Return to Syllabus

BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, ThD.

To Thee, 0 God, we render thanks,
That Thou to us hast given
A light that shineth on our path,
A light from heaven.
That Thou into the hearts of men
Didst breathe Thy breath divine,
And madest their lips the source from whence
Flowed words of Thine.

Godfrey Thring (1823-1903)

Since God has revealed himself to us at a very personal level in propositional form his divine wisdom would assure that this be done in such a way so as to secure the availability, accuracy and permanence of the truth thereby revealed. In addition, his providence would see such a plan to its realization. This has been done in the inspiration of scripture whereby truth has been transferred by divine influence upon human authors into written language forms which others may understand.

Although this view has been vigorously denied in modern times by the liberal theological establishment it has been and continues to be the view of historical orthodoxy, and, indeed, of the biblical writers themselves. While he himself does not personally subscribe to this view

Kirsopp Lake emphasizes that only those unlearned in historical theology can support that “the infallible inspiration of all Scripture" is a modern fundamentalist viewpoint rather than the inherited view of the Christian church. "The fundamentalist may be wrong; I think he is,” he writes. “But it is we who have departed from the tradition, and not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with the fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Bible and the corpus theologicum of the Church is on the fundamentalist side". ^[1]

A more recent writer, who personally rejects this position on critical grounds, is James Barr. As noted by Henry ^[2] , he nonetheless acknowledges that

"The men of the Bible" tended to assign "the same sacred status... of a message actually formed and communicated by God himself" to "the entirety of the materials within the sacred text." ^[3] All of it was considered "the 'Word of God,’” and the whole corpus—not the Ten Commandments alone—was held to have "come from God in the same way." ^[4] Barr concedes that even the minutiae of Scripture were appealed to as decisive. "The entire Scripture, once that entity became established, was alike authoritative"; "anything within the scriptural text could in principle be of vital importance." ^[5]

On occasion in history we may have revelation without inspiration (e.g., in the case of the Urim and Thummin), or inspiration without revelation (e.g., when you have data accumulated through personal research such as some of Luke's material, Luke 1:1-4), but we never have scripture without inspiration (see discussion later in this chapter).

1. Theories of Inspiration
   Throughout the history of the church varying theories of inspiration have been held which are less than that which the scriptures themselves teach. Among them have been those listed below.
    

   1. The Intuition (Natural) Theory
      
      This is the view that the writers had superior insight into moral and religious truth. It is purely naturalistic in character.
       

   2. The Conceptual Theory
      
      Those who hold this view teach that the ideas (concepts) but not the words are inspired. The thoughts of the writers were controlled by inspiration but not the words themselves. Thus the words are incidental.
      
      This is a widely held view among liberal theologians and has been shown to be wanting by many. Years ago James Orr noted, “Thought of necessity takes shape and is expressed in words. If there is en inspiration at all it must penetrate words as well as thought… and make the language employed the living medium of the idea to be conveyed." ^[6] More recently Pinnock has stated, "Truth incapable of being expressed in language is a contradiction of terms. If inspiration had nothing to do with words, it would be irrelevant." ^[7] Henry points out that the premise that God inspired the concepts but not the words of scripture "…violates the psychological unity of the writers. All thought can be expressed in words, and ideas are humanly inexpressible apart from words.” ^[8]
       

   3. Degrees of Inspiration
      
      Some have held that certain parts of the Bible are more inspired than others and thus are more reliable and authoritative. For example, some would view Torah as more inspired than the prophets; or New Testament as more inspired than Old Testament. Oftentimes this view is united with some of the other views.
       

   4. The Dynamic (Partial) Theory
      This view holds that the Bible is infallible in matters relating to faith and practice only. It is not infallible in matters such as history, biography, and science. There is a very close link between this view and what some have called the “mystical” theory which holds to the idea of an awakening and excitement of the religious consciousness of man. This view relates inspiration to the man instead of to the Bible (as over against the clear statement of 2 Tim. 3:16-17). A. H. Strong is a well-known advocate of this view.
      
      In certain contemporary statements of this (or a very similar) view attempts are made to distinguish between so-called “redemptive” and “non-redemptive” truth. This sometimes involves the distinction of “inerrancy of fact" and “inerrancy of purpose”. Daniel Fuller is an advocate of this approach. ^[9]
       

   5. The Dictation (Mechanical) Theory
      
      This theory holds that the writers were nothing more than passive instruments used by God to whom he dictated the biblical material (making the giving of the law, for example, the norm, see Exod. 20:1 and 31:18). It down-plays or eliminates altogether the personality of the writer himself and overlooks distinctive authorial styles.
      
      Because of their insistence on verbal inspiration evangelicals have been repeatedly accused of holding to this theory.
      
      This, however, is a red herring and "neither the Bible nor standard evangelical theological works teach this extreme view." ^[10] One of the most recent and representative statements of evangelical thinking on this issue is contained in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" (to which 240 evangelical leaders affixed their signatures). Article VIII states, "We affirm that God in his work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom he had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that he chose, overrode their personalities." ^[11] In elaborating upon this statement R. C. Sproul comments, “Though the word is not used in the article, what is clearly in view is a denial of any kind of mechanistic or mechanical inspiration." ^[12]
       

   6. The Gracious Theory
      
      It is held by those who advocate this theory that the scriptures are subordinate to the Holy Spirit from whom they receive their excellency, which Spirit may work apart from the scriptures upon man to bring a knowledge of God unto salvation.
      
       

2. The Statement of the Biblical Doctrine
   
   In the formulation of a biblical doctrine of inspiration several issues must be considered. The first has to do with method. Is the doctrine to be determined in light of; a) the teaching of scripture, b) the phenomena (items of history, biography, science, numbers) of scripture, or c) by both? If the latter is used in what order are they to be considered, doctrine in light of phenomena or phenomena in light of doctrine?
   
   It is my conviction that since both deal with the scriptural text both must be considered, but because the straightforward teaching of scripture about itself is less susceptible to hermeneutical misunderstanding; because the didactic passages are prescriptive while the phenomenal passages are descriptive; and because, due to singular divine authorship which stands behind the multiple human authorship, the scriptures must ultimately speak with a unified voice, when there is apparent discrepancy the doctrinal passages must be given precedence.
   
   The second issue relates to the extent of inspiration. Does it include both Old and New Testaments? Does it include all genre of biblical literature? Does it encompass both the so-called redemptive and non-redemptive material? The answer to these questions, in brief, is that 1) by the express declaration of Scripture, and 2) in light of the absence of any objective principle whereby such discrimination may be made, inspiration extends to the entire canon.
   
   A third matter that must be addressed relates to the intensiveness of inspiration. How thoroughgoing is it? Does it stop with concepts or go on to words? Does it go beyond words to grammar and syntax? Does it go beyond grammar and syntax so as to include punctuation and Hebrew vowel points? The weakness of the concept-only view of inspiration has already been addressed above; the inclusion of grammar and syntax in the inspiration process is readily demonstrable (see e.g., Matt. 22:23-33, cf. with Exod. 3: 6; Mat t. 22:43-45, cf. with Ps. 120:2; Gal. 3:15-22, cf. with Gen.17:7-8) as an aspect of biblical phenomena; while the inclusion of punctuation and Hebrew vowel points cannot be involved since neither even existed in the earliest manuscripts of scripture. ^[13]
   
   All of these issues will be dealt with explicitly or implicitly in the following material and subsequent chapter.
    

   1. Definition of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
      
      The three key words "verbal", "plenary", and "inspiration" should be carefully explained before a definition itself is offered. Verbal indicates that inspiration involves and includes the actual language forms. The divine influence extends to the language of the autographs (original manuscripts). Infallibility of thoughts is impossible apart from infallibility of words. A noting of such passages as John 17:8; Exodus 20:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10-13; and John 6:63 will support this concept. These references refer to "word revelation" which is inscripturated and thus inspired. That is, word revelation is the basis for word inspiration. The concepts of revelation and inspiration are unified in 2 Peter 1:20-21.
      
      Surprising as it may seem, Barr allows that "the conservative argument that, if the bible is to be inspired at all, the inspiration must extend to the words, is not in itself an unreasonable position." He goes on to say,

It is not very convincing if one supposes that the writers were inspired, but not the sentences and the books they wrote or that the ideas were inspired, but not the verbal form in which they are expressed…. As in any other linguistic work; the verbal form is its mode of communicating meaning. If the verbal form of the Bible were different, then its meaning would be different. ^[14]

Unfortunately Barr goes on to call for an errant verbal inspiration because of the demands of critical scholarship. In critiquing Barr regarding this position Henry states,

Barr then pours new content into an old form. In rejecting verbal inspiration, non-evangelical intention was "quite right" in its insistence that the bible is not perfect but must be understood "through the human thought-processes of the writers" ^[15] Barr apparently means that the biblical writers cannot have told the truth (even if divinely inspired), because they were human". ^[16]

This, of course, is patently absurd since even uninspired men may tell the truth on occasion.

Plenary indicates that inspiration extends equally to all parts and all genres of scripture. There was divine influence full and sufficient to secure its end, namely, the perfect infallibility of the scripture in every part as a record of fact and doctrine both in thought and verbal expression. All the books are equally inspired and this inspiration extends to all the contents of all the books (2 Tim. 3:16).

A caution is in order, here, that Erickson helpfully provides. While affirming plenary inspiration he notes that

There is no special correlation then between literary genre and inspiration: that is, one genre is not more inspired than another. While we sometimes discriminate among portions of the Scripture on the basis of their differing potentials for edifying us in various types of situations that does not mean that they reflect differing degrees or types of inspiration. While the Psalms may be more personally satisfying and inspiring than 1 Chronicles, that does not mean they are more inspired. Inspiration is present irrespective of immediate applicability. ^[17]
 

Inspiration is actually a very poor word to convey the idea found in the original text. A more exact English equivalent would be “spiration" or “ex-spiration”, although in modern English this latter word also has a different sense than that to which we refer at this point. The truth of biblical inspiration involves the latent sense of a breathing out not a breathing in as the English term suggests. For further-explanation see the extended study below on 2 Timothy 3:16 where the biblical term is shown to mean “God-breathed.”

In light of the brief comments made above regarding these three key words, the following definition is suggested. Verbal, plenary inspiration means that God so directed the human authors of scripture that without destroying their individuality, personal interest, or literary style, his complete thought toward man was recorded without error in the words of the original manuscripts (autographa).

An adequate biblical understanding of inspiration will acknowledge the concept of confluency or of dual authorship of scripture. Warfield notes:

The Church… has held from the beginning that the Bible is the Word of God in such a sense that its words, though written by men and bearing indelibly impressed upon them the marks of their human origin, were written, nevertheless, under such an influence of the Holy Ghost as to be also the words of God, the adequate expression of His mind and will. ^[18]

This principle (called by J. I. Packer the concursive action of the Spirit of God with the human writers) ^[19] may be demonstrated by noting several passages of scripture as examples. In Mark 12:36 our Lord declares that when David gave the words of Psalm 110:1 he was speaking by the Holy Spirit and thus the message was a divine human-one. Peter states, in Acts 1:16, that what the Holy Spirit spoke through David's mouth concerning Judas was scripture. Later, in Acts 3:18 and 21, he asserts that God foretold the passion of Christ and the eschaton through the prophets. The assembled believers, in Acts 4:24-25, indicate the same truth in their magnificent prayer. They speak of the divine author—"Sovereign Lord! It is you who made the heavens, the earth, the seas and all things which are in them who spoke…”; the human author—“…through your servant David our father, the mouth [piece]…”; the divine agent/author—“…of the Holy Spirit;…”; and the divine-human message (the scripture)—“… ‘why do the nations rage…? the kings of the earth…against his anointed One’” (Ps. 2:1-2).

Paul, speaking of his own message to 'the believers in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:13; personal translation) says, "when you received the word which you heard from us, which is God's, you welcomed it not as though it were the word of men but as it truly is, the word of God." He thus views his own apostolic word, in this case, just as our Lord and the apostle Peter viewed the Old Testament—as the divine-human word of God. Commenting on the way the New Testament uses the Old, Kittel says:

God Himself is firmly regarded as the One who speaks in Scripture. The only point is that this insight is not a theory which denies the human authors. These men are not introduced merely indirectly as intermediaries, but directly as the true subject of what is said. ^[20]

Confluency, then, notes that the Bible is truly the word of God having both infallible truth and divine authority in all that affirms and enjoins. It further recognizes that the Bible is truly the product of men. It is marked by all the evidences of human authorship, apart from error, as clearly and certainly as any other book ever written by men. Finally it is to be noted that this twofold authorship extends at all times to every part of scripture. It is not here divine and there human. It includes language forms as well as general ideas expressed thereby.

The statements of some representative theologians of the past and present will be most enlightening at this point. As will be noted, some of these men adhere very carefully to the teaching of scripture concerning itself, while others for one reason or another; tend to equivocate regarding this doctrine.

Charles Hodge, setting forth a high view of scripture observes, "… the sacred writers were the organs of God, so that what they taught, God taught…. The sacred writers impressed their peculiarities on their several productions as plainly as though they were the subjects of no extraordinary influence." ^[21] Further along Hodge continues,

It means, first, that all the books of Scripture are equally inspired. (Note: This does not mean that everything in the Bible is equally important but it does mean that nothing is unimportant.) All alike are infallible in what they teach. And secondly, that inspiration extends to all the contents of these several books. It is not confined to moral and religious truths, but extends to the statements of facts, whether scientific, historical, or geographical. It is not confined to those facts the importance of which is obvious, or which are involved in matters of doctrine. It extends to everything which any sacred writer asserts to be true. ^[22]

Regarding the extent of the inspiration of scripture, Hodge writes,

… a mere human report or record of divine revelation must of necessity be not only fallible, but more or less erroneous…. The thoughts are in the words. The two are inseparable. If the words... have no divine authority, then the doctrine which they embody has no such authority…. Christ and His apostles argue from the very words of Scripture. ^[23]

A. H. Strong, whose view of scripture is equivocating and similar to some current neo-evangelicals, in his Systematic Theology has some God and helpful statements on inspiration as well as some very poor ones. On pages 208 and 221 he tends to confuse verbal inspiration with the dictation theory. His analysis of the so-called dictation theory is not always accurate. He makes erroneous statements about verbal inspiration which he denies with certain qualification. For example, he accuses Gaussen of holding to a dictation view. It should be acknowledged that both Gaussen and Calvin used the term "dictation" in their writings, but they do not use it in a psychological sense of describing the modus operandi of the Holy Spirit but rather as meaning that the writers wrote word for word that God intended. In this connection Gordon Clark writes,

It is true that Calvin end others have used the word dictation. But neither the English word dictate nor the-Latin dictare is restricted to the kind of dictation a stenographer receives. If we say that conscience dictates a certain course of action, we do not picture a stenographer. We could also say that God dictates the course of history, in which case no words at all are necessary. Of course, dictation often refers to stenography, but it can also designate an authoritative imposition and control of any sort. It is in this latter sense that Reformed theologians have spoken of dictation." ^[24]

Strong uses the term “dynamical" to describe what he calls the true view of inspiration. ^[25] In his championing of the dynamical theory he sets forth a view of inspiration without inerrancy. His use of "dynamical" evidently is an attempt to avoid any mechanical implication which he feels inevitably attaches itself to verbal inspiration. What this amounts to is a form of the partial inspiration theory, that is, the idea that inspiration extends to matters of faith and practice only.

H. C. Thiessen discusses the dynamic theory and quotes from Marcus Dods (no friend of a high view of scripture) this view, ^[26]

It does not explain or even attempt to explain, how writers should be possessed of supernatural knowledge while indicting one sentence and being dropped to a much lower level in the next. It does not give us the psychology of that state of mind which can infallibly pronounce on matters of doctrine, while it is all astray on the simpler facts of history. It makes no attempt to analyze the relation subsisting between the divine mind and the human, which products such results. ^[27]

Continuing on, Strong makes the following observations in relationship to the witness of the Spirit to inspiration:

The chief proof of inspiration, however, must always be found in the internal characteristics of the Scriptures themselves, as these are disclosed to the sincere inquirer by the Holy Spirit. The testimony of the Holy Spirit combines with the teaching of the Bible to convince the earnest reader that this teaching is as a whole and in all essentials beyond the power of man to communicate, and that it must therefore have been put into permanent and written form by special inspiration of God. ^[28]

Henry comments regarding Strong's view that he

…supplemented the concept theory of inspiration, as opposed to verbal inspiration, by emphasizing a superintendence of the Scripture writers by the Spirit of God that excluded "essential error": "The Scripture writers appear to have been so influenced by the Holy Spirit that they perceived and felt even the new truths they were to publish, as discoveries in their own minds, and were left to the actions of their own minas in the expression of these truths, with the single exception that they were supernaturally held back from the selection of wrong words, and when needful were provided with right ones…. Inspiration is therefore not verbal, while yet we claim that no form of words which taken in its connections would teach essential error has been admitted into Scripture." ^[29] Although Strong commendably emphasizes the reliability of Scripture, the weakness of his theory lies in representing inspiration as a phenomenon internal to the writers more than as e quality of the writings. ^[30]

A contemporary proponent of the dynamic view of inspiration is Dewey Beegle in a work originally published under the title The Inspiration of Scripture and republished in revised form in 1974 as Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility. His position is succinctly stated as being that "the teaching and the data of scripture indicate that the New Testament writers considered the errant manuscripts of the first century A.D. as inspired." ^[31]

B.      Proof of Verbal-Plenary Inspiration

There are two primary lines of evidence to support the verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture. The first could be called external and relates to the character of God end his written word. Being a God, loving, gracious, and merciful God we would expect that he who provides for man's lower needs will provide for and superintend the dispensing of his spiritual needs. Shedd writes,

It is improbable that God would reveal a fact or doctrine to the human mind, and do nothing toward securing an accurate statement of it. This is particularly the case when the doctrine is one of the mysteries of religion. Such profound truths as the trinity, the incarnation, vicarious atonement, etc., require the superintendence and guidance of an infallible Spirit to secure an enunciation that shall not be misleading. Hence it is more natural to suppose that a prophet or an apostle who has received directly from God a profound and mysterious truth inaccessible to the human intellect will not be left to his own unassisted powers in imparting what he has received. Especially is it improbable that communications from the Deity would be veiled in extravagant and legendary costume. ^[32]

In addition to the character of God, the character of Scripture would also tend to support this view of inspiration. Such qualities as its continuity, its authority, its literary character, and its dealing with the known and the unknown, point in this direction.

The second line of evidence would be what we would call internal or the claims of scripture regarding itself. Certain general phenomena should be noted. For example, there are the commands that are found throughout the scriptures to write the word of the Lord (e.g., Exod. 17:14: 34:27: Num. 33:2: Isa. 8:1: 30:8; Jer. 25:13; etc.).

It is also interesting to notice the frequent suppression of the human factor in various passages. On occasion the human writer will begin his discussion with reference to God in the third person and soon without any apparent transition he will continue in the first person as though the divine author now comes to the fore (Isa. 10:12: J9:1-2; Hosea 4:1-6: 6:1-4: Micah 1:3-6). There are many, many references to the Old Testament as he graphe or hai graphai. The point is in each case that these writings or scriptures are viewed as authoritative (Mark 12:10; Luke 4:21; John 19:36; Luke 24:27; Rom. 1:2; cf. 2 Tim. 3:15).

Other phenomena to be noted are the various formulas of quotation. Sometimes that which scripture says is equated with what God says (Rom. 9:15-17; Gal. 3:8). On other occasions we read “it is written” or “scripture says” (Mat t. 4:4; Rom. 4:3). The formula "thus says the Lord' or an equivalent is found over two thousand times in the Old Testament alone (e.g., 2 Sam. 23:1-3; Isa. 8:1; 11; Jer. 1:9; 5:14: 13:12: Micah 5:10: Hab. 2:2). On occasion the human author is mentioned in a passage, for example, note Matthew 15:7; yet often the divine author is referred to (e.g., Matt. 15:4; Heb. 1:5 ff.). In many cases there is an absolute identification made by the New Testament writer as he quotes from the Old Testament between the text of the Old Testament and the words of God. In this connection see, for example, Hebrews 3:7 (Ps. 95:7); Acts 13:35 (Ps. 16:10); Romans 15:11 (Ps.117:1); Acts 4:25-26 (Ps. 2:1): and Romans 15:10 (Deut. 32:43).

Undoubtedly one of the most significant types of evidence for the verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture is the direct assertion of the Word itself. In 2 Timothy 3:16 we have one such passage. The crucial words are the words "pasa graphe theo pnuestos."

The word pasa may be properly translated either “all” referring to the collective sacred writings of the Old Testament, or “every”, referring to the individual passages of the Bible. New Testament usage is not helpful in making a judgment between those two options but the doctrinal significance of the passage is not substantially altered either way. Whatever the case, scripture, in its distributive parts or collective whole, is God-breathed. In grappling with this issue E. J. Young states,

The preceding verse, in which Paul is speaking of the "holy Scriptures”, would seem to show that he here has in mind all Scripture. Yet one cannot be dogmatic upon this point. If Paul has in mind each individual passage of Scripture he is then considering the Scripture distributively. He is then saying in effect that whatever passage of Scripture one considers that Scripture is inspired of God. If, on the other hand, as is more likely, it is all Scripture of which he speaks, he is then declaring that the entirety of Scripture is inspired of God. The definite article is missing and this is a factor which would argue in favor of "every." At the same time this consideration is not decisive, for there are cases where pas is used without the definite article and the meaning "every” is not acceptable. ^[33]

Graphe is a technical word in the New Testament and is properly translated "scripture." A careful checking of the Moulton and Geden Concordance of the Greek Testament will show that all fifty-one times that it occurs in the New Testament it refers to the Bible. When used in plural form it is a synonym for the Old Testament (see for example Luke 24:44-45).

In the singular, as here, it may be used collectively for the body of sacred writings (see John. 10:35; Gal. 3:22; 2 Pet. 1:20) or with reference to a specific passage (Luke. 4:21; Acts 1:16; James 4:5). In this context the word "scripture" probably refers to the Old Testament plus that portion of the New Testament which has been put into writing. This idea is supported by such a passage as Timothy 5:18 where a combined quotation from both the Old and New testaments is designated as scripture. A comparison of 2 Timothy 3:15 with verse 16 will show that in referring to the Old Testament in verse 15 Paul very carefully uses the term hiera grammata, whereas in verse 16 he conjoins with the different term graphe the word pasa, meaning "all." This would strongly suggest that he has more than the Old Testament in mind in verse 16.

As we move from the subject to the predicate in our analysis of this passage it would be well to consider the question of the focus of inspiration. Is it the writers or the writings that are inspired, or, is it both? It is not uncommon to find evangelicals who put the primary emphasis upon the inspiration of the writers.

The writers were the subjects of a plenary divine influence, called inspiration, which acted upon and through their natural faculties in all they wrote, directing them in the choice of subject and the whole course of thought and verbal expression, so as while not interfering with the natural exercise of their faculties, they freely and spontaneously produce the very writing which God designed, which thus possesses the attributes of infallibility and authority…. ^[34]

Erickson takes a both-and position as he states.

Inspiration is herein conceived of as applying to both writer and the writing. In the primary sense, it is the writer who is the object of the inspiration. As the writer pens the Scripture, however, the quality of inspiredness is communicated to the writing as well. It is inspired in a derived sense. ^[35]

In a footnote on the same page he continues, “It should be observed that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to what they wrote. Thus the dilemma of whether inspiration pertains to the writer or the writing is shown to be a false issue.” ^[36]

Surely the writers were involved in some very real way in the work of God as he "breathed" the scriptures and the closest the Bible comes to describing this is by the verb phero (borne along) in 2 Peter 1:21. Technically speaking, however, the descriptor theopneustos (God breathed) is used of graphe (scripture), only.

The third significant word in the verse we are considering is theopneustos. This is a compound form made up of theos meaning "God," pneuo meaning "I breathe" and the adjectival ending "tos." The “tos” ending is usually indicative of a passive idea in a verbal adjective such as this word. Thus adequate translation of theopneustos would be "is-the-result-of-the-breath-of-God" or "God-breathed." Warfield's study is so thorough and conclusive that there is little question left that this is the correct way to understand the term. ^[37]

The most probable translation of the passage should supply the copula between graphe and theopneustos, recognizing that the following kai is connective of the two adjectives. If the translation were to be "all God-breathed scripture is also profitable” or “all scripture which is God-breathed is also profitable the order would normally be pasa theopneustos graphe.

Instead theopneustos should be viewed as a predicate adjective which construction is acknowledged in most recent translations with the exception of the American Standard Version of 1901. ^[38] Even in that version a similar construction found in 1 Timothy 4:4 is given a translation in keeping with this concept. That the translators of the old American Standard Version have been inconsistent at this point is aptly demonstrated by the following passages which contain similar construction and in which the adjective is given a predicate position: Romans 7:12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 2 Corinthians 10:10; 1 Timothy 1:15; 4:9; 1 Timothy 2:3; Hebrews 4:13. In each of the above mentioned passages, in addition to 1 Timothy 4:4 already cited, the revisers follow the same construction in their translation as is found in the Authorized Version and the recent translations cited above.

The predication of God-breathedness to scripture, that is the affirmation of scripture's divine origin, finds parallel in several other ways. The events of creation week are repeatedly attributed to the divine breath ("and God said," Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, cf. Ps. 33:6) with particular emphasis given to the creative power of God's breath in the creation of man (Gen. 2:7; Job 33:4). So it is with the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1) and the words of the prophets. ^[39] In the New Testament the same creative power of God's breath is seen in the miracles of our Lord all of which originate with his word.

While our primary concern in this discussion is with the God-breathed character of scripture we must not overlook the fact that there is a second predicate adjective in verse sixteen that is grammatically parallel with it. In addition to being God-breathed scripture is also profitable (ophelimos). Young catches the import of this term with the following words:

What is now particularly significant to note is Paul's affirmation that all Scripture is profitable. The implications of this are often overlooked or ignored but they are of far-reaching significance. The predicate which Paul employs, like the first predicate, applies to the entirety of Scripture. There is nothing which can be rightly designated Scripture which is not also profitable in the respects stated in this verse. ^[40]

The profitability of scripture lies in four areas according to Paul (2 Tim. 3:16). The first and last named are positive and the middle two are negative. Scripture is profitable for teaching—that is, it relates to our need for divinely supplied information in general; for rebuke—that is, it addresses us in our sinfulness; for correction—that is, it provides for our need for restoration; and, for discipline in righteousness—that is, it relates to our need for training in God's ways.

It should be especially noted that the primary emphasis of the passage is not on the origin of scripture nor the method of inspiration, but upon the character of scripture. It possesses the qualities of being God-breathed and profitable. This is supported by the absence of the definite article throughout the Greek text. Thus the emphasis is that scripture partakes of the quality of the creative breath of God.

The question inevitably arises; can this doctrine which refers to the Old Testament be applied to the New Testament? It has already been suggested above that it can be; but is there any further evidence to this effect? It should be noted that in Paul's thinking all that is graphe is theopneustos and vice versa. So, if the term graphe is used of the New Testament writings it would follow that they too, are theopneustos. That this is the case may be seen by an examination of such a passage as Romans 16:26 where Paul applies the term graphe and prophetikos to the New Testament. ^[41] In 2 Peter 3:14-16, Peter characterizes Paul’s writings as scripture. And in 1 Timothy 5:18 passages from the Old Testament (Deut. 25:4) and the New Testament (Luke. 10:7) are combined without distinction and as equally authoritative scripture.

Another very important passage that must be considered is 2 Peter 1:20-21. To begin with, the context is of particular interest. In verse 19 Peter calls his readers' attention to word more sure than his own eye and ear witness (verses 16-18). Scripture, he is saying is more authoritative than an audible voice heard by the ear or an image beheld by the eye. "The reason why the prophetic word is sure—surer even than that of eyewitnesses—is that God is its source and that specially chosen men spoke by the Spirit's agency." ^[42]

The term propheteia in verse 20 is not to be understood in its more restrictive sense of foretelling the future but in its primary sense of telling forth the counsels of God. This is sustained by an examination of the usage of the term. Erickson notes, after a study of the use of the terms "law" and "prophecy" in several pertinent passages that

…Peter refers to the “prophetic word" (2 Peter 1:19) and every “prophecy of scripture” (v. 20) in such a way as to lead us to believe that the whole of the collection of writings commonly accepted in that day is in view. It appears that "law" and "prophecy" were often used to designate the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures. ^[43]

In their entries on propheteia and its cognates, Arndt and Gingrich indicate that the noun, adjective, and verb are all used in both the narrow and broad sense in the New Testament. ^[44]

Regarding this prophecy of scripture Peter writes that it is not of private interpretation. The word translated interpretation is epiluseos which normally means “interpretation”, “explanation”, or “solution” as seen in the papyri; however, this is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament. ^[45] Its usage here raises a serious question as to the appropriateness of this meaning for the word in this context. As Robertson remarks, "It is the prophet's grasp of the prophecy not that of the reader that is here presented, as the next verse shows." ^[46]

As used in Mark 4:34 the verb form epiluo may mea n “disclose" and thus epilusis may mean “disclosure” here. Thus, if the word be understood as being an ablative of source, the statement is to the effect that no prophecy of scripture is of private origin. Instead, ''as they were borne (moved) by the Holy Spirit men spoke from God “…for no prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man.” With this exegesis God is viewed as the active source and man is the passive means.

Thus it may be said that scriptures originated with God; they have come through the instrumentality of men; they came through the impulse of the Holy Spirit; and, consequently, they are what God intended them to be. Men were passive as regards the origination or source of the message; they were active as far as their work as agents of the message is concerned.

There are other passages that should be noted in connection with this doctrine as well. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:37 we read, "… the things which I wrote… are the commandment of the Lord." Also notice such passages as 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 16:17, 29, 31; John 10:35; and Romans 15:4. Several of these passages will be considered later under the doctrine of inerrancy.

        C.        Objection to the Doctrine of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration

In approaching this subject it is perhaps as important to have the correct perspective as it is to respond to the objections f themselves. Carl F. H. Henry has done the Christian community a real service in this regard in his chapter on "Perspective on Problem Passages". ^[47] He lists seven considerations which follow in summary form. The first four relate to the position taken on problem passages by liberal critics and mediating evangelicals; the last three are cautions directed toward evangelicals. Throughout the chapter Henry insists on the inerrancy of the autographs but also an honest facing of genuine difficulties which in some cases, at least may not be due to a corrupted text (scribal error, etc.).

First of all, he notes that, "The enormity in the range of error involved in the fallacies of higher critics in contrast to the scope of error supposedly attaching to scripture is striking." ^[48] He reminds us that

The negative critical verdicts were based not on historical data, but on the premise that the biblical representations are untrustworthy. It is one thing to be a victim of circumstantial evidence; it is quite another to be victimized by one's philosophical prejudices in the absence even of circumstantial evidence. The critics were betrayed into sweeping negations of scriptural affirmations, many of which were later vindicated while critical theories were exposed and demolished as lacking a basis in historical fact. ^[49]

The second consideration is that the list of supposed biblical errors has shortened year by year while the list of critical errors lengthens year by year. ^[50] Despite the assertions of such evangelicals as Dewey M. Beegle and such liberals as James Barr no new areas of significant concern have been identified while continued scholarly study continues to provide help in offering reasonable answers to the traditional objections.

Thirdly, he reminds us that the Critics of Scripture revise and restate their claims decade after decade, but amid this extensive alteration they hesitate to publicize their past mistakes and seem reluctant to stress the highly tentative nature of their opinions." ^[51] This is because their "… philosophical presuppositions influence the critical views far more than did knowledge of external religious and historical reality." ^[52]
 
Fourthly, “… comprehensive negations of the truth and trustworthiness of the Bible are now ventured on the basis of hostile philosophical theory" ^[53]rather than simply on the basis of a problem here or there. Examples of this hostility of philosophical theory are Bultmann's "claim that myth is the framework of Scripture," Barr's disavowal of the orthodox view of God, and Lengdon Gilkey's ^[54] assertion that "the character of Christian doctrine has changed necessarily… from 'eternal statements of unchanging end thus unalterable validity, to that of relative statements of Christian truth for their time, statements that reflect their own cultural situation and needs.'" ^[55]
 
The fifth consideration reminds the evangelical that the issues of dispute (purported errors) go beyond the question of variant textual readings. Henry notes that "the point of live debate over the inerrancy of the text focuses centrally…on passages that are not regarded as in doubt, readings where one writer affirms particulars that apparently conflict with those of another writer." ^[56] Examples of this kind of thing are the statistical differences between Samuel and Chronicles or Chronicles and Kings ^[57] and the synoptic problem in the New Testament. ^[58]

We are encouraged, sixthly, that “whatever may be the predicament of biblical criticism; evangelicals must not exempt themselves from serious interest in the vexing problem passages of the Bible." ^[59] After dealing with the passages especially cited as “errors” or “contradictions” by James Barr, Henry states,

Most of the foregoing passages have been discussed in one or another evangelical study. Barr may find efforts to harmonize divergent accounts to be even less persuasive than theories that project the multiplicity and/or erroneous reporting of accounts. But the proposed evangelical solutions are logically possible, even if some may at this point not be logically persuasive. Evangelical scholars do not insist that historical realities conform to all their proposals for harmonization; their intent, rather, is to show that their premises do not cancel the logical possibility of reconciling apparently divergent reports." ^[60]

Lastly, Henry chides contemporary evangelicalism for focusing on the problem of inerrancy to the point of making it the touchstone of evangelicalism. ^[61] This is especially seen in Harold Lindsell's The Battle for the Bible. This doctrine is of great significance, but unless accompanied by defection in other fundamental areas of doctrine relating to the person and work of Christ and the final authority of the Bible it is not a basis for disenfranchisement.

The following material is merely intended to be a summery of some of the more prominent objections raised against the doctrine. There are works in print which may be consulted with great profit at this point as they deal with such things as apparent discrepancies, etc. In this regard see John W. Haley, An Examination of Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Baker reprint, 1958); William F. Arndt, Does the Bib e Contradict Itself? (Concordia, 1955); W. F. Arndt, Bible Difficulties (Concordia 1962); E. J. Young, Thy Word is Truth (Eerdmans, 1957); L. Boettner, Studies in Theology, especially chapter one (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1965); Gleason E. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan, 1982).

In the questions that are raised and the answers that are offered that follow, it is not intended to convey the idea that there are no difficulties in connection with the text of Scripture. There are a number of very real problems. Reasonable answers are available for some of them while suspended judgment is necessary regarding others. Nonetheless, on the basis of the evidence (which Warfield subsumes under two general heads: exegetical, or that which the Bible writers taught, and that evidence of varied character which sustains the trustworthiness of the biblical writers as doctrinal guides) the case stands for it is "a settled logical principle that so long as the proper evidence by which a proposition is established remains unrefuted, all so-called objections brought against it pass out of the category of objections to its truth into the category of difficulties to be adjusted to it." ^[62] The more common objections now follow.

1.     The defense of the doctrine by scriptural reference is said to be arguing in a circle.

In answer to this objection Frank Gabelein’s words are appropriate:

…internal evidence is always the essential subject matter of criticism…. There is nothing ambiguous in the teaching of the Bible about itself. It is plainly stated within its pages that Scripture is the Word of God and that through it God speaks to men…. Thus it is our responsibility to examine in the light of Scripture's self claims the phenomena of Scripture…; and then on the basis of the examination, to study the relation of these phenomena to the self claim. But always the self claim has prior consideration. ^[63]

A. Hodge speaks to the same issue in Outline of Theology, pages 69-71. He writes,

We do not reason in a circle when we rest the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures on their own assertions. We come to this question already believing in their credibility as histories, and in that of their writers as witnesses of facts, and in the truth of Christianity and in the divinity of Christ. Whatever Christ affirms of the Old Testament, and whatever He promised to the apostles, and whatever they assert as to the divine influence acting in and through themselves, or as to the infallibility and authority of their writings, must be true. Especially as all their claims were endorsed by God working with them by signs and wonders and gifts of the Holy Ghost. It is evident that if their claims to inspiration and to the infallibility and authority of their writings were denied, they are consequently charged with fanatical presumption and gross misrepresentation, and the validity of their testimony in all points is denied. When plenary inspiration is denied all Christian faith is undermined.

In response to the charge of circular reasoning, James Montgomery Boice ^[64] offers the following logical presentation in defense of the use of the Bible in answer to its own critics.

a.       The Bible is e reliable end generally trustworthy document.This is established by treating it as any other historical record, as, for instance, the works of Josephus or the accounts of war by Julius Caesar.

b.       On the basis of the history recorded by the Bible we have sufficient grounds for believing that the central character of the Bible, Jesus Christ, did what he is claimed to have done and therefore is who he claimed to be. He claimed to be the unique Son of God.

c.       As the unique Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ is in infallible authority.

d.       Jesus Christ not only assumed the authority of the Bible existing in His day, the Old Testament; he taught it, going so far as to say that the Scriptures are entirely without error and are eternal, being the Word of God.

e.       If the Scriptures are the Word of God, as Jesus taught, they must for this reason alone be entirely trustworthy and inerrant, for God is a God of truth.

f.       Therefore, on the basis of the teaching of Jesus Christ, the infallible Son of God, the church believes the Bible also to be infallible.

This line of reasoning is defended in that it “begins with the nature of the Bible in general, proceeds to the person and teaching of Jesus Christ and concludes by adopting his teaching where the nature of the Bible is concerned.” ^[65]

For further answers to this objection see Louis Berkhof, Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology, pages 156-157; Alan Stibbs, “The Witness of Scripture to its Inspiration" in Revelation and the Bible, Carl F. H. Henry, editor; and Philip E. Hughes, “The Inspiration of the Bible," Basic Christian Doctrines, Carl F.H. Henry, editor, pages 15-17.

2.       Some claim that Jesus did not teach this doctrine; or that he was merely accommodating himself to the apostles who did not hold this view.

Two observations in this connection should by sufficient. In the first place, that Christ should have accommodated himself to the thought patterns of his age even though this would be misleading is completely contrary to the way that Christ dealt with other matters. Henry cogently observes,

…in appealing to and reinforcing the Old Testament scriptures, Jesus unhesitatingly criticizes prevalent Hebrew misconceptions. Since he openly indicts major misunderstandings, he would not likely build on minor misconceptions to promote his cause. ^[66]

Secondly, biblical evidence contradicts this conclusion. That Christ did not accommodate himself to current views is seen, for example, in such passages as Matthew 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43; 19:3-12.

Jesus’ indictment of the scribes and Pharisees elsewhere in the first Gospel for "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men, (Matt. 15:9, NEB) points in the same direction. What he repudiates is their moderation of the Mosaic teaching, whether by their supplementation of it or by their reduction of it to en outward legalistic requirement that disregards inner conformity. ^[67]

Again, note our Lord's use of scripture in the temptation (Matt. 4; Luke 4) when there was no one present, other than Satan, to whom to accommodate himself. See also in this regard, Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; Luke 16:17; and John 10:35. The facts of the case simply do not support the idea that Jesus taught one thing and believed another about the scriptures. As the Son of God, the essence of truth, such a suggestion is unthinkable. “That God in revelation accommodates himself to his creatures is another matter." ^[68]

In summary, Jesus altered the prevailing view of Scripture "in several ways: 1) he subjected the authority of tradition to the superior and normative authority of the Old Testament; 2) he emphasized that he himself fulfills the messianic promise of the inspired writings; 3) he claimed for himself an authority not below that of the Old Testament and definitely expounded the inner significance of the Law; 4) he inaugurated the New Covenant escalating the Holy spirit's moral power as an internal reality; 5) he committed his apostles to the enlargement and completion of the Old Testament canon through their proclamation of the Spirit-given interpretation of his life and work. At the same time he identified himself wholly with the revelational authority of Moses and the prophets--that is, with the Old Testament as an inspired literary canon--insisting that Scripture has sacred authoritative and permanent validity, and that the revealed truth of God is conveyed in its teachings.” ^[69]

For further discussion of this issue see James I. Packer, “Fundamentalism" and the Word of God, pages 79-81, and Robert Lightner, The Savior and the Scriptures.

3.       It is said that the phenomena of scripture contradicts this doctrine.

It is often admitted that the Bible does teach its own inspiration, but then the assertion is added that it does not teach its own inerrancy. (Psalm 19:7-9 seems to negate this assertion, however, for therein it is predicated of Torah that it is perfect, sure, right, clean, and true). That is, some insist that the only correct view of inspiration is that which accounts for discrepancies and errors in the phenomena of scripture. "Harmonizing the phenomena with this biblical teaching (the apostle's own doctrine of inspiration) is not unimportant…; the attempt to exhibit harmony should indeed be made and earnestly perused. But it is a second-order concern.” ^[70] As Warfield notes, "We are not bound to harmonize the alleged phenomena with the Bible doctrine; and if we cannot harmonize them save by strained or artificial exegesis they would be better left un-harmonized." ^[71]

The problem here is that this forces one to discount the biblical testimony to its own inspiration and to make the apparent problems determinative. This is to assume that the criteria of criticism as determined by man as the final judge stand above the scriptures. Rather, the proper attitude is to accept he witness of scripture and seek for honest answers to the phenomenal problems, recognizing that all the information is no doubt not yet in.

As outlined by Thiessen, ^[72] these so-called errors generally fall into four areas: the area of science and history, the area of miracle and prophecy, the area of quoting and interpreting the Old Testament, and the area of morals and religion. For helpful materials on these matters see Thiessen's works as well as Berkhof's Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology, pages 160-162, and A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pages 72-77 as well as the books cited in the introduction to this section.

4.    It is said that since inspiration applies to the autographa, it has no real value since we do not possess them.

The implication of this analysis is a faulty one for it seems to suggest that the manuscripts are full of error. Textual criticism, however, has given us a remarkably pure text. Matters of significant textual variation are so few, relatively speaking, that Westcott and Hort could say that only one-thousandth of the text was in doubt, and of this portion not one variation affects any basic doctrine or leaves us in doubt not adequately dealt with elsewhere in an undisputed passage. ^[73] Further, with the large number of manuscripts available we can be quite sure that the correct reading is in some of them, which statement cannot be made regarding any other book of antiquity.

In responding to this objection E. J. Young takes a somewhat different tack. The posed problem to which he responds is, since we do not have the autographa and therefore cannot know if they really were errorless it is a flight from reality to appeal to them rather than to copies as our authority. In addressing this issue he replies to Dewey Beegle who claims, on the basis of 2 Timothy 3:16, that extant copies of scripture in Paul's day were viewed as being inspired.

The needed clarification that Young makes is that "inspiration" is a poor translation of theopneustos which really means God breathed. It therefore relates to the origin of scripture. The message of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that God breathed forth the words of the Scriptures, and therefore, this word can only apply to the autographa." ^[74] His conclusion, then, is that tithe appeal to the autographa therefore does not owe its existence to a desire to escape from difficulties that are present in the extant copies of the Bible. It is Paul himself who speaks of the origin of the Bible, and we are led by his words to a consideration thereof." ^[75]

Why then do we call for inerrant autographs? "Because the available texts gain their revelational authority through their verbal cognitive dependence on the plenarily inspired writings of the prophets and apostles. If error pervaded the original writings then even a wholly accurate copy or translation could not tell the truth, and we could not in any event confidently tell when the Bible's teaching is true or false.” ^[76] In addressing the guest Lon as to whether inerrant autographs are merely imaginary since they have never been seen, Henry continues, "By no means. Nobody has ever seen errant autographs; hence the argument against inerrant originals turns on premises other than empirical observation." ^[77]

(For further material on this matter see Berkhof, Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology, p. 159; and L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, I, 87-88.)

5.       There is no need to insist on inspiration of the autograph

It is said that since God brings spiritual blessing through copies of the Bible that “obviously” have many errors in them, there is no need to insist on inspiration of the autograph (in the sense of verbally inerrant writings) since God surely could bring spiritual blessing through them as well.

This idea mistakenly implies that the errors of the copy are “God-breathed and profitable" when the text claims that this is true only of "scripture." All of the copies that are indeed scripture, that is, in so far as the copies are scripture, are God-breathed and profitable. Or, to put it another way, it is the accurate portions of the copies, not the inaccurate parts, through which God works his will, including the blessing of his people.

In dealing with this charge Young again directs us beck to 2 Timothy 3:16 where we are told that all scripture, the whole Bible, is profitable. He then asks, "Does this statement refer to the extant copies of the Bible? Our answer is 'It most certainly does insofar as these copies are Scripture.' If there are copyist’s errors in the extent copies of the Bible, obviously these errors are not Scripture." He then concludes, "Error in the nature of the case cannot be profitable. It is the Scripture which is profitable and scripture cannot be confined to any one copy or to copies written in any one language.” ^[78]

As they discuss the question, why only copies? Bush and Nettles, on the basis of the analogy that "thirst is an evidence that water does exist and that dehydration is not inevitable," make the point that

The imperative need for en absolute authority is evidence (though not proof) that one is available. No significant loss occurs because of the absence of the actual autographs. The need for a normative standard is not lessened simply because the autographs are not directly available…

Christian claims about the authority of Scripture have never been mace on the basis of anything more than copies…

The loss of the originals was no accident; it was providential. Thomas Grantham's argument concerning the absence of the autographs is adequate and convincing at this point. Errors that may creep into the text of various copies either intentionally or unintentionally can be detected by comparing the different manuscript copies. What if the originals had been preserved and were somewhere deceptively modified even by well-meaning scholars? Heresy might be mixed in with truth. One could never with certainty detect even substantial error. Scripture would lose its authority for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Human reason, personal opinion, and the consensus of scholarship would replace Scripture as the word of truth.

They then summarize their thinking by stating that…it is true absolute biblical authority strictly applies only to the autographs, which no longer seem to be in existence. Full truthfulness may, however, be affirmed of any copy or translation to the extent that it is an accurate copy or translation. This method of preserving the divine revelation demonstrates God's wisdom. He has acted in the best way to convey His truth to mankind through the authority of His Word. Pious frauds have been prevented from the beginning as a result of the immediate and wide-spread circulation of copies that were accurate and adequate for the purpose of revealing truth and not error. ^[79]

References:

Return to Syllabus

AncientPath Network Dallas, TX 77523, USA

Copyright © 2007 by AncientPath Network and the authors. All rights reserved. From our web sites at AncientPath.net and AncientLight.org, you may download the information and print it for yourself and others as long as you give it away and do not charge for it. In this case, free means free. It cannot be bundled with anything sold, nor can you charge for shipping, handling, or anything. It is provided for personal study or for use in preparation of sermons, Sunday school classes, or other non-commercial study.

040907