translations have the word ‘is’ which does not appear in the original. The question is whether or not to supply ‘is’ only once or twice (“Every Scripture inspired of God is profitable” or “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable”) [30] The preference goes to the latter translation for three reasons.
First, by supplying ‘is’ two times, both adjectives (‘inspired’ and ‘profitable’) are understood in the same way, as predicate adjectives, which is more natural to the text. Second, the connective word (kai), though it may be translated ‘also,’ much more frequently means ‘and.’ Finally, a similar construction occurs in 1 Timothy 4:4 where both adjectives are clearly predicate adjectives. Thus the preferred translation makes it clear that the entire Bible is inspired. Are we being overly technical at this point? Or is this difference significant? The proper translation results in our rightly understand three things concerning the word of God. First, the extent of inspiration as taught in 2 Timothy 3:16 indicates that ALL Scripture (the entire Bible) is inspired by God for the Greek word “graphe” (translated “Scripture”) refers to each writing of the Bible. In addition, this text indicates the means of inspiration, that it is of divine origin, and that it came forth by God “breathing” it out from Himself (theopneustos). The form is passive, meaning that the Bible is the result of the very breath of God. Finally, this text indicates the purpose of inspiration as being profitable for God’s people, consisting of teaching, reproving, correcting, restoring, and training them in righteousness.
The second text which needs to be considered regarding inspiration is 2 Peter 1:19-21:
“And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
This text is very important in our understanding of the doctrine of inspiration. First of all, it clearly reveals that the human authors did not originate, nor did they direct, the writings that came forth from their hand. Secondly, it reveals how God used the human writers of the Bible. It tells us that the writers were “moved along” by the Holy Spirit. The Greek word usually translated “moved” is “phero” is very descriptive suggesting the effect of the wind on the sails of a boat, by which the boat is ‘borne along.’ Thus it was not the will of man, but the Spirit of God that “carried along,” “directed,” and “moved” the ancient writers.
In addition to these texts we read in John 10:34-35, “Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken...”
This is an important passage for it reveals that Jesus Himself considered the Old Testament to be the Word of God, and therefore an “unbreakable” (Greek = “ou thenai”) testimony of divinely inspired revelation. By this He declared that the word cannot be broken, abolished, or done away with. The Bible clearly declares that it is inspired by God. Although it does not diminish the human element of the writing, it definitely does enforce the idea that it was God who originated and directed the writings. As a result, the Bible claims to be the Word of God, and this was surely the understanding of Jesus Himself.
The following points are necessary corollaries to the doctrine of inspiration that has been established thus far. Each is a logical derivative of the Scriptural testimony regarding its own inspiration, and each must be maintained or the essential fabric of the doctrine will disintegrate. Please note: that there are two important aspects to the extent of inspiration. First, the inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture. Gausseen argues that a prophet was whose mouth uttered the very words of God, “A Prophet in the Bible is a man in whose mouth God puts the words which He wishes to be heard upon the earth.” [31]
Robert Haldane defends the same idea by stating that, “We have a most unequivocal testimony to the inspiration of the words of Scripture, for neither a meaning, nor an idea, can be expressed in writing, except by words. If any writing is inspired, the words of necessity must be inspired, because the words are the writing; for what is a writing, but words written? The thoughts and sentiments are the meaning of words. To say that a writing is inspired, while the words are uninspired, is a contradiction of terms.” [32]
Second, the inspiration extends to every part of Scripture. This not to say that every truth of the Bible is equal in terms of its importance, but it is to say that every part of the Bible is equally inspired.
“It is that the Bible as a whole is the Word of God, so that in every part of Scripture there is both infallible truth and divine authority.” [33]
Thus we reject the ideas that the Bible is a divine book at some points, and then a human book at other points. It is a divine book at all points and thus the verbal, plenary, inspiration of the Bible is the only valid view of Biblical inspiration.
But then we must ask, “what is the extent of inspiration: to the writers or the writings?” Although the writer was definitely “moved along” by the Holy Spirit, the “theopneustia” refers only to the product of the process, that is, the Scriptures or “graphe” themselves. Thus the Bible is what is regarded as being inspired - the very words and every portion.
“The word inspire signifies to breathe into, and literally corresponds to the original in 2 Tim. 3:16. All Scripture is inspired by God, or breathed into the writers by God. It is therefore of the writing that inspiration is asserted.” [34]
But does the extent of inspiration: to the originals (autographa) only or the copies also? This question is raised due to the confusion as to whether or not the original only is inspired, or whether copies are also inspired, or whether translations are also inspired. The traditional orthodox view is succinctly expressed by E.J. Young when he wrote, “If the Scripture is ‘God-breathed,’ it naturally follows that only the original is ‘God-breathed”... In the nature of the case, then, inspiration extends only to the original manuscripts of Scripture.” [35]
However, although the original manuscripts alone were inspired, good copies and translations are accurate and consistent with that of the original “graphe.” Therefore they are authoritative and “it must be asserted that a good copy or translation of the autographs is for all practical purposes the inspired word of God.” [36]
Apologetical Defenses Of The Bible
The Evidentialist Argument that the New Testament documents are historically reliable which is verified through empirical arguments such as archeological evidence, statistical arguments concerning prophecy and rational arguments such as cosmological and teleological arguments. These documents present Christ as claiming to be God incarnate and fulfilling messianic prophecy. Thus whatever Christ (who is God) teaches is true. Christ taught that the O.T. is the written word of God and promised that His disciples would write the N.T. Therefore, it is true on the confirmed divine authority of Jesus Christ that the Bible is the written Word of God. [37]
In short, the Van Tilian Presuppositional Argument would state that in order to have a valid system of knowledge (epistemology) there is a transcendental necessity for an authoritative governing universal absolute. Neither pure reason (rationalism), sense experience (empiricism), nor one’s subjective experiences (existentialism) can provide a valid system of knowing anything. All three of these systems are man centered, autonomy seeking, systems of thought that pit themselves against the authority of God. The Bible, which says it is the inspired Word of God, is the only thing that can provide the authoritative governing universal absolute for a valid system of knowledge (epistemology), morality (ethics), and metaphysics (ontology) for all of life. Thus the Bible as the inspired Word of God is a precondition for justifiably knowing anything. Thus the Bible is the inspired word of God because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Various Theories Of The Nature of Inspiration
There are various theories of the nature of inspiration. The Natural View of inspiration understands the Biblical writers to be of such great genius with exceptional spiritual insight with which they conceived of the ideas written in the Bible. In other words, just as great poets, artists, or musicians have been said to be “inspired” to create great masterpieces, so the Biblical authors were inspired to produce this literary masterpiece. This view would of course deny the uniqueness of the inspiration of the Bible as well as allow further inspired works to be produced that then could be added to the Bible.
The Mystical View of inspiration goes one step further than the previous one, maintaining that the human authors were gifted Christian men who were enabled by the Holy Spirit to write their books. Therefore, is drawn that the Bible is inherently no different than any other great Christian book. Those who hold to this view declare that there is a great wealth of Christian literature from the fifth through the 20th centuries that are inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same manner of the Bible. The main proponent and defender of this view was Schliermacher. Again, the emphasis is placed upon the human authors rather than God. Similar notions are often held in Charismatic and Pentecostal circles.
The third position is the Degree View of inspiration that holds to the idea that the Bible has degrees of inspiration, with some parts being more inspired than other parts. The view is expressed well by Marcus Dods when he says that “Within this one great function of inspiration considerable variety exists. The inspiration of Isaiah or Paul is different from that of the compiler of Proverbs or the analyst who drew up Chronicles.” This view confuses “degrees of inspiration” with “degrees of importance” or “degrees of relevancy” within the different parts of the Bible.
Then there is the Partial View of inspiration that limits inspiration to only certain parts of the Bible. For example, inspiration extends only to the doctrinal teachings and precepts of the Bible; or it extends only to the things naturally unknown to the human authors. Therefore, the conclusion is drawn that the remainder of the Bible is not inspired. Therefore, it is also concluded that those portions of the Bible are not inerrant, and not infallible and are not then necessarily authoritative. Those who are arguing for this view today generally maintain that the Bible is inspired in its purpose and its intent only, and not in its content. Thus we must separate history and doctrine.
Then there is the Concept View of inspiration that suggests that the Biblical concepts were inspired, but the actual words written were not inspired. The underlying reason for such a view is the attempt to allow the human author the freedom to express himself as he chose. It then follows that the words chosen my have been in error, accounting for the supposed errors in Scripture, but yet the infallible concepts may be maintained. However, there is an obvious fallacy in this view, for how are concepts actually expressed if not by words? If the words are changed, then so are the concepts. If we desire to have a divine concept expressed in such a manner that it is accurate, then the concept must be inspired, and then the words that express the concept must also be inspired. One may object to this argument by saying that one can communicate by pointing an object or through mime, but such highly figurative and general expressions are too imprecise to constitute any real form of means of conveying ideas, especially abstract concepts such as those found in the Scriptures.
One of the most common views in liberal churches today is the Barthian View of inspiration (Karl Barth is considered the father of neo-orthodoxy). This is probably the most widely held view of inspiration in the modern church, and it may possibly be the most dangerous of all the views. Barthians generally align themselves with the conclusions of the higher critical scholars, adhering to the “new hermeneutic” in their approach to Scripture, and yet often preach like conservative and orthodox Christians. This is why to truly know what Karl Barth believed one must read his Dogmatics and not just his sermons that tend to be more popular reading. This “neo-orthodox” position is what makes them difficult to detect by the uninformed or unsuspecting Christian, and thus the reason they are so dangerous today. The followers of this view hold that orthodox Christians hold to “mechanical” or “dictation” theory of inspiration, making the Bible a “paper pope.” They view Scripture as more of a human document that merely bears witness to Jesus Christ, which then becomes the Word of God only when it overpowers us in the “Christ encounter.” They would attest that this “witness” of Scripture is uneven (similar to “degree inspiration”), and partial (for what the human authors recorded is not even true, let alone accurate). It is difficult to summarize their position, for even the best modern theologians have a difficult time understanding exactly what they mean. Suffice it to say, their view of inspiration emphasizes the human aspect of the writing, the subjective aspect of the reader, and the existential Christ encounter.
The Mechanical View of inspiration, also known as the “dictation theory” of inspiration, virtually ignores the human aspect of the Biblical writings. This is an attempt to emphasize the divine authorship, thereby guaranteeing the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scripture. This view has two schools of thought. On the one hand, there are those who hold to a strict “mechanical dictation” theory in which the Biblical writers acted more like robots. On the other hand, there are those who hold that the Biblical writers acted more like secretaries. Thus they hold that the reason why there are differences in style amongst the Biblical writers is because God dictated or mechanized the writers in a Mosaic, Pauline, Johanine etc. style.
Finally, there is the Verbal-Plenary View of inspiration. This is the traditional orthodox view. It teaches a verbal inspiration, meaning that the Holy Spirit guided the human choice of every word in the original autographs. However, the human authorship was respected and the characteristics of the human authors were preserved. It teaches plenary inspiration, always meaning that every portion of the original autographs is equally inspired, resulting in inerrant, infallible and authoritative record of divine revelation. This is the best view for maintaining the “dual authorship” of the Bible which is much like the dual nature of Christ in His incarnation. Christ is wholly human and wholly divine, which shall be discussed further in “The Christological analogy of inerrancy.” For now, consider the Westminster Confession of Faith’s description of the dual natures of Christ:
“The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.” [38]
Likewise, the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture is such that it is of “eternal God” and man “with all the essential properties” of a human document yet “without sin” (error). Thus in its inspiration it has two “distinct natures’ “inseparably joined” in the one book “without conversion, composition, or confusion”. Thus it is of “very God, and very man” yet it is only one book, the very Word of God.
|
| | |
| End Notes |
| |
[21] Edward Young, "Thy Word is Truth" Grand Rapids Michigan: Eerdmans, 1957. pg. 40.
[22] Edward Young, Ibid pg. 39.
[23] Norman Geisler, "A General Introduction to the Bible" pg 39.
[24] Edward Young, Ibid pg. 39.
[25] Benjamin Warfeild "The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible" P&R 1948, pg. 420.
[26] Richard Roth, "Zur Dogmatik" pg. 177.
[27] Stuart, "Principles of Christianity" pg. 70.
[28] Benjamin Warfeild, "The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible" P&R 1948, pg. 116.
[29] Edward Young Ibid pg. 39.
[30] The Greek word “pasa” can be translated either “all” or “every” but is not pertinent to this discussion. “’Pasa’ ‘every’ is actually singular and may be referring to each individual part of the scriptures referred to collectively as the ‘holy writings,’ but the common usage in nearly all versions is to use the collective word ‘all’ in referring to scripture.” Robert E. Smith, John Beekman "A Literary-Semantic Analysis of Second Timothy" Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas Texas, 1981. pg 94.
[31] L. Glaussen "The Divine Inspiration of the Bible" Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971. pg. 62. [32] Robert Haldane,Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures Minneapolis, Klock & Klock, 1985. pg. 114.
[33] Basil Manly, "The Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration Explained and Vindicated." Harrisonburg: Gano Books, 1888. pg. 59.
[34] Haldane, Ibid. pg. 113.
[35] Edward Young, "Thy Word is Truth" Grand Rapids Michigan: Eerdmans, 1957. pg. 55, 61.
[36] Norman L. Geisler, "A General Introduction to the Bible" Chicago: Moody Press 1986. pg. 44.
[37] Norman Geisler, “The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible” in "Christian Apologetics" pg. 353.
[38] Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VIII. 3 “Of Christ the Mediator”
|
| |
|
