After exploring the Christian doctrine of revelation in confrontation with the claims of worldviews and non-Christian religions and as both general and special revelation, we must now to the relationship between that special revelation and the Bible, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments. This new inquiry will involve the treatment of several different but related topics pertaining to the Bible.
These will be:
The inspiration of the Bible
The canon of the Bible
The relation of the testaments
Biblical criticim
The interpretation of the Bible
The Bible as the Word of God
The truthfulness of the Bible
The place of the Bible in the total Christian concept of religious authority
I. SOME BASIC DISTINCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS CONCERNING BIBLICAL INSPIRATION#
A. REVELATION AND THE BIBLE#
Although some Christians have understood the two as synonyms, basic or primal revelation and the written Scriptures are related but not identical.
The revelation of God to Israel produced the Old Testament; the Old Testament did not produce God’s revelation to Israel.
The revelation of God in Jesus Christ produced the New Testament; the New Testament did not produce the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Whereas revelation is God’s self-disclosure to human beings, the Bible is the record of revelation. This distinction between revelation and the Bible does not prevent recognition that the Bible functions in the extension of the primal revelation and that for modem Christians the Bible has a necessary instrumental role in the testimony to and per- sonal appropriation of revelation.
B. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION#
Although closely related, revelation and inspiration are not identical.
Revelation is God’s working through events of history and human experiences so as to make himself known redemptively to human beings.
Inspiration is God’s working through the biblical writers so as to secure an authentic declaration and record of the revelation.
Thus inspiration is dependent on special revelation, yet inspiration enables special revelation to be extended to or made available to human beings in many nations and in different periods of human history.
C. THE TERM “INSPIRATION”#
1. Etymology and Translation
The English term “inspiration” derives from the Latin noun inspiratio and means literally an “in-breathing”.
B. B. Warfield suggested that the English “spiration” would be a more proper term. The Greek New Testament word used in 2 Tim. 3:16 is theopneustos, and its precise Latin equivalent would seemingly have been spiratio Dei. Thus, an English word “deispiration”, yet to be coined or used, would probably be the ideal term.
The word theopneustos is not from the Septuagint but “from the philosophico-religious vocabulary of classical Greece and of Hellenism”, wherein it had ecstatic or mantic associations. But the meaning of the term in 2 Tim. 3:16 is based upon Hebrew, not Greek thought.
2. Definition
The definitions set forth for the term “inspiration” in reference to the Bible have been legion, and here it seems necessary to quote only two such definitions. The definitions chosen are those by Augustus H. Strong and by Millard J. Erickson.
According to Strong,
Inspiration is that influence of the Spirit of God upon the minds of the Scripture writers which made their writings the record of a progressive divine revelation, sufficient, when taken together and interpreted by the same Spirit who inspired them, to lead every honest inquirer to Christ and to salvation.
Erickson has defined inspiration as
“that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon the Scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God.”
Both Strong and Erickson have mentioned the agency of the Holy Spirit
Strong emphasized the sufficiency of the Bible to lead human beings to Christ and salvation
For Erickson, it was important to state that by virtue of inspiration the Bible is the Word of God.
3. Principal Variant Usage
Quite significant differences in the usage of the term “inspiration” are to be found among Christian authors. Especially do these differences pertain to the objects of the inspiration, the focuses in respect to inspiration, and the methods used to formulate the concept.
a. Differing Objects of Inspiration
Some regard persons or authors only as the objects of the divine work of inspiration.
Accordingly prophets, apostles, and other biblical writers themselves were divinely inspired, without any necessity that their writings be looked upon as inspired.
Others reckon the writings, that is, the biblical books, to be inspired, and little or nothing is said about the inspiration of the writers.
The two major texts pertaining to the inspiration of the Bible that appear in the New Testament reflect these two usages; 2 Peter 1:20-21 refers to writers, and 2 Tim. 3: 16-17 to writings.
b. Differing Focuses as to Inspiration
1) On the process of inspiration
How did inspiration occur? How were the divine and the human related?
Those who have formulated detailed theories of inspiration have tended to major on the process. The various theories reflect in the main different efforts at describing the process.
2) On the products of inspiration
What are the evidences for inspiration, either from internal examination of the Bible or from its impact upon human lives? What are the results of inspired Scripture?
Such are the types of questions often posed by those intent on a focus on the results of inspiration. A. H. Strong preferred to define inspiration by its “result” rather than by its “method,” and Russell Hooper Dilday, Jr. (1930-), has held that modem Christians can know the “purpose,” “result,” and “power” of inspiration even if they do not know for certain its method.
c. Differing Methods of Formulating the Concept of Inspiration
1) Majoring on the biblical writers’ statements about Scripture and their view of Scripture implied in the way by which they use it
This is the deductive approach. Biblical passages are collated so as to formulate the Bible’s self-testimony, which is then applied to all the specifics of the Bible. This approach was espoused and utilized by the Princeton theologians Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823-86) and B. B. Warfield.
This method has characteristically given more emphasis to the divine agency than to human authorship in the production of the Bible.
2) Majoring on the phenomena of Scripture, especially the non-didactic material and the so-called problems of Scripture
This is the inductive approach. A vast body of biblical texts that seem to pose problems as to how divine inspiration applies in specific cases is sometimes cited and discussed. This approach has become more common as a result of the rise and widespread use of the historical-critical method of Bible study. Exponents of this method have included Marcus Dods (1834-1909) and Dewey Maurice Beegle (1919-).
4. Duration
Was the divine inspiration of prophets and apostles continuous or intermittent?
Erickson, citing various Old Testament and New Testament texts concerning prophecy and spiritual gifts, has argued that inspiration was intermittent. Paul’s correction of Peter (Gal. 2: 14-21) is cited.
Hence “inspiration was not a permanent and continuous matter tied inseparably to the office of prophet and apostle.”
II. INSPIRATION ACCORDING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT#
It now becomes necessary to examine more fully that which New Testament writers state about the Old Testament and the wider testimony of these same writers concerning the divine inspiration and the human authorship of the Sciptures.
A. THE TWO PRINCIPAL TEXTS#
1. Inspiration of the Old Testament Prophets or of All the Writers of the Old Testament
2 Peter 1:20-21 reads as follow:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
According to the context the eyewitnesses of Jesus, including Peter, were to be followed rather than “clearly devised myths.” Indeed the “prophetic word” was even “more sure.”
Did the author of these words intend by the phrase “prophecy of scripture” to refer solely to the books of the Old Testament prophets? B. B. Warfield and others have extended the meaning or application of this phrase so as to include all the canonical books of the Old Testament.
2. Inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures
2 Tim. 3:16-17 reads as follows:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
A careful examination of the Greek text shows that the first part of verse 16 is capable of being translated in at least four different ways:
a. Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable…
b. All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable…
c. Every Scripture, God-breathed, is also profitable…
d. All Scripture, God-breathed, is also profitable…
By the context we know that Timothy had from his childhood been familiar with the “sacred writings” which are instructive concerning salvation through Jesus Christ. The chief concern of the passage is that Timothy should be fully equipped as “the man of God”.
The intricacies which one may wish to probe concerning the manner of God’s breathing of the Scripture have a lower priority for Paul.
B. OTHER RELATED TEXTS#
Besides the two principal texts there are other passages in the New Testament which may shed some light upon the divine inspiration and human authorship of biblical books.
1. Texts Relative to the Divine Inspiration or Authorship of the Scriptures
Paul declared that “the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2, RSV), and Stephen in his sermon said that Moses had ‘“received living oracles to give to us”’ (Acts 7:38). The author of Hebrews alludes to those who need to be taught again “the elementary truths of God’s word” (5:12, NIV).
In the New Testament, Old Testament quotations are sometimes introduced by “it is said” instead ofby “it is written” (Luke 4: 12; Heb. 3: 15, RSV). In other instances the Old Testament quotations are introduced by reference to what “he [God] says” or “as the Holy Spirit says” (Acts 13:35; Heb. 1:7; 3:7). Furthermore, Old Testament quotations are not uncommonly introduced by the subjectless verb “says” or “it is said” (Gal. 3:16 (TEV); Rom. 15:10 (NIV); 1 Cor. 6:16 (TEV); 2 Cor. 6:2 (RSV); Eph. 4:8 (NEB); 5:14 (RSV)) with the implication that the subject should be God.
2. Texts Relative to the Human Dimension in the Inspiration of the Scriptures
Mark, in introducing the quotation of Ps. 110: 1, stated: “David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared:” (12:36, RSV). Paul in his instructions to the Corinthian Christians about marriage made several comments that have some bearing on the human dimension of the New Testament books:
“To the married, I give this command (not I, but the Lord)” (1 Cor. 7:10, NIV)
“To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)” (7:12)
“Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give ajudgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy” (7:25)
“I think that I too have the Spirit of God” (7:40b)
In the same epistle Paul admonished: “If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command” (14:37).
III. INSPIRATION IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY#
A. THE PATRISTIC AGE#
In the writings of the Church Fathers there is great diversity as to the nature of biblical inspiration. There is no single view or theory that predominates, and modern scholarship has yet to provide a comprehensive treatment of the pertinent passages.
Some of the early Christian writers may have been influenced by the concept of Philo (c.20 B.C. - A.D. 42), the Alexandrian Jew, that the prophets “lost consciousness” when God spoke through them.
The Montanists claimed that their prophet and two prophetesses were unconscious when they prophesied.
Athenagoras of Athens associated inspiration with a “state of ecstasy” and likened divine inspiration of the Scriptures to a flute player’s playing his flute
Theophilus of Antiochreferred to inspired men as “divine tools” and Hippolytus (d.235) found a musical pick to be analogous to the inspired writers’ being controlled by the Holy Spirit.
Irenaeus taught the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures yet ascribed to the human authors an active role such as in Paul’s transposing the word order in his sentences.
Origen veered away from ecstasy and dictation and stressed the conscious powers and agency of the human authors.
Yet the biblical books are clearly the product of the Holy Spirit.
John Chrysostom’s (between 344 and 354-407) concept of condescension included the human authorship of the Scriptures.
Jerome (347?-419) recognized stylistic and cultural differences among the biblical books, and yet “every word, syllable, accent and point is packed with meaning”
Augustine of Hippo posited the use of personal reminiscences in the compilation of the Gospels.
Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) distinguished between the special inspiration of the Old Testament prophets and the “inferior grace of ‘prudence’ granted to Solomon” - a distinction that rightly or wrongly modern scholars have tended to call levels of inspiration - and yet all biblical writers wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
B. THE MIDDLE AGES#
Building on the foundation of patristic teaching, the Schoolmen applied to prophecy the “Aristotelian category of instrumental efficient causality.”
The inspiration of biblical books was, according to Thomas Aquinas, a subordinate part of the larger subject of prophecy.
C. THE REFORMATION AND POST-REFORMATION ERAS#
Martin Luther had a highly developed, multi-faceted doctrine of Holy Scripture, but little of it was specifically focused on inspiration.
For John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit concerning the Scriptures as validating the authority of the Scriptures was paramounts so that what he thought about biblical inspiration must be derived for the most part from his commentaries.
Biblical inspiration is verbal inspiration with divine accommodation to differing human styles.
The Council of Trent in its delineation of the biblical canon reaffirmed that God is the “author” of both the Old and the New Testaments and declared that both the written Scriptures and “unwritten traditions” had been “dictated by the Holy Spirit.”
A Lutheran, Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520-75), first suggested the divine inspiration of the vowel points in the Hebrew Bible.
During the seventeenth century theologians of Lutheran and Reformed Orthodoxy, notably Johannes Gerhard (1582-1637), Johannes Andreas Quenstedt (1617-88), Johann Heinrich Heidegger (1633-98), and Francis Turretin (1671-1737), taught:
The utter passivity and sheer instrumentality of the biblical writers under the sway of the Holy Spirit
Dictation of biblical texts by the Holy Spirit
The consequent inerrancy of the Bible
Melchior Cano (1509-60) and Domingo Banez (1528-1604), both Dominican theologians, were “maximalists” in that divine dictation, even to the extent of the commas, was affirmed.
Seventeenth-century Catholic theologians such as Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) and Richard Simon (1638-1712) were “minimalists” by holding that “God provided negative assistance only to help the writers avoid errors in the text,” a position similar to that of the Arrninian, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645).
The eighteenth-century practitioners of the new literary and historical (often called “higher”) criticism of the Bible with their concepts of multiple authorship and redaction of biblical books abandoned any orthodox doctrine of inspiration.
Johann Salomo Semler (1725-91) sought to retain the idea that the Bible evidenced “a consciousness of the power of God’s word” and its mediation
Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), Johann David Michaelis (1717-91), and other critics disavowed any effort to retain any concept of the inspiration of the biblical writings.
D. THE MODERN ERA#
The nineteenth century witnessed the exposition of various and divergent views or theories of biblical inspiration; some of these had originated in earlier centuries, and for most of these there have been advocates during the twentieth century.
In 1888 Basil Manly, Jr. (1825-92), a Southern Baptist, identified six different theories, some of which had variant forms. In 1907 A. H. Strong listed only four major theories, those same four theories were listed by Dewey M. Beegle in 1963, and Millard Erickson listed five in 1983.
It is important to identify these theories and their major exponents.
1. Major Views or Theories
a. Mechanical Dictation with Inerrancy
The view that the Bible came into being by virtue of the “mechanical dictation” by God or by the Holy Spirit to the human amanuenses is to be ascribed to John R. Rice, who preferred to speak of “word-for-word inspiration”, despite Rice’s disclaiming the “mechanical” aspect of such dictation and because of Rice’s denial of stylistic differences among the biblical books.
b. Verbal Inspiration with Inerrancy
Attempting to avoid the mechanical dictation, or amanuensis (theory of post-Reformation Lutheran and Reformed Orthodoxy), the advocates of this position have affirmed the divine inspiration of words, not merely ideas, and the total inerrancy of the Scriptures.
They include Louis Gaussen, a Swiss Protestant whose book circulated widely in the English-reading world, Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield of Princeton, and Popes Leo XIII (1810-1903), Pius X (1835-1914), and Benedict XV (1854-1922).
Even so, those holding to this theory have had difficulty in avoiding the commonplace criticism of the dictational theory, namely, that the biblical writers are seen as “passive instruments or amanuenses-pens, not penmen, of God.”
c. Dynamic or Limited Verbal Inspiration View
This view has sought to emphasize the individuality and diversity of the biblical writers, especially respecting language, and although inspiration extends to the words, inerrancy is likely to be limited to matters of doctrine and ethics.
Exponents have included James Orr (1844-1913), Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), and G. C. Berkouwer among Protestants and Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938) among Roman Catholics.
d. Different Levels or Degrees of Inspiration
Divine inspiration, according to this view, functioned differently on various levels. Four such levels have been reported; from lowest to highest they are:
Superintendence: God’s preventing the writer from embracing error
Elevation: God’s giving loftiness to the thought of the human writer
Direction: God’s instructing the writer what to include and what to omit
Suggestion: God’s determining for the human writer both the thoughts and the words to be utilized
Seemingly Leonard Woods (1774-1854) and Salvatore di Bartolo advocated such an approach.
e. Partial Inspiration
This perspective on biblical inspiration may be found in several forms, but the common element is that some aspect of the Bible is removed from the direct impact of divine inspiration. The more prevalent forms of this view have probably been those espousing inspiration of ideas and inspiration of persons.
John Herny Newman (1801-90),Johannes Baptist Franzelin (1816-86), whose theology influenced Vatican Council I, and William Robertson Smith (1846-94) were exponents of the first view, according to which the ideas of biblical writers were inspired of God, hut not their language, illustrations, quotations, or allusions.
William Sanday (1843-1920), Hany Emerson Fosdick, and Charles Harold Dodd were among the advocates of the inspiration of persons or authors, which inspiration was not extended to writings.
f. Universal Christian Inspiration
This theory, also called the illumination theory, holds that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way in which every Christian is illumined by the Holy Spirit. Hence there was no special divine agency in the production of the Christian Scriptures.
Exponents of this position have included F. D. E. Schleiermacher, Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), and James Martineau (1805-1900), a Unitarian theologian.
g. Natural Inspiration, or Intuition
This is the view that the writers of the biblical books were inspired in no way distinctive from the inspiration of poets, dramatists, philosophers, and men of genius such as Homer (9th cent. B. C. ?), Plato, William Shakespeare (1564-1616), John Milton (1608-74), and Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-81). Accordingly, all human beings are inspired, and their inspiration differs only in degrees. Thus inspiration is seen as a type of religious and poetic genius.
Advocates would find ahnost no uniqueness in the Bible when compared with other so-called sacred books. Theodore Parker (1810-60), an American Unitarian, adopted this view.
Conclusion
The markedly liberal Protestant leadership during the nineteenth century normally accepted either the universal Christian or the natural views.
The distinctly conservative Protestant leaders normally taught the mechanical dictation view, the verbal inspiration view, or the dynamic view.
Other Protestants tended to opt for either of the other two views.
Differences tended to be within and not merely between the denominations. Among Roman Catholic theologians there were significant differences.
2. Variations as to Language
Writers dealing with the inspiration of the Bible during the modem era have not employed the key adjectives concerning inspiration in a uniform manner. Terms such as “plenary,” “dynamic,” “verbal,” and “essential” have been used with different meanings.
The term “plenary” has been accepted and joined with the inerrancy of the Bible. The terms “plenary” and “verbal” have been accepted and the Bible’s being “without error” aflinned but with mechanical dictation being denied. The term “plenary” has been accepted and the term “verbal” rejected.
The term “plenary dynamical,” meaning the Bible’s trustworthiness in its secular history, has been rejected, whereas “religious dynamical,” meaning the Bible’s trustworthiness in religious matters, has been accepted. The term “dynamical” has been applied both to writers and to writings, in an effort to recognize the individuality of the writers in environment, language, and expression, and has been joined with the terms “supernatural” and “plenary.”
The term “plenary verbal” has been equated with mechanical dictation and both concepts rejected. The terms “plenary,” “verbal,” and “dynamic” have been regarded as describing three different theories of inspiration. It has also been held that no theory of the method of divine inspiration is needed, and hence no precision as to adjectives required.
3. Other Related Developments
a. Catholic Modernists early in the twentieth century retained inspiration but affirmed biblical errancy, evoking the strong condemnation of Pope Pius X.
b. Fundamentalist Protestants on the Anglo-American scene, building on the Princeton theology, conjoined inspiration and inerrancy of the autographs of the Bible and defended both.
c. Neoorthodox Protestant theologians criticized verbal inspiration, which they reckoned to be identical with mechanical dictation, and themselves bypassed and became quite unspecific concerning inspiration.
d. Alternative theologies vis-a-vis the Bible have been formulated:
the salvation-history emphasis, focused upon the mighty acts of God in biblical history (Oscar Cullmann)
the religious language school, stressing that God supplied the essential images, or language symbols, and not merely the events or truths which the images seek to describe (Austin Marsden Farrer, 1904-68);
the socio-ecclesial view of inspiration, according to which inspiration is seen as that of the community of faith, especially in view of the work of scribes and redactors (Pierre Benoit, 1906-87, Karl Rahner, John L. McKenzie, 1910-91, Paul]. Achtemeier, 1927-).
e. Among Evangelical Protestants during the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, especially in the United States, inspiration has attained a new prominence as the ally of biblical inerrancy.
IV. INSPIRATION AND TODAY’S CHRISTIANITY#
For most of the centuries of Christian history the concept of the divine inspiration of the Bible was largely unchallenged through major objections, if not always clearly interpreted or precisely defined. Its major challenge has come in the modem period through the impact of literary and historical criticism of the Bible with its corresponding stress on the human aspects of the Bible.
The greatest single need with respect to the doctrine of inspiration is for balance between divine agency and human involvement in the coming to be of the books of the Old and the New Testaments. Even as in Christology, wherein extremes of emphasis on the divine to the neglect of the human or on the human to the neglect of the divine have led to heretical conclusions and serious theological conflict, so also extremes in respect to the divine and the human associated with the Bible need to be avoided.
Neither a “docetism” regarding the Bible nor a mere “humanitarianism” as to the Bible can be adequate.
Christians at the end of the twentieth century should also be increasingly aware that biblical inspiration cannot be studied or expounded effectively in isolation from related themes concerning the Bible-the canon, the relation of the testaments, biblical criticism, biblical hermeneutics, the concept of the Word of God, the dependability of the Bible, and the larger question of authority in Christianity. Rather it must be treated in fruitful conjunction with these related subjects.