A Neglected Text in Bibliology Discussions: I Corinthians 2:6-16

By Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois

This paper was originally delivered in slightly different form at the Theological Conference of the International Federation of Free Churches in Oslo, Norway, 1980.

There are few exercises as theologically satisfying as the results that come from the hard work of thoroughly exegeting biblical texts which are large teaching passages on doctrinal or ethical themes. Yet, one of the enigmas of our day is the phenomenon of increased discussion about the topics of revelation, inspiration, and illumination without a corresponding in-depth probing of major teaching texts on these subjects. Too often our generation of evangelicals has been content to assume that Gaussen, Warfield, or some worthy of by-gone days has already analyzed every text that could be exegeted. But that is not quite so. There is, for example, one extended teaching passage on this very question that has been neglected, viz., 1 Corinthians 2:6–16. So far as we have been able to discover, this passage has not been allowed in the history of recent exegesis to exert its full impact on the question of the inspiration of the Scriptures. However, before we pursue this task, let us briefly survey the current state of the church’s theological house.

I. The Shape of the Problem Today

On the American scene, the most important contribution to the subject of inspiration, which followed in the train of thought set by the Reformation, was that of the Princeton theologians. Even though Princeton Seminary was founded as late as 1812 with Archibald Alexander (1772–1851) as its first professor,[1] a systematic treatment of the doctrine of inspiration was not given until Charles Hodge (1797–1878) wrote an extensive article in 1857 in the Princeton Review entitled “Inspiration.”[2] His son, Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823–1886), went to Princeton in 1877 to assist his ailing father for one year before he took over as the third professor of Systematic Theology in 1878. About this same time, a former student of Charles Hodge and a close friend of A. A. Hodge, Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851–1921), joined the Princeton faculty in 1880 as Professor of New Testament. His inaugural address in 1880 picked up the same theme “Inspiration and Criticism.” In that same year he also wrote a pamphlet on “The Divine Origin of the Bible.” A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield collaborated in 1881 to write another new article on inspiration.

But A. A. Hodge suddenly died in 1886 after teaching only nine years at Princeton and B. B. Warfield was installed as Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology on May 8, 1888. For thirty-three years he held that chair and championed the high view of the Scriptures’ origin and authority. After his death, his writings were collected and published in ten volumes, with the first volume being entitled Revelation and Inspiration.

By this time the fundamentalist and modernist controversy was in full swing. Very little creative theologizing or hard exegesis was being offered on either side, for the questions now revolved around philosophical presuppositions. Thus, if one may speak in the broadest sweep of generalities, the battlelines over inspiration remained frozen and static for almost half a century.

More recently there has been a stirring in the mulberry trees on both sides of the theological fence. Some of the issues still remain and are rightfully debated as vigorously, if not more so, than before. The debate continues over the legitimacy or extent of the use of historical criticism,[3] the presence or mixture of a dual authorship in Scripture with counter charges of Docetism or Ebionism for the opponent’s views, and efforts to sort out what in Scripture speaks of the essential Christ or a Heilsgeschichte and what is mere drapery and non-essential to this central concern.

These are indeed important issues, but more recently the focus has sharpened even more dramatically. New challenges have been offered to any traditional exposition of a doctrine of inspiration as set forth by the old Princeton theologians from 1857 to 1921. The areas of concern now tend to group more frequently around: (1) the questions about the use of language, (2) the role of the author’s meaning in our exegesis and proclamation, (3) the effect contextualization had on the original record of the Word of God, and (4) the extent to which we in this advanced age of the twentieth century may depend on all the parts of Scripture as well as the overall general scheme of salvation presented there. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it is meant to indicate a representative sample of the more significant topics that are troubling the theological household at this time in history.

Some of the proudest achievements of modernity, yet some of the most dubious from the perspective of this writer, are those that have declared the autonomy of any written or spoken text (including the Bible) from the single truth-intention of its author. Truth, or correct interpretation, in this scheme of things becomes “what is true or meaningful for me” (pro me) and thereby “meaning” (which should be single and always referred back to what the original speaker or writer meant by the use of those word symbols which he used) is now confused with “significance” (which always states a relationship between the one authorial meaning and a person, event, or situation).[4]

Likewise, some complain that language about inspiration from those supporting an Old Princetonian-like doctrine of Scripture has been too leaden, inert, mechanical, and awkward by using “solid container imagery.”[5] Over against the post-reformation “scholasticism,” as allegedly evidenced in the “Princeton Theology” of Alexander, the Hodges, and Warfield, some who would wish to place themselves in the stream of American evangelicalism, would now argue that the “process” modes of thought found in Hegel, Bergson, Dewey, and especially Alfred North Whithead allow us to solve the problem of Scripture’s human and divine authorship with a greater emphasis on vitality, autonomy, and freedom of the recipient of that divine word. The transmittal dynamics, this process view contends, is such that personal experience and objective propositions are organically related, rather than being opposed to each other. In the moment of the inspiration of Scripture, there is a momentary unity between God and the writer; but it is only a partial correspondence (both temporally and formally) between the divine and human. What resulted was an “accurate” (Latin accuratus, meaning “prepared with care”) product, but certainly not an inerrant text.[6] This inspiration of the Holy Spirit continues, in this application of process philosophy to our doctrine, in the lives of believers currently.

Certainly this will give a dynamic, autonomous, and creative perspective, but will it guarantee that for all the careful preparation of the biblical text (“accurate”), it was originally received as or even continues to be even an approximation of the divine mind and will for us mortals? The question of the authority of that text is very uncertain on these grounds.

One is also obligated to mention something about another new crisis raised by the term “contextualization.” The term was coined about a decade ago when the Theological Education Fund’s program for the Third Mandate (1970–77) described itself under the title “Ministry in Context.” The fact that the term is now widely used can be easily ascertained by a cursory glance at the literature today.[7] When this term is applied to the area of the interpretation of Scripture, there is a tendency in some circles to stress that which is obviously cultural, historically unique to a particular time, place, and people as a lever for modifying claims made for Scripture as a whole.

The helpful aspect of the subject of contextualization is that it makes the interpreter more aware of these types of phenomena in his exegesis. But the isolation of such cultural and historical notices should not excuse the interpreter from searching for their meaning and contemporary significance for the church; rather these contextual notices were meant to aid us in understanding and seeing people, situations, and times like our own so that we might the more easily have the truth brought more graphically to our minds.[8] just to dismiss out of hand all such material as if it were dated mail entirely for another day or person is to allow cultural and historical contextualization to triumph over and to preempt the concerns of the literary context in which those phenomena were found.

Within evangelicalism, the heated battle rages over the question of the range or extent of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.[9] May we trust Scripture as being “truthful” in its parts as well as the whole in all that it teaches and affirms? What did the Psalmist mean when he asserted three times in Ps 119, vss. 142, 151, 160, that “Thy Word is True”? Or, again, if some parts do not participate as fully (or at all) in this inspiration, how shall we accurately determine what is revelatory and what is not? Will we not need to be as fully inspired as interpreters of that text as many find it impossible to allow for the receiving prophets and apostles?

Attempts to answer this question have led to a suggestion of a number of terms to describe the quality of God’s revelation in Scripture: “indefectibility”[10] (abiding in the truth in spite of errors), “infallible” (used with a stipulative definition, viz., the Bible is infallible in that it makes no false or misleading statements on the matters of faith and practice,[11] or something like “indeceivability”[12] (i.e., the Bible is free from fraud, lying, or willful deception and thus “without error” in this sense).

The issue is neither simple nor unimportant. While the philosopher of religion must aid the systematic theologian in his use of the words “without error” and “true,” it is the exegete who must point us back to the biblical text itself—happily to an extended passage which may then be used as a locus classicus for the doctrine. Heretofore, attention has generally been focused on Paul’s word to Timothy in 2 Tim 3:16–17. We will briefly look at this text before we proceed to develop what we believe has been a neglected teaching passage on the subject of inspiration as found in 1 Cor 2:6–16.

II. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Paul exhorted Timothy by saying: “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Usually exegetes have tended to concentrate on the first three words of the Greek text: pasa graphē theopneustos. Each has some element of difficulty about it which calls for some further reflection.

Thus pas can be taken in a collective sense, “whole, all, entire” or partitively meaning “each, every.” It is true, as some point out,[13] that in the majority of cases, pas with the anarthrous noun must be translated “every” (e.g., Matt 7:17, pan dendron agathon, “every good tree”; also Eph 1:3; Jas 1:17.) Yet in Acts 2:36, “all (pas), the whole, of Israel” is clearly demanded. Since neither grammar nor a first century syntactical practice can totally dictate the solution, we are left with only the front position of pas in the sentence to conclude that the word had an emphatic usage for Paul. Therefore, it would be better to translate it “all” even though the meaning may not be changed by making it “every,” if the verb to be is placed in the correct place in the sentence.

The second word, graphē, may also theoretically be understood in several ways: (1) an individual passage of Scripture, (2) the Scripture as a whole, and (3) when it is in the plural form, it may refer to all the parts of Scripture. Here the decision must be made in light of Paul’s previous reference to the “sacred writings” (hiera grammata), in vs. 15. If Paul had wanted to continue this line of thought, he no doubt would have used the plural form of gramma. But he changed to a singular noun, and he changed the noun from gramma to graphē. His meaning then is either that “all Scripture as a whole” is inspired; or alternatively, having spoken of the grammata as a whole which had been so helpful to Timothy since his childhood, Paul now speaks of “each and every passage” which comprises the whole of Scripture as being inspired by God. Either way, there is not one whit of diminution from a claim that the Scripture either in its totality or in each and every one of its parts is the result of the inspiration of God.

But is that what theopneustos means? Shall we understand theopneustos actively (Scripture breathes God’s Spirit) or passively (Scripture is the product of God’s breath)? To state it differently, is Scripture “Inspired” in its effect or in its origin?

Two factors will help us decide here. A. T. Robertson showed that the great majority of verbal adjectives ending in -tos had a passive meaning in function, even though the form tended to be neutral as to whether it was active or passive.[14] Thus theodidaktos, “taught by God,” in 1 Thess 4:9; agapetos, “beloved” in Matt 3:17, etc.

B. B. Warfield examined eighty-six words beginning with the element theo- and concluded that seventy-five of these eighty-six words had “the sense of a result produced by God.”[15] That is very strong evidence for the passive especially when placed alongside of Robertson’s evidence.

But what of the position of theopneustos in the sentence? Is it in an attributive position, “every inspired Scripture is…,” or the predicate, “every Scripture is inspired?” While extremely strong arguments can be raised for the attribute position of theopneustos,[16] yet Kelly[17] presents four arguments why it must be taken in the predicate sense: 1) both theopneustos and ōphelimos must be taken together in a predicate sense since they are linked by kai and the sentence would otherwise have no real predicate, 2) If theopneustos is an attributive adjective, then kai is pointless in the sentence even if one tries to make it read “every inspired scripture is also profitable” in that the “also” would not be linked to anything and the statement would be somewhat tautological, 3) the attributive construction would imply that some of the graphē were not inspired, but vs. 15 would appear to rule that out by Paul’s reference to the “sacred writings,” and 4) there is a similar construction in 1 Tim 4:4, where two adjectives are connected by kai and understood predicatively. Thus “all/every Scripture is inspired by God” is the only possible translation.

To this brief discussion should also be added Warfield’s exposition on the word theopneustos. In that classical analysis,[18] the emphasis was on God’s activity of “breathing-out” or “exhaling” the graphē rather than his infusing or breathing into it, or still more unjustified—into the men themselves. Thus, in a word, the Scriptures as written were declared to be a divine product. They were the result of the “breath of God.”

Then followed Paul’s four pros clauses wherein he gave two positive and two negative functions of this divinely “ex-spired” writing: It was profitable “for teaching, training in righteousness, rebuking and correcting.” Finally, Paul adds a hina clause, which we understand as a result clause rather than a purpose clause.[19]

But we long to know even more exactly, if we may, how such a divine product came about when the chosen agents were mere mortals much like ourselves? Are we left with no further word on this most tantalizing problem of all? Must we conclude that the means chosen by God was a rather mechanical and deterministic model? It is at this point that our neglected teaching passage of 1 Corinthians 2:6–16 comes to our exegetical and theological aid.

III. 1 Corinthians 2:6-16

Few commentators have understood this passage better than the Swiss Free Churchman of the past century, F. L. Godet (1812–1900).[20] In his masterful summary, he noted that just as the apostle had epitomized the argument of the entire section of 1 Cor 1:18–2:5 in one verse, 1 Cor 1:17; so now in 2:6 Paul had stated the theme and substance of the whole section of 2:6–16 with these words: sophian de laloumen en tois teleias.[21] The point of the apostle’s argument was this: the substance of the “good news” and his manner of presenting that gospel of Jesus Christ to the Corinthian audience were at once simple and non-philosophical (1 Cor 1:17–2:5). Yet, there was wrapped up in this simplicity a profundity of “wisdom” which exceeded anything this world knew from its own natural, empirical, or political sources: it had been revealed by the Spirit of God to Paul and it was designed for the mature in Christ (2:6–16).

A. The Outline

The section in 2:6–16 was then developed around three concepts. In 1 Cor 2:6b–9, Paul described the sophia, “wisdom,” of which he spoke in terms of its superhuman origin, its impenetrable depths, and some proofs of these claims. Then Paul went on in vss. 10–13 to develop his second theme: laloumen, “we speak”. Here he set forth the means by which he received this knowledge (vss. 10–12) and the manner by which it came to him from God (v. 13). In his third and final section, he developed the third term which he had announced in that programmatic and seminal sentence in vs. 6a, viz., en tois teleia, “among the perfect,” 1 Cor 2:14–15. A concluding emphasis is made in vs. 16, as Paul wraps-up the claim he has made throughout the section: “We have the mind of Christ.”

One of the key decisions to be made in this text is the subject of the verb laloumen, “we speak,” in vs. 6. In fact, throughout this whole passage Paul constantly refers to the first person plural pronoun “we” or “us” in vss. 10, 12, 13, and 16. But since 1 Cor 3:1 begins with the first person singular pronoun, we conclude that Paul is mainly referring to himself in this type of editorial “we” or “us” reference and perhaps in a derivative sense, those fellow-teachers who labored with him. Paul was not trying to set forth a theory of preaching in general, for then he would have used kerussein, “to preach,” “to herald forth,” or katangellein, “to proclaim.” This fact becomes all the more apparent when in vs. 16, “but we,” hēmeis de, is, as F. Godet has observed, “expressly contrasted with the teleioi, “the perfect,” and a fortiori with the members of the church in general. The we can therefore only designate the apostles collectively, or Paul himself with his fellow-laborers. But Paul has no reason to speak here of the other apostles; it is his teaching at Corinth which he wishes to justify (iii. 1–4).”[22]

B. The Wisdom of God: 1 Cor 2:6-9

By repeating the Greek particle de (vs. 6a, b) twice, Paul emphasized the contrasting status of the wisdom he had received from God and that type of wisdom found in contemporary speakers (vs. 5b). In fact, two more negative phrases reinforce this contrast. The Apostle’s wisdom did not: 1) belong to this age, or 2) emanate from the rulers of this present age, who themselves were also being brought to nothing and were passing off the stage of time.

“On the contrary” (note the strong adversative force of alla resuming the preceding double de), “we speak God’s wisdom.” The genitive here, theou sophian, is simply possessive; it is the wisdom which belongs to God and which he reveals to his servants. This wisdom may now be defined the more closely by seven phrases or clauses.

Firstly, this wisdom which formed the substance of Paul’s message was at first a secret conceived by God and known only to him alone until he unveiled it to Paul; it was God’s wisdom “which is a mystery” (en mustēriō). In Paul’s writings, a mystery is not something that is mysterious or a truth humans cannot fathom. Rather, it is a truth or fact which human understanding cannot discover by itself, but which one can adequately grasp once God has revealed it to his prophets or apostles.[23] The words “in a mystery” cannot modify the “we speak” since this idea would give the non-biblical notion that Paul spoke in secret or in a mysterious setting or place; they can only be attached to “wisdom.”

Likewise, the words “in a mystery” cannot modify the following, “that which has been hidden,” as if Paul claimed that it was a wisdom hidden in the form of a mystery.[24] Rather this phrase about hiddenness is the second characteristic of wisdom itself: it was a word that God had been pleased to be silent about for long ages until he revealed it (cf. Rom 16:25). Thus, God’s wisdom was a “mystery” in the biblical sense of that word and that which had long been hidden before its disclosure.

The third feature of this unique type of wisdom was that it was “marked out” or “decreed” long ago before the ages in the eternal plan of God. Paul’s wisdom was no off-hand set of subjective impressions or even scholarly pastoral homilies on certain religious topics. God had planned for its release long before Paul or even the ages came into existence so that when it was released it might result in the glory of all, including man himself.

Ignorance of this wisdom among the rulers of this world led them to act in a stupid manner. They took the “Lord of Glory” and crucified him. Thus, a fourth characteristic was that none of the representatives of the governmental structure had understood this wisdom. This wisdom was superior to all human thought of any individual person; yes, even the thought of the princes of this world.

In three more clauses, Paul goes on further to describe this wisdom.[25] It did not originate from empirical sources (“eye has not seen”), traditional knowledge in the community (“ear has not heard”), or from intuitive insight or imagination (“heart of man has not conceived”).[26]

By now Paul has exhausted every conceivable earthly source for this wisdom word which he announces. It can only emanate from God. Paul’s claims are extremely clear: this wisdom is a revelation, a disclosure of the divine mind to the Apostle. To conclude that God’s revelation is merely the revelation of a person, or solely the revelation of God’s great acts in history, is to fail to hear the claims of vss. 6–9. Revelation is that, but it is also propositional: it is “wisdom.” What is more, this wisdom was preordained by God before the ages and was unavailable from any mortal, whether that mortal had access to political power, empirical knowledge of the senses, information inherited from tradition and the learned, or the creative imagination of the introspective or aesthetic soul!

C. The Revelation and Inspiration of God: 1 Corinthians 2:10-13

Having developed the word “wisdom” in vss. 6–9, the Apostle now turns to the verb “we speak.” In vss. 10–12 he describes the substance of what he received, while vs. 13 declares how he received it. The former we call revelation while the latter we call inspiration.

Since the verb “he revealed” in vs. 10 is in the Greek aorist tense, Paul has in mind some definite point of time in the past when God made known to him this wisdom by a revelation. This experience was unique to the biblical writers. While it is true that Paul also uses the same root of the word to say that God has given a revelation to the ordinary believer in Ephesians 1:17 (“that God may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation”), this is only a secondary and derivative revelation. In the revelation Paul claims for himself in 1 Cor 2:10–12, it has to do with the disclosure of divine meaning (“the deep things of God”), while the second is the work of the Holy Spirit in communicating significance, and aiding with an application and appropriation of that original revelation (more on this in our comments on 2 Cor 2:14–15).

The agent who unveiled this revelation to the apostle is the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:10, dia tou pneumatos). But how, we may ask, can the Spirit accomplish such a difficult task? The answer is to the point: “The Spirit searches all things, yes, even the deep things of God” (ta bathē tou theou). This last phrase, says Charles J. Ellicott, “is one of cardinal importance in reference to the Scripture doctrine of the Holy Spirit.”[27] Indeed, the “deep things of God”[28] must include God’s essence, attributes, and plan. Such all-encompassing search again cannot be the believer’s quest or his own knowledge aided by the Spirit, since this knowledge extends to all things and penetrates even to the deepest matters belonging to our God, his person, and his acts, while believers know only fragmentarily (1 Cor 13:10–12, “We know in part and we prophesy in part…”). Certainly, then, the present tense of the verb for searching can only apply to the unceasing activity of the Holy Spirit as it relates to the intra-Divine activity as he fulfills his task of revealing the deep things of God to the Apostle.

To help explain[29] this inner activity within the Godhead, Paul invites his readers to reflect on how they as men and women are aware of “the things of a man” by the working of their spirit within them. It is important, however, that this illustration be only that, for he did not speak of the Spirit of God as being that “which was in him” as he did with man. Thus, the Holy Spirit was the one through whom all the impenetrable wisdom, the deep things of God, were brought to the apostle.[30]

Paul resumes his emphasis on himself in vs. 12. Again using the plural first person pronoun, he asserted, “But we, we have received…the Spirit that (comes) from God.” Paul is not talking about the Spirit that animates believers,[31] but about the Holy Spirit’s operation in delivering the Scripture to this apostle. And that portion of “the deep things of God” over which the Spirit of God incessantly poured and was now pleased to disclose to his apostle are now called, in vs. 12, “the things which have been freely given to us under God” (ta hupo tou theou charisthenta hēmin). This expression is equal to the clause in vs. 9, which God has prepared for those who love him.”

The correctness of our linking vs. 12 with the unique revelation that was deposited with the apostle, instead of linking it with the gracious gifts of salvation experienced by all believers, can be seen by the relative pronoun in vs. 13, which introduces the subject of biblical inspiration. In fact, the kai, “also,” of vs. 13 “prominently brings out precisely this relation between the two operations of the Spirit, revelation and inspiration.[32] The effect of this kai in the clause ha kai laloumen, “which also we speak,” is to give a slight accentuation to the verb “speak” and to imply that the act of setting forth these truths is solidly in accordance with the previous act of the Spirit in the deposit of revelation.

Here we come to one of the most precise statements on the mode of inspiration, i.e., the connection and method by which the divine Spirit and the human author interacted in the transmission and recording of these “deep things of God.” Few have equaled or excelled Godet in his statement on this verse: “The genitives, sophias and pneumatos, wisdom and Spirit, may, according to Greek usage, depend not on the subst[antive] logois, words, but on the verbal notion expressed by the adjective didaktois (John 6:45): ‘Words taught, not by wisdom, but by the Spirit’, and this connection is also that which agrees with the context. To teach things which the Spirit has revealed, terms are not made use of which man’s own understanding and ability have discovered. The same divine breath which lifted the veil to reveal, takes possession also of the mouth of its interpreter when it is to speak.”[33]

It is extremely important to the case we are presenting here on the subject of inspiration that we notice that the term Paul has chosen is didaktos, “taught.” As Meyer[34] has so clearly said, this term excludes all mechanical representations as if actual dictation of words by the Holy Spirit to the biblical writers was what was meant here. Instead, there was a living assimilation of the truth as the Holy Spirit “taught” it to the writers of Scripture.

Many have attempted to stigmatize any view that attempts to reflect the fact that Paul claimed here that the Spirit of God “taught words” by labelling this a mechanical or dictation view of inspiration. But we cannot account for the clear diversity of style in the different writers if the divine action were so labelled as a mechanical dictation of words. Kling quotes from Hodge to this effect:

But if God can control the thoughts of a man without making him a machine, why not also his language?—rendering every writer infallible in the use of his characteristic style? If the language of the Bible be not inspired, then we have the truth communicated through the discoloring and distorting medium of human imperfection. Paul’s direct assertion is that the words he used were taught by the Holy Ghost.[35]

This then is the biblical response to those who would prefer to limit the operation of God’s spirit in the inspiration of Scripture to a general conception of divine truth while leaving the writers free to verbalize that message and to give it whatsoever shape they pleased—be it accurate or otherwise! Paul clearly declares that he experienced the work of the Holy Spirit all the way up to the point of verbalizing that message and that these were not at all dictated words, but truth that became part and parcel of his own person, style, vocabulary as a living assimilation of his style, vocabulary, words, and Divine truth took place—they were “taught words from the (Holy) Spirit.”

This claim is further supported by the third clause in this most important series: literally, “combining spiritual things with spiritual.” Here the Apostle supplements his previous dual claim with a third, which defines that action more clearly and which gives in a secondary predication the accompanying circumstances. “The Apostle clothed his Spirit-revealed truths in Spirit-taught language and thereby combined what was spiritual in substance with what was spiritual in form.[36] Thus, the verb sunkrinein is the act of bringing two things together to “combine” them. The meaning of “interpreting” for this verb is foreign in the N.T. and Classical Greek; rather, it is one of “joining,” “combining,” or adapting spiritual words to spiritual things (taking pneumatikois as neuter).

D. The Illumination of Scripture: 1 Cor 2:14-16

Finally, there is the development of the third term that Paul had announced in vs. 6, “among the mature.” The work of the Holy Spirit in applying the truths Paul has received from God by the same Spirit of God is clearly distinguished here. The transition from a discussion of the message to one about the hearers of that message is marked by another de, “but,” and by the designation of the hearers as psuchikos anthropos, “natural man,” animalis homo.

In contrast to the Apostolic reception (lambano) of revelation (vs. 13), the natural man does not “welcome” or “accept with pleasure” (dechomai) the things of the Spirit of God.” This is not to argue that there are two systems of logic in the world, one for the converted and the other for the unconverted. Instead, the natural man has a cognition of this teaching which he then repudiates. Indeed, he must first know at least to some degree, what he then comes to despise.[37]

1 Cor 2:14 continues, “Neither can the natural man know (gnōnai) the things of God, because they are Spiritually discerned.” If a distinction is to be made between ginōskō, “to know,” as used here and oida, “know,” then ginōskō is not merely perceiving things, but “embracing things as they really are.”[38] Thus, the natural man neither welcomes nor embraces the realities found in the biblical text because they are “discerned” (anakrinō) that is, they are investigated and appraised to have a certain value or worth by a person who is aided by the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. Now the Spirit’s ministry is one of aiding the believer to apply, to see the value, worth, and significance of a text for his own person, situation, and times. But the natural man has, or wants, none of this help.

Accordingly, we must not confuse this activity of the Holy Spirit. His work does not offer the believer a short-cut which avoids the perspiration of grammatical, syntactical, historical, cultural, and theological exegesis. There is no royal road to interpreting the Scriptures. He does not infuse a meaning or meanings beyond what he has already taught to the writers when they combined spiritual truths with the appropriately taught spiritual words. But on the other hand, the Holy Spirit does, and, indeed, he must, aid me in assessing, appraising, and evaluating the word, value, application, and significance of that biblical truth with my need and my personal condition, my time, my family, my church, and my country and world. No wonder then that Paul asserts the spiritual man assesses (anakrinei) the totality of things—i.e., each one as it presents itself, including every situation, circumstance, and person he meets.

In verse 16, Paul placed the “but we” (hēmeis de) in a strong contrast with the “you all” (humeis) of 1 Cor 3:13. Thus, by virtue of the revelation and inspiration he had received from God’s Spirit, he sharply distinguished himself from the church. Paul’s final argument, as well as ours, can be expressed by making verse 16 into the following syllogism:

Who has known the mind of God?
But, I, as an apostle of Christ, know the mind of Christ,
for I have received it in words taught by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, let no one judge our mode of acting,
for to criticize us on this point is to criticize
the Master, himself.

Consequently, we conclude with Paul’s “all Scripture is inspired by God…in words taught not by human wisdom, but by the Holy Spirit.” There Paul stood and there, God helping us, we as the church of the twentieth century can do no less.

Notes

1. Archibald Alexander did contribute to this subject of inspiration, e.g., Evidences of the Authenticity, Inspiration and Canonical Authority of the Holy Scriptures. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1836), pp. 223-30. However, A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Rev ed.; New York: Robert Carter and Bros., 1879), pp. 77f, in an apparent allusion to Alexander’s use of such words as “superintendence,” “elevation,” “direction,” and “suggestion” judged them to be “defective statements of the doctrine.” I owe this reference to Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York: Harper and Row, 1979), p. 312, n. 51.
2. Charles Hodge, “Inspiration,” Princeton Review, 29 (October 1857), 660–98.
3. See for example, Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (tr. by Edwin W. Leverenz and Rudolph F. Norden; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1977) and its rebuttal in Peter Stuhlmacher, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture (tr. by Roy A. Harrisville; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
4. Very few people have seen this crisis in hermeneutics better than Emilio Betti and E. D. Hirsch. See E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967). See our own contribution and development of this thesis in articles entitled: “Legitimate Hermeneutics,” in Inerrancy (ed. Norman L. Geisler; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1979), pp. 115-47, 457–60; “Meanings From God’s Message: Matters For Interpretation,” Christianity Today, 22 (October 5, 1979), pp. 30-33; “The Single Intent of Scripture,” Evangelical Roots (ed. Kenneth Kantzer; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1978), pp. 123-41; and chapter II in my book Toward an Exegetical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981).
5. The most recent exposition of this opinion is by Paul A. Mickey (Duke Divinity School) in a paper entitled “A Process Perspective as an Option for Theology of Inspiration,” which was delivered and distributed at the joint annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature in New York City in November, 1979 (p. 7).
6. Mickey, ibid, p. 11. On p. 13, Mickey incorrectly argues, “To affirm that the author received and recorded God’s Word without even the possibility of error would be to place the author in a position above Christ. The Christological confessions affirm that Jesus was not exempt from the possibility of error” (emphasis ours). But, of course, the comparison is not equal, for it is the product of the writers, not the writers themselves that should be compared to the Christological model. Mickey has misunderstood Paul’s theopneustos as if it meant God “spirited” or “breathed-out” the biblical authors, when in truth it was the writings themselves which were breathed out. Thus to compare the Biblical writers, who surely were fallible as men, instead of their product surely misses the point of their claims and of the teaching of Scripture.
7. The Lausanne Congress (July 1974) devoted one seminar to “The Gospel, Cultural Contextualization, and Religious Syncretism.” In January, 1978 a commission of this congress met in Bermuda on “Contextualization and the Gospel.” But the issue is just as much at home in hermeneutics and theology as it is in missiology.
8. See our discussion in the “Legitimate Hermeneutics,” op. cit., pp. 139-44, and “Meanings from God’s Message,” loc. cit., pp. 31-32.
9. See a popular and polemical treatment in Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1978). We have already referred to the volume edited by Norman Geisler. The other side of the debate can be seen in the volume edited by Jack Rogers, Biblical Authority (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1977).
10. Hans Kung, Infallible? An Inquiry (tr. Edward Quinn; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 139ff; 181ff. But, as Donald Bloesch objects, this seems to leave the question of the Scriptures’ absolute normativeness in the church. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), p. 68.
11. Stephen T. Davis, The Debate About the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), p. 23.
12. Colleague Paul Feinberg, in his fine article “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in the above mentioned volume edited by Norman Geisler, gives a long list of theologians under this heading with full documentation, viz. Briggs, Berkouwer, Rogers, Hubbard, and Bloesch.
13. Terence P. McGonigal, “Every Scripture is Inspired: An Exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16–17, ” Studia Biblica et Theologica, 3 (1978), 53–64, especially pp. 53-54. He found the partitive sense preferred in N.T. usage over the collective sense by a margin of three to one. In the whole discussion which follows, I am indebted to McGonigal for the general outline of the discussion, even though we may differ on some minor points.
14. As cited by McGonigal, p. 63: A. T. Robertson., A Greek Grammar of the N.T. in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 1095.
15. Again, I owe this reminder of Warfield’s argument to McGonigal, p. 63: B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Philadelphia Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948), p. 247.
16. McGonigal, op. cit., p. 56, cites R. M. Spence’s study of twenty-one N.T. passages which exhibited 1) pas, + 2) a substantive, + 3) an adjective as in 2 Tim. 3:16, and he found that everyone except 2 Tim. 3:16 was translated attributively!
17. J. N. D. Kelley, The Pastoral Epistles (London: A.& C. Black, 1963), p. 203, as cited by McGonigal, p. 63, n. 29.
18. Most conveniently found in B. B. Warfield, “Inspiration,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, III (ed. James Orr; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1929), pp. 1473-74.
19. McGonigal, p. 60 lists three reasons: 1) the fourfold pros with the accusative normally already indicates purpose, so another purpose clause is unnecessary; 2) if hina is a purpose clause, it would seem to say that this was the sole purpose of Scripture—”to equip God’s minister for his work when vs. 15 has already given a salvific purpose; and 3) with four purposes already announced in the pros clauses, it is more natural for Paul to go on to state the results Scripture will bring about.
20. Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (tr. from the French by A. Cusin. Originally published in a T.& T. Clark, 1886 edition and often reprinted, e.g. by the Grand Rapids publisher, Zondervan Publishing House, 1957, in 2 vols. Our references will be to vol. I of this Zondervan reprint. F. L. Godet was professor of N.T. exegesis in the Free Evangelical faculty of Neuchâtel, from 1873–1887).
21. F. L. Godet, 1 Corinthians, I, 131.
22. Godet, op. cit., p. 147. Yet when he used the verb kērussein, “preached,” in 2 Cor 1:19, he explicitly included Silvanus and Timothy along with himself in the “we” (ho en humin di hēmōn kēruchthēis, “who was preached among you by us”).
23. 0n this most difficult concept, see Paul’s definition of “mystery” in Rom 16:25.
24. Godet, p. 138, correctly complains that on this alleged construction the article tēn would need to appear before the adjunct en mustēriō. Also, what then would the adjunct “in a mystery” add to the perfect participle, “hidden”?
25. A number of commentators (e.g., Erasmus, Meyer in his last edition, Heinrici, etc.) make ha, “things which,” the object of the verb laloumen, “we speak”; cf. vs. 7. But, once again Paul is not trying to point out what he is speaking among the perfect, but to demonstrate “the nature of that wisdom to be sublime and inaccessible to man.” Godet, p. 142. Neither can ha begin a new sentence and depend on the verb “he revealed” in vs. 10, for the de, “but,” of vs. 10 would oppose this.
26. This, of course, is a quote from Isaiah 64:6 and 65:17. See Godet, pp. 142-44, for a full discussion of the matter and for contrary claims.
27. Charles J. Ellicott, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (originally published in London, 1887, but is now reprinted in Minneapolis by the James Family, n.d.), p. 41.
28. Contrast Revelation 2:24, “the deep things of Satan” (ta bathea tou Satana).
29. Note the tis of amplification or explanation in vs. 11.
30. Godet correctly argues on p. 149, “If Paul meant to speak in verse 10 of the working of the Divine Spirit dwelling in man [kind] to penetrate the Divine decrees, how would he compare this working in verse 11 with that of man’s spirit searching what passes within himself? The two compared relations would be incommensurate.”
31. Contrary to the discussion of most commentators, including Godet, pp. 150-53, it interrupts the context without any warrant or grammatical justification to switch from a discussion of the apostle to believers in general.
32. Godet, p. 153 (emphases are his).
33. Godet, pp. 153-54. Cf. also the same connection of the genitives with the adjective “taught” in Christian F. Kling, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (New York: Charles Scribner & Co., 1868), p. 61. See also agreement on this same point in Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Corinthians (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884), pp. 54-55.
34. H. A. W. Meyer, p. 55; also C. F. Kling, p. 61.
35. C. F. Kling, p. 61.
36. C. J. Ellicott, p. 45. Ellicott recognizes the legitimacy of translating sunkrinontes as “comparing,” “explaining,” or “interpreting” in other contexts, but argues against the appropriateness of their use here. The meaning “to explain” comes from the context of six LXX passages (Gen 40:8, 16, 22; 41:12, 15; Dan 5:12) and not from the essential meaning of the word itself. Also, the context does not refer to any comparison or elucidation based on comparisons of spiritual things, but to the form, “words taught.”
37. See the fine statement of Godet, p. 159; also the excellent discussion on this verse by Dan Fuller, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Interpretation,” in Scripture, Tradition and Interpretation (ed. by W. Ward Gasque and W. S. LaSor; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 190-93.
38. D. Fuller, p. 191, citing TDNT I, 690.