|
The Inspiration of the Bible
T. P. Simmons
We have noted
evidence that the Bible is a revelation from God. And we are told in the Bible
that God gave the revelation by inspiration. If the Bible is God’s revelation,
it is right to let it speak for itself concerning its own nature. It is our
purpose, then, in this chapter to inquire into the meaning and nature of
inspiration, according to the Bible’s own testimony.
In the course that we are here pursuing
we are following reason in its highest sense. It has been shown that reason
demands a belief in God’s existence. And it has been pointed out, moreover,
that it is reasonable to expect a written revelation from God. It is the
province of reason, then, in relation to revelation, first of all, to examine
the credentials of communications that profess to be a revelation from God. If
these credentials are satisfactory, then reason must accept the communications
as coming from God; and hence must accept the things presented as being true.
"Revelation is the viceroy who first presents his credentials to the
provincial assembly, and then presides" (Liebnitz). In the foregoing manner,
"reason itself prepares the way for a revelation above reason, and warrants an
implicit trust in such revelation when once given" (Strong).
Above reason is not against
reason. It is only bald rationalism that rejects all it cannot fathom or
rationally demonstrate. "The most unreasonable people in the world are those who
depend solely upon reason, in the narrow sense" (Strong). Mere reasoning or the
exercise of the logical faculty is not all of reason. Reason, in its broad
sense, comprehends the whole of the mind’s power to recognize truth. Reason can
rightly reject only that which contradicts known facts. And then, to be safe,
reason must be "conditioned in its activity by a holy affection and enlightened
by the Spirit of God" (Strong). To such reason, the Scriptures present nothing
contradictory, although they do make known much beyond the unaided power of man
to discover or to comprehend fully.
I. THE MEANING OF INSPIRATION
When Paul said: "All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16), he used the Greek word "theopneustos" for the
idea of inspiration. This Greek word is composed of "theos," meaning God, and "pneo,"
meaning to breathe. The compound word is an adjective meaning literally
"breathed of God." Since it is the breath that produces speech, this word
provided a very apt and impressive way of saying that the Scripture is the word
of God.
II. THE HUMAN ELEMENT IN INSPIRATION
However it was only in special cases that
the words to be written down were orally dictated to the Scripture writers. In
most cases the minds of the writers became the laboratory in which God converted
His breath, as it were, into human language. This was not done by a mechanical
process. The personality and temperament of the writers were not suspended.
These are manifest in the writings. Hence we read from Gaussen: "In maintaining
that all Scripture is from God, we are far from thinking that man goes for
nothing in it . . . In Scripture all the words are man’s, as there, too, all the
words are God’s. In a certain sense, the Epistle to the Romans is altogether a
letter of Paul’s and, in a still higher sense, the Epistle to the Romans is
altogether a letter of God’s" (Theopneustia, a book indorsed highly by C. H.
Spurgeon). And so we read also from Manly: "The divine origin and authority of
the Word of God is not to be affirmed so as to exclude or impair the reality of
the human authorship, and the peculiarities resulting there from. The Bible is
God’s Word to man, throughout; yet at the same time it is really and thoroughly
a man’s composition. No attempt should be made-and we shall certainly make
none-to set aside or ignore the "human element" of the Scriptures, which is
unmistakably apparent on their very face; no one should wish to so magnify the
divine as to crowd this out, or almost out. This is one of the mistakes which
good men have committed.1
Let both be admitted, recognized, accepted thankfully and rejoicingly, each
contributing to make the Bible more completely adapted to human needs as the
instrument of divine grace, and the guide for weak and wandering human souls.
The word is not of man, as to its source; nor depending on man, as to its
authority. It is by and through man as its medium; yet not only simply as the
channel along which it runs, like water through a lifeless pipe, but through and
by man as the agent voluntarily active "and intelligent in its communication.
Both sides of the truth are expressed in the Scriptural language: ‘Holy men of
God spake as they were moved (borne along) by the Holy Spirit.’ (2 Pet. 1:21).
The men spoke; the impulse and direction were from God" (The Bible Doctrine of
Inspiration). "The Scriptures contain a human as well as a divine element, so
that while they constitute a body of infallible truth, this truth is shaped in
human moulds and adapted to ordinary human intelligence" (Strong).
III. INSPIRATION ACCOMPLISHED MIRACULOUSLY
The human element in the Bible does not
affect its infallibility, just as the human nature of Christ did not affect His
infallibility. Inspiration was accomplished miraculously just as the virgin
birth of Christ was accomplished miraculously, and just as men are brought to
repentance and faith miraculously. Repentance and faith are voluntary acts of
the man, yet they are wrought in him by the Holy Spirit. God accomplished the
miracle of inspiration by providentially preparing the writers for their work
and by so revealing His truth to them and so enabling, guiding, and
superintending them in the recording of it as to give to us through them an
exact and complete transmission of all that He was pleased to reveal.
"Although the Holy Spirit did not select
the words for the writers, it is evident that He did select them through the
writers" (Bancroft, Elemental Theology).
IV. METHODS IN INSPIRATION
The miraculous element in inspiration, of
course, cannot be explained. And we have no desire that man should be able to
explain it. But to some extent, at least, we can discern from the Scripture the
methods God used in inspiration. A study of the methods used should heighten our
appreciation of inspiration.
1) Inspiration Through objective
Revelation.
Sometimes there was given a direct and
oral revelation to be written down, such as was the case in the giving of the
Mosaic law (Ex. 20:1), and such as was the case, in some instances, with other
writers (Dan. 9:21-23; Rev. 17:7).
2) Inspiration Through supernatural
Vision.
In other cases a supernatural vision was
given with or without an interpretation of it, as was the case with John on the
Isle of Patmos.
3) Inspiration Through Passivity.
At other times, when we are given no
evidence of an external revelation of any kind, the writers were so consciously
and passively moved by the Holy Spirit as to be knowingly ignorant of the full
import of what they wrote, as was the case with the prophets when they wrote of
Christ (1 Pet. 1:10).
4) Inspiration Through Divine
Illumination.
Sometimes there was given to the writers
such divine illumination as to enable them to understand and apply truth
contained in former revelations, but not made fully clear by them; as was the
case with New Testament writers in interpreting and applying Old Testament
Scripture (Acts 1:16,17,20; 2:16-21; Rom. 4:1-3; 10:5-11).
5) Inspiration Through God’s Direction.
In some cases the writers were merely so
guided and guarded as to be enabled to record infallibly such historical facts
as God was pleased to have them record, whether those facts were personally
known to them, obtained from others, or supernaturally revealed. All historical
books are examples in point here.
6) Inspiration Through Subjective
Revelation.
At other times truth was revealed through
the writers by such divine quickening and deepening of their own thinking as to
enable them to perceive and infallibly record new truth, as seems to have been
the case with Paul in much of his epistles.
Summing it all up, we may say that the
process of inspiration consisted of such means and influences as it pleased God
to employ, according to the circumstances, in order to give us a divine,
complete, and infallible revelation of all religious truth we need during this
life. Or with A. H. Strong we may say: "By the inspiration of the Scriptures, we
mean that special divine influence upon the minds of the Scripture writers in
virtue of which their productions, apart from errors of transcription, and when
rightly interpreted, together constitute an infallible and sufficient rule of
faith and practice."
V. THE EXTENT OF INSPIRATION
It will be seen that verbal inspiration is
implied in what we have said already. But, as also already said, this does not
destroy the human element in the Scripture. The Scripture is all the Word of
God; yet most of it is also the word of man. The writers differ in temperament,
language, and style; and these differences are clearly manifest in their
writings; yet their productions are as truly and fully the Word of God as any
utterance of Jesus.
VI. PROOFS OF VERBAL INSPIRATION
In proof of the fact that the Bible is inspired in word,
and not merely in thought, we call attention to the following evidences:
1) Inspired Scripture necessarily
involves Verbal Inspiration.
We are told that the Scripture is
inspired. Scripture consists of written words. Thus we necessarily have verbal
inspiration.
2) Paul Affirmed that he used Words
taught him by the Holy Spirit.
In 1 Cor. 2:13, in referring to the things
he knew through the Holy Spirit, he said: "Which things we speak, not in the
words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth." This is
a positive affirmation on the part of Paul that he was not left to himself in
the selection of words.2
3) Peter Affirmed the Verbal
Inspiration of His Own and Other Apostle’s Writings.
In 2 Pet. 3:1,2,15,16, Peter puts his own
and other apostles writings on a level with the Old Testament Scriptures. And,
since Peter believed the Old Testament Scriptures to be verbally inspired (Acts
1:16), it follows, therefore, that he considered the writings of himself and
those of other apostles as being verbally inspired.3
4) Quotations in the New Testament from
the Old Testament prove the Verbal Inspiration of New Testament Writers.
The Jews had a superstitious regard for
the very letter of Scripture. Certainly, then, devout Jews, if left to
themselves, would be exceedingly careful to quote Scripture as it is written.
But we find in the New Testament about two hundred and sixty-three direct
quotations from the Old Testament, and of these, according to Horne,
eighty-eight are verbal quotations from the Septuagint; sixty-four are borrowed
from it; thirty-seven have the same meaning, but different words; sixteen agree
more nearly with the Hebrew; and twenty differ from both the Hebrew and the
Septuagint. All the New Testament writers, except Luke, were Jews, yet they did
not write as Jews. What can account for this if they were not conscious of
divine sanction of every word they wrote? Some good examples of quotations from
the Old Testament by New Testament writers where new meaning is put into the
quotations are found in Rom. 4:6,7, which is a quotation from Psa. 32:1, and
Rom. 10:6-8, which is a quotation from Deut. 30:11-14.
5) Matthew Affirmed that the Lord spake
through the Prophets of the Old Testament.
See Revised Version of Matt. 1:22 and
2:15.
6) Luke Affirmed that the Lord spake by
the Mouth of the Holy Prophets (Luke 1:70).
7) The Writer to the Hebrews affirms
the Same Thing. (Heb. 1:1).
8) Peter Affirmed that the Holy Spirit
spake by the Mouth of David (Acts 1:16).
9) Paul’s Argument in Gal. 3:16 implies
Verbal Inspiration.
In this place Paul bases an argument on
the singular number of the word "seed" in God’s promise to Abraham.
10) Old Testament Writers constantly
implied and taught the Divine Authority of their Very Words.
Passages in proof of this are too numerous
to need mentioning.
[Psalm 12:6; 119:139; Rev. 17:17 -- RW]
11) Fulfilled Prophecy is Proof of
Verbal Inspiration.
A study of fulfilled prophecy will
convince any open-minded person that the prophets were necessarily inspired in
the very words they uttered. Otherwise they could not have foretold something of
which they knew very little.
12) Jesus Affirmed the Verbal
Inspiration of the Scriptures.
Jesus said: "The Scripture cannot be
broken" (John 10:35), by which He meant that its meaning cannot be loosed nor
its truthfulness destroyed. Meaning and truth are dependent upon words for
expression. Infallible meaning is impossible without infallible words.
ENDNOTES:
1
The following quotation is very much to the point here:
“Sometimes, it may be frankly conceded, zeal for the divine authority and
inerrancy of the Scriptures may have led to untenable theories and modes of
expression, that have rather obscured the truth. To say, e. g., that the writers
were mere passive instruments in the hand of the Spirit, or at best amanuenses
writing to dictation-to adopt, in other words, the mechanical theory, is
unwarranted and mischievous. It is no part of the doctrine, and has never been
generally held” (New Biblical Guide, Urquhart, Vol. 8, Page 175).
2
It is charged by some that in Acts 23:5 and 1 Cor. 7:10,12, Paul
admits non-inspiration. In Acts 23:5 Paul says concerning the High Priest, “I
wist not, brethren, that he was the High Priest.” This “may be explained either
as the language of indignant irony: ‘I would not recognize such a man as High
Priest’; or, more naturally, as an actual confession of personal ignorance and
fallibility, which does not affect the inspiration of any of Paul’s final
teachings or writings” (Strong). Inspiration does not mean that Bible writers
were always infallible in judgment or impeccable in life, but that in their
capacity of official teachers and spokesmen for God they were preserved from
error.
In the passages from the first
Corinthian epistle, Paul says in the case of one command: “I command, yet not I,
but the Lord;” while in the case of other commands he says: “The rest speak I,
not the Lord.” But notice that at the end of the latter series of exhortations
he says: “I think ... I have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40). “Paul
distinguishes, therefore, here ... not between his own and inspired commands,
but between those which proceeded from his own (God-inspired) subjectivity, and
those which Christ Himself supplied by his objective word” (Meyer, in Loco).
3
A question may be raised as to Peter’s dissimulation
at Antioch, where we have a “practical disavowal of his convictions by
separating and withdrawing himself from the Gentile Christians (Gal. 2:11-13)”
(Strong). “Here was no public teaching, but the influence of private example.
But neither in this case, nor in that mentioned above (Acts 23:5), did God
suffer the error to be a final one. Through the agency of Paul the Holy Spirit
set the matter right” (Strong).
|