INSPIRATION

             The doctrine of  inspiration has to do with  the receiving of  God's Word for the purpose of  accurately recording it.  It is the taking of  the revelation  that God gives and putting it into a permanent form which is a written one.  Most of  the Old Testament was written in Hebrew with some portions in Aramaic.  The New Testament was written in Greek.  It may be true, although it is not easily proven, that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but the Gospels as well as the rest of  the New Testament were written in Greek.  This writer rejects the idea that Matthew was written in Aramaic and then translated either by him or someone else into Greek.  Such a notion is completely unnecessary and very hard to prove at best.  Any ideas of  inspiration that are not in agreement with that presented here are not, and have not been, the church's doctrine throughout church history.  These other ideas are, for the most part, of  recent (last century or so) origin and are derived from (for the most part) higher critical sources and/or unbelief of  one sort or another.

             1) ITS FACT AND IMPORTANCE:  As this writer previously showed (under Revelation), inspiration and revelation are not the same.  Inspiration makes certain the accuracy of  the body of  truth, which is called "the faith"  (Jude 3), in written form.  Of  course,  revelation, inspiration, and authority are closely related, and often confused.  It can not be said that a sermon, a poem, a thought is inspired in the sense that the Bible is inspired.  

          Various arguments have been put forth in opposition to the doctrine of  inspiration as set forth in this page.  In considering these, one finds that some try to place Christ in opposition to the Apostles.  They even have the nerve to quote Scripture, misapplying when they do.  This is accomplished by various means such as saying the Christ said one thing, and the apostles took Him to mean something else, so that when they quote Him, they are not really doing so.  This is, of course, simple unbelief in the Biblical record, and it enables such to twist (mangle might be a better word), the teaching of Jesus to suit their own purposes.

          Another favorite argument against the doctrine of  inspiration is that of accommodation.  With this they virtually make liars out of  the Jesus and/or the apostles.  They knew, so the argument goes, that what they wanted to present was not in accord with Jewish tradition, so they accommodated their language to the prejudices of  the day.

          Still another tactic unbelief uses is to say  that Christ and/or the apostles were ignorant (using Acts 4:13 to prove their point) and, therefore, prone to error.  Even Jesus on His human side (if  they acknowledge deity at all) did not know much beyond His own day.  Of  course, they resort to the so-called modern scientific knowledge (which is changing constantly) to support their view.

          Supposed contradictions is another favorite criticism of  the doctrine of  inspiration.  Along this same line they include inaccuracies and inconsistencies.  These supposed errors, etc. are due to the misunderstanding (either conscious or unconscious) of  those who say they exist.  Anyone who has perused any of  the various folders on the internet can see how many try to find contradictions.  When a RATIONAL answer is given in reply, the individual is verbally castrated and called all sorts of  names.  "Every word of  God is pure." (Proverbs 30:5)  Psalm 12:6 and 19:7 say similar things.  Psalm 18:30 declares, "As for God, his way is perfect; the word of  Jehovah is tried."  There are passages in the Bible which have difficulties; these are caused by not properly understanding the passages.  Archeology has gone a long ways in clearly up many difficulties; a careful study of  difficult passages, and in particular their contexts, have for the most part cleared away so-called discrepancies and errors.  If  a person is NOT willing to be convinced, all the arguments in the world will not convince him.  "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14).

          Two things are evident apart from inspiration:  1) The Scriptures are of  such a nature "presenting truth on so vast a scale and so marvelous that the added claim to divine accuracy appears," loud and clear, "as a necessary corollary to the whole." (Chafer, Systematic Theology, I:67); 2)  The men who wrote down the material in the various books of  the Bible were reliable witnesses.  As long as unbelief exists, the doctrine of  inspiration will be doubted and criticized.

          2) ITS THEORIES:  Here the various theories that have been set forth for inspiration will be examined.

           One idea prevalent today (although far from new) is that of  partial inspiration.  This notion says that inspiration is only true of  doctrinal teachings, precepts, and truths not knowable to the human authors.  This concept has absolutely NO Scriptural support.  Furthermore, there is no certainty what parts are inspired or not.  It is one man's idea against another.

          Another common notion today is that of  degrees of  inspiration.  This concept  stated simply says that some parts are more inspired than others.  They use such terms as "suggestion", "direction", "elevation" (or elevated), "superintendency", "guidance", and then the top one, "direct revelation."  There is again NO Scriptural support for this idea.  (Some may use a false rendering of  2 Timothy 3:16--"Every scripture inspired of  God", etc.--to support this, but that is dubious.)  Here again, who is to say what portion is "direct revelation" and what is just mere "suggestion"?

          Still another concept that is quite popular today even among some so-called evangelicals, is the concepts are inspired, not the words.  This view is that God gave the idea that He wanted to convey to the human writers who then were free to state it in any way they wished.  1 Corinthians 2:13 alone condemns this notion:  "Which things also we speak, not in the WORDS [caps for emphasis] which man's wisdom teacheth, but which [words--understood] the Holy Spirit teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."  Consider also Matthew 24:35; John 5:24; and many others.  Words mean something, and you can not convey ideas apart from words.

          Some other concepts that are less prominent today are natural inspiration and mystical inspiration.  The former says the Bible is no more inspired than a Beethoven symphony or a Longfellow poem.  Some of  those holding this view also partake of  the degrees theory.  The latter one using Philippians 2:13--God works in the believer "both to will and to do of His good pleasure"--appear to teach that any Christian today by special divine help can write Scripture.  Schleiermacher of the 19th century was  a great proponent of   this idea.  Obviously, this was and is an attempt to get away from the plain teaching of  Scripture.  Besides, it opens the door to "Science and the Keys to the Bible" (Mary Baker Glover Eddy), "the Book of  Mormon (Joseph Smith--which was actually written by another man, not some angel), the so-called inspired writings of  Ellen White, and of  the various leaders of  Jehovah Witnesses.  It has also led to such claims by some charismatics.  In most cases (and probably all) these writings contradict the plain meaning of  Scripture.  There are also many on the internet who are doing this to individual verses in order to sustain a point of  view that is foreign to the Bible.

          This leaves two views of inspiration that have been held by many devout, Bible believing Christians.  The first is the dictation view.  This teaches that God dictated every word to the various human authors, and they in turn wrote them down.  As Chafer noted, "A message which is dictated is obviously the product of  the one who dictates;" (Systematic Theology, I:68). Furthermore, such passages as 2 Peter 3:15, 16; and Romans 9:1-3  would be excluded because they involve the personal interest of the writer.  I know that those holding this view would say that God dictated even such personal portions.  It is true that some portions were dictated (Some of that which Moses wrote),  there are also large portions  that are intimately personal such as many of  David's psalms.  Of  course, God COULD have dictated those, but it was not necessary for Him to do so in order to insure the full inspiration of  His Word.

          The other view is thoroughly Biblical.  It is verbal, plenary inspiration.  Certainly, the dictation view results in verbal and plenary inspiration.  Verbal inspiration means that the very words were chosen by the Holy Spirit, which words were the natural vocabulary of  the human author.  Thus the writer's style and other characteristics were preserved.  By this means the words used avoided  any intrusion of  error.  Plenary inspiration means that every part of  Scripture is inspired of God whether history, scientific matters, poems, etc.  This makes every portion of  Scripture both infallible and final.  It is infallible as to its truth; it is final as to its authority.

          3) ITS DUAL AUTHORSHIP:  The view just expressed (as well as the dictation view) has a dual authorship just as the Lord Jesus Christ has a dual nature.  He is the Living Word; the Bible is Written Word.  This duality can be seen in many passages where it is said "God said", or "God commanded", or like phrase; and then it says elsewhere that Moses said, or one of  the prophets said, or David said.  Many times a quote from the Old Testament will say something like this, "The Holy Spirit spake through David", etc.  The study of  this dual authorship is quite complex, but the Bible appears to teach this very thing.  Except for the last two views presented above, every theory of  inspiration is faulted by one extreme or another:  The Bible is solely of  divine authorship (the dictation view almost comes to this); the Bible is solely of  human authorship; or the Bible is almost exclusive divine in some parts and almost exclusive human in others.  The only view that is justified by the Scriptures, and thus in accord with verbal, plenary inspiration is that the Bible is of  both divine and human authorship  without any harm one to the other.  A person is not required to understand this dual authorship but to believe it. To the extent that one can understand this side of  glory, it is to the believer's benefit and knowledge; on the other side of glory, it will not matter.

          4) ITS OWN WITNESS:  There are two major passages in which the Bible states its own inspiration.  The first one is 2 Timothy 3:16, 17:  "All Scripture is given by inspiration of  God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of  God may be prefect thoroughly furnished unto all good works."  The key word here is inspiration.  It is the Greek word theopneustos which literally means God-breathed.  Thus Scripture was breathed  by God into the writers.  This word only appears here in the New Testament; it is very doubtful that it occurred anywhere else in the Greek language.  This verse furthermore says, all  Scripture.  This was Paul's last epistle written shortly before his martyrdom. By this time most of  the New Testament was already written.  Thus, this passage cannot be confined only to the Old Testament.  An interesting confirmation of  this is seen in 1 Timothy 5:18 where Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 as Scripture and in the same breath quotes Luke 10:7.  Another confirmation is seen in 2 Peter 3:15, 16:  "And account that  the long suffering of  our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom  given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles speaking in them of  these things in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction" [Capitals are for emphasis].  Here Peter equates Paul's epistles with other Scripture.

          The second major passage on inspiration is 2 Peter 1:21--"For the prophecy [referring to Scripture as mentioned in verse 20] came not in old time by the will of  man; but holy men of  God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." The key word here is moved which is from the Greek word phero which literally means borne along.  This indicates that these men of  God were wrought on by the Holy Spirit to produce what God wanted said.  Peter stated that this Word given by the Spirit is more sure than the vision he and the two other disciples had on the Mount of  Transfiguration.  These writers were not holy in themselves,  but were set apart  (the meaning of  holy) for the very task of  writing the Word of God.  These two passages together constitute the heart of  verbal, plenary inspiration.

          There are other references that indicate the Bible is God's Word.  Time and time again one reads, "The Lord said unto" so and so.  Again, in the prophets a person  often reads, "The vision" which so and so "saw"; and "The word of  the Lord came" unto so and so.  Some New Testament references to consider are John 19:35; 1 John 1:1-3; and 1 Corinthians 14:37.  Furthermore, you have such passages as Acts 4:26--"Who [referring to the Holy Spirit] by the mouth of  David Thy servant hast said"; Matthew 1:22--"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of  [by] the Lord by [through] the prophet"; and in John 14:25, 26; John 15:26, 27; and John 16:12-15. It sets forth the fact that the Holy Spirit would teach them, bring things to their remembrance, guide them, and show them things to come." Many other passages could be cited, but these show the truth.

          5) OBJECTIONS TO VERBAL, PLENARY INSPIRATION:  All objections are basically due to unbelief. There are several well-stated replies to these objections.
a)  There is a progression of  doctrine from Genesis to Revelation.  This does not in any way show that early and partial revelations were in error.  The truth of  the matter is simply that later revelations build on the earlier ones.
b) Variations in various more or less parallel passages does not mitigate against this kind of  inspiration.  The superscription over the cross of  Christ which was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek is a good example.  Each gospel writer quoted part of the superscription. Often the Septuigent [the Greek translation of the Old Testament] is quoted by New Testament writers; but the Holy Spirit being the author of  each could well make a change in adapting the Scripture to a new situation.
c) "At best, human understanding is imperfect.  What may seem a difficulty now--as has so often been demonstrated--is completely dissolved when all the facts are known." (Chafer, Systematic Theology, I:86-87)
d) Verbal, plenary inspiration applies only to the original writings.  However, through study of  the many, many manuscripts (Most ancient works depend on a very few manuscripts and are never questioned.), the exact text can be determined to a very high degree of  accuracy.  God has preserved His Word by this means.

         This writer has concluded, therefore, that the Bible is divinely inspired of  God, verbally, and in all its parts whether doctrine, history, lies of  mankind and/or Satan, science, etc.  For all practical purposes we have to this day the Word of God.

HOME PAGE