Part 3: Bibliology

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

II. Inspiration

Introduction

The theological use of the term Inspiration is a reference to that controlling influence which God exerted over the human authors by whom the Old and New Testament were written. It has to do with the reception of the divine message and the accuracy with which it is transcribed. Whatever concerns the origin of the message itself belongs, as has been seen, to the larger field of Revelation. Since as a revelation God has spoken and the divinely given capacity of man to receive a message from God has been exercised, all human thought and action is now subject to that stabilizing message which God has given. In place of man’s native agnosticism, born of his fallen human limitations, a God-given Revelation is bequeathed to man in a permanent, written form which not only expands the field of man’s knowledge into the realms of infinity, but serves ever as a corrective of those fallible, shifting fancies and theories which human ignorance unceasingly engenders. Happy, indeed, is the regenerate man who listens attentively and submissively to the Word of God. The divine message serves to give form and substance to every doctrine and to none more effectively than to that of Inspiration. A babel of voices, hopelessly discordant in their relation to each other and unified only in the one feature that they are opposed to the sublime doctrine of Inspiration which the Bible sets forth, has characterized every generation of recent centuries. An examination of many books that have been written in the past century and which treat of the doctrine of Inspiration discloses the fact that whether of one generation or another each author, in turn, reveals the occurrence that, at the time of his writing, an irreconcilable conflict was on which had reached, what seemed to him to be, a crisis between those who defend and those who oppose the long-accepted beliefs touching the inspiration of the Scriptures. This is revealing; indicating as it does, the pertinacious opposition which the natural man—scholar though he may be—exerts against all things supernatural.

Without doubt it is the supernatural element, which constitutes the very warp and woof of the Bible doctrine of Inspiration, that not only gives to it its distinctive and exalted character but also repels the spiritually darkened mind of the unregenerate man—a darkness which is in no way relieved by human learning. The scholar who finds it easier to believe that when inanimate matter by accident became “complex enough and in appropriate collection, living organisms may have emerged,” and that those organisms, in turn, “developed by inherent spontaneity into rational human beings,” than to believe that God created man in His own image and likeness—and only because there is a superficial show of supposed natural processes in the former which relieves the burden of the obvious supernatural element which is the very substance of the latter—, such a scholar will resent the teaching that God has spoken to man and that this message has been, under the guidance of God, transcribed into infallible writings.

Devout men-some of great seholarship-have always agreed in the main as to the inerrant and supernatural qualities of the Bible. This belief has become distinguished as “the traditional view,” or “the doctrine of the church.” This harmony of belief on the part of devout men is not the concord of ignorance since ignorance is incapable of concord. It is due to the fact that the norm of truth concerning Bible inspiration exists and, having discovered that norm, men are automatically of one mind. Outside that norm only wrangling dissonance will ever be heard. The following from

Dr. B. B. Warfield tends greatly to the clarifying of this subject: “The church-doctrine of inspiration differs from the theories that would fain supplant it, in that it is not the invention nor the property of an individual, but the settled faith of the universal church of God; in that it is not the growth of yesterday, but the assured persuasion of the people of God from the first planting of the church until today; in that it is not a Protean shape, varying its affirmations to fit every new change in the ever-shifting thought of men, but from the beginning has been the church’s constant and abiding conviction as to the divinity of the Scriptures committed into her keeping. It is certainly a most impressive fact,—this well-defined, aboriginal, stable doctrine of the church as to the nature and trustworthiness of the Scriptures of God, which confronts with its gentle but steady persistence of affirmation all the theories of inspiration which the restless energy of unbelieving and half-believing speculation has been able to invent in this agitated nineteenth century of ours. Surely the seeker after the truth in the matter of the inspiration of the Bible may well take the church doctrine as his starting point.”[1]

Could it be demonstrated that the Bible advances no doctrine as to its own inspiration, men might be justified in an attempt to formulate a so-called “theory of inspiration.” But the Bible is especially clear and convincing as to the character of its own inspiration. Its teaching upon this, as upon all major doctrines, challenges the student to vigilant research. It is, however, one thing to give devout, analytical study to the comprehensive doctrine of Inspiration as disclosed in the Bible, being amenable to every word God has spoken on this aspect of truth, and quite another thing to ignore what God has spoken and upon a rationalistic basis to invent a “theory.” In fact, the Bible presents no theory regarding its own inspiration which—not unlike the liberalist’s notion that Christianity must take its place among comparative religions—is called upon to compete with humanly devised schemes. The irrelevance which obtains between revelation and reason is as conspicuous in the field of inspiration as elsewhere, and the theologue must be reminded again that his task is not that of creation or origination of doctrine but rather the induction and scientific arrangement of the truth bearing on this theme which God has been pleased to reveal. To reaffirm: The question is not what men—even great scholars—think is a workable theory as to the manner in which the Bible was written; it is what the Bible declares concerning itself.

It will be conceded that God is able to produce a book which is verbally accurate, the precise statement in every particular of His own thought. Such a book the Bible, as originally written, claims to be. However, in the light of this statement—confessedly dogmatic—, certain problems arise:

1. The Fact and Importance of Inspiration

There is need of a clear understanding of the precise contribution inspiration makes to the whole divine purpose in revelation. As previously demonstrated, inspiration is not revelation. At best, inspiration can only receive the message and add the element of accuracy to the sacred writings, which writings are that body of truth God has revealed. In the following section of Bibliology, which deals with Canonicity and Authority, it will be demonstrated that the authority of the Bible’s message does not depend upon inspiration. However, there is no implication to be drawn from these requisite distinctions that the fact of inspiration in both its verbal and plenary forms, is not momentous. Revelation, Inspiration, and Authority are Bible doctrines, closely related, yet unconfused; each supplying an immeasurable offering to the grand actuality-the message of God to man.

Though the preservation of truth in unerring writings is of untold value to all generations, much that enters into the Scriptures existed before any record was made, and the recording of the realities adds nothing to this substance. If the great essentials of revelation existed only in their written form they would be classed properly as so much fiction, regardless of the perfection of the literature by which they were expressed. Similarly, unfulfilled prophecy, though now wholly dependent on its written form, must, nevertheless, eventuate in actual occurrence.

Granting that God has a body of truth which He would enjoin upon man, it is not difficult to recognize the importance of an inerrant record of that body of truth. Nor is it a matter of surprise that an increasing pressure is exerted first from one group and then another to break down the Bible’s own testimony regarding its inspiration. That doctrine of Inspiration, which the church has held in all her generations, abides; not because its defenders are able to shout louder than their opponents, nor by virtue of any human defence, but because of the fact that it is embedded within the Divine Oracles themselves. Since it is so embedded in the Oracles of God, no saint or apostle could do otherwise than to believe the word God has spoken. It may be observed, therefore, that to hold the traditional belief regarding inspiration is not necessarily a blind support of a “lost cause,” or a retreat to the Romish position that a thing is true because the church propounds it; it is a recognition and acceptance of the Bible’s teaching and that belief brings one into the “goodly fellowship of the apostles and prophets.”

Little space need be given to quotation from the writings of the opponents of verbal and plenary inspiration. They have in the majority of cases admitted either directly or indirectly that the men who wrote the Scriptures held the traditional belief as to inspiration. Some admit that Christ may have held that view. Under these conditions it is necessary for these opponents to contend that the human authors were either deceived or were themselves deceivers. A very brief review of these arguments is introduced at this point:

a. In one conception a distinction is drawn between the supposed beliefs of Christ and those of the apostles. Christ is pictured as opposed to the apostles and seeking to save them from the erroneous tradition of the Jews, which traditions included the belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. It is declared boldly: “We conclude that the Redeemer did not share the conception of His Israelitish contemporaries as to the inspiration of the Bible..., from the fact that He repeatedly expressed His dissatisfaction with the manner usual among them of looking upon and using the sacred books. He tells the scribes to their face that they do not understand the Scriptures (Matt 22:29; Mark 12:24), and that it is delusion for them to think to possess eternal life in them, therefore in a book (John 5:39), even as he also (in the same place) seems to speak disapprovingly of their searching the Scriptures, because it proceeds from such a perverted point of view.”[2] As to the two passages offered in evidence, the former was addressed to the scribes and not to the apostles and there is no evidence that such a criticism could be with any reason directed toward those of the apostles who wrote the New Testament or any who did not write. Whatever may be the interpretation of the phrase in the latter passage—“for in them ye think ye have eternal life”—, there is the clearest assurance that the Scriptures of the Old Testament “are they which testify” of Christ (cf. Luke 24:27). Thus the apostles are discredited, but an effort is made to extricate Christ from the indefensible tradition by which the apostles are supposed to have been bound. By a baseless assumption, Christ is presented as entertaining a liberality and looseness in doctrine in harmony with that which Rothe himself exhibits, and this in turn is made the occasion of a call, “Back to Christ!” which, in this and every other instance, means come away from the tradition-bound apostles to the modernized Christ.

b. Again, an argument is advanced against the doctrine as held by the apostles which is to the effect that the apostles thought the Jewish tradition of the inerrancy of the Scriptures was untenable, yet they accommodated their language though contrary to their own beliefs, to the insuperable prejudices of their day. To quote: “The New Testament writers were completely dominated by the spirit of the age, so that their testimony on the question of Scripture inspiration possesses no independent value.”[3]

c. Likewise, it is contended that the apostles were “ignorant men” (Acts 4:13) and were therefore predisposed to error, and that Christ himself, on His human side, could have known little more than was current in His day. It is intimated that He could have had no access to the scientific verifications of these modern times and therefore could rise no higher than the level of thought which characterized His own day. What hope is there of concord between two schools of thought, one of which freely questions the authority even of Christ on the ground of a baseless claim that He was, because of His humanity, as fallible and ignorant as other men, while the other ascribes to Him all the omniscience of the Godhead Three? As for the Apostle Paul, his views, though much influenced by Jewish tradition, were not stated dogmatically, it is claimed, and therefore carry little weight.

d. Finally, much is made of alleged “contradictions,” “inaccuracies,” and “inconsistencies.” It is pointed out with much assurance that an inerrant book could present no such problems. But who is the judge? If the Bible contains errors as seen by God, the case would be serious; if it contains errors as seen by men, the difficulty may be wholly accounted for in the sphere of human misunderstandings. The latter possibility is but little in evidence in the writings of the opposers of the Bible doctrine of Inspiration. The Spirit of God has declared “Every word of God is pure” (Prov 30:5); “The words of Jehovah are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Ps 12:6); “The law of Jehovah is perfect converting the soul” (Ps 19:7); and, “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of Jehovah is tried” (Ps 18:30). Confronted with such statements as these, a man of reason and candor will at least give some consideration to the possibility that the supposed errors in the Bible might seem to be such because of human limitations.

There are difficulties which do arise in the study of the text of Scripture. In the nineteenth century, Biblical criticism advanced many objections to the credibility of the Bible which, it was claimed, learned research brought to light. The publishing of these claims proved a stimulus to faithful men who were minded to defend the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Along with their research came the findings of archaeology; all of which have gone a long way both as a refutation of so-called “errors,” and as a demonstration of the fact that, with sufficient light, so-called “discrepancies” disappear. The part archaeology has played in this so-important and far-reaching achievement cannot be estimated; and, we are assured, this demonstration of the accuracy of the Word of God will go on to even greater confirmation of the Bible. It is suggestive at least that research and archaeology have strengthened the claims of the opposer at no point, but have served in every case to confirm the teachings of the Scriptures. Many worthy volumes have been written which set forth the results of recent investigation. These the student should read with exceptional care. Of these supposed errors, Dr. Charles Hodge wrote, even three generations ago, that “for the most part they are trivial,” “only apparent,” and there are few indeed that are “of any real importance.”

A difference is to be observed between objections and difficulties. The former, if they existed, might serve to deter one from espousing the doctrine involved. The latter does not tend to the same end. If one holds objections to the doctrine of Redemption he will in all probability turn from that doctrine as a whole; whereas, though there are difficulties in the doctrine such as no finite mind has ever solved, the way of life may be entered and its eternal values claimed in spite of the difficulties. In such a case, the individual humbly declares that, though he cannot understand all that is involved, he recognizes that all facts concerning the doctrine are doubtless capable of being harmonized and comprehended where sufficient understanding exists. Especially is one encouraged thus to believe when the doctrine is seen to stand every proper test put upon it. Concerning the doctrine of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration, it is equally reasonable and it is advantageous to stand where the devout men of all generations, including Christ and the apostles, have stood, and from that position to face and seek to solve such difficulties as may arise.

Aside from the definite claim of the Bible as to its verbal, plenary inspiration, there are two important considerations, namely, (a) The Scriptures are in themselves a phenomenon of such a character—presenting truth on so vast a scale and so marvelous that the added claim to divine accuracy appears, a fortiori, as a necessary corollary to the whole. Such surpassing revelation could hardly be presented in its perfection of form apart from divine inspiration. And (b) the men who served as human authors of the books of the Bible were in themselves trustworthy witnesses. As such, they are to be credited whether they speak under inspiration or not. These men were not deceived nor were they deceivers. Apart from the claims of inspiration, the basis of faith remains, established, as it is, by credible witnesses. Their claim to inspiration cannot be discredited until the witnesses are discredited. Similarly, it is no small evidence in the case that the human authors—and there were upwards of forty of them extending over a period of 1600 years—, whether inspired or not, are in perfect agreement as to the things which they teach; nor has one of them at any time recorded one intimation that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God written.

The question at issue is not new. It has appeared in past generations and will appear in succeeding generations so long as unbelief is in the world. It is a question as to what is to be accepted—the teachings of the Bible, or the teachings of men.

2. Dual Authorship

By the term Dual Authorship, two facts are indicated, namely, that, on the divine side, the Scriptures are the Word of God in the sense that they originate with Him and are the expression of His mind alone; and, on the human side, certain men have been chosen of God for the high honor and responsibility of receiving God’s Word and transcribing it into written form. Granting that it is God’s purpose to place His Word in written form into the hands of men, the method He has employed to do this is the natural way in which it would be done. However, the employment of human authors has created many problems. It seems reasonable to conclude that the product of a dual authorship could not be the inerrant Word of God if human authors have ought to do with it. Since He combines in hypostatic union both the divine and human natures, the same question is propounded concerning the Theanthropic Person of our Lord. Does not the merging of a human nature into His unique Being introduce all the restrictions and limitations into that Being Which are resident in humanity? Few, indeed, will contend that any Person of the Godhead is not perfect, or that any word God speaks will not be as pure as He is pure. The element of doubt intrudes whenever and wherever the human element is combined with that which is divine.

The term Λόγος (Logos-Word) is used in the New Testament about two hundred times to indicate God’s Word written, and seven times to indicate the Son of God-the Living Word of God (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1; 5:7; Rev 19:13); and it is important to recognize that in either of these forms of the Logos both the divine and human elements appear in supernatural union. These two forms of the Logos are subject to various comparisons: They are, alike, the Truth (John 14; 6; 17:17); Everlasting (Ps 119:89; Matt 24:34, 35; 1 Pet 1:25); Life (John 11:25; 14:6; 1 Pet 1:23; 1 John 1:1); Saving (Acts 16:31; 1 Cor 15:2); Purifying (Titus 2:14; 1 Pet 1:22); Sanctifying (John 17:17; Heb 10:14); Beget Life (1 Pet 1:23; Jas 1:18); Judge (John 6:26, 27; 12:48); Glorified (Romans 15:9; Acts 13:48). While Theology is the θεολογία (theologia, or ology of God), the Λόγος of God is the expression of God—whether it be in Living or Written form.

Basing its confidence on such Scriptures as Luke 1:35 which reports the angels word to Mary—“That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”—, and Hebrews 4:15 where it is said that Christ, the perfect High Priest, was in all points tempted like as we are—sin apart, that is, apart from temptations which arise from a sin-nature—, the church has with full justification believed that Christ, the Living Logos, was not only free from the practice of sin, but was also free from the sin-nature, and that the perfection of His Deity was in no way injured by its union with His humanity. In like manner and with the same justification, the church has believed that the perfection of God’s Word has been preserved, even though written by human authors.

The parallel between the Living Logos and the Written Logos is sustained only to a limited degree. There are important dissimilarities as well. An inerrant Book, though produced by the Holy Spirit and though living and active, being used by Him, is far removed from the unending incarnation of the Son of God into union with His own identified and unfallen humanity. There is no hypostatic union or conjunction of natures in the Written Logos; in fact, there is a wide difference to be noted: whereas the humanity of Christ was unfallen and in no way subject to the Adamic nature, the human authors of the Bible were fallen men whose sin is without hesitation recorded in the Sacred Text. In the case of the Living Logos, the human nature could never sin, since it could never act outside its relation to the divine nature. In the case of the Written Logos, the human element was held to the one and only task of an inspired writing which in no way tended to govern the human author’s personal conduct, nor did the task itself continue beyond the time required to complete it. In the writing of the Scriptures the human authors wrote in such freedom as to leave the evidence of their personal human characteristics; yet these authors did not fall into errors being, as they were during the time of their writing, not allowed to act apart from, or contrary to the precise mind of God, whose Word they wrote. They were literally “moved,” or borne along, by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21).

If the truth regarding inspiration is to be given full recognition, both the divine and human authorships must be seen and accepted in their plenitude. God was the sole Author of the Decalogue when it was written by His finger on tables of stone. The element of inspiration and dual authorship appeared when Moses, with the accuracy which inspiration secures, transcribed the Decalogue into the Exodus manuscript. On the other hand, every word of the Bible is of human authorship. It is man’s composition, which feature of inspiration is of great importance.

It is perhaps a weakness due to the fall that man seems never able to preserve a balance of truth but tends to swing from one extreme to the other. This proclivity is exhibited toward the Theanthropic Person of Christ. Some swing to the right and so emphasize His Deity as to disregard His humanity, while others swing to the left and so emphasize His humanity as to ignore and dishonor His Deity. The truth concerning Christ’s Theanthropic Person is discovered when, quite apart from man’s ability or disability to understand all that is involved, each of the two natures of Christ is recognized in its entirety. Thus, also, and in like manner, the truth respecting inspiration is discovered when, quite apart from man’s ability or disability to understand all that is involved, each of the two authorships is recognized in its undiminished, intrinsic character. The Bible is not of man as to its source, nor does man contribute any feature of infallibility or authority to it. It is, however, through man as the medium or instrument. This medium or instrument is a living, voluntary, and intelligent factor in its production. Doubtless men could better grasp the idea of authorship of the Bible if it came to them either as the sole work of men—a collection of human notions, desires, and guesses which even the wisest of men might compose—; or as an edict from God-written only and directly by the finger of God. Similarly, the difficulty would be relieved if the Bible were declared to be of two authorships in the sense that some parts of it were the sole product of God and some the sole product of men; thus coalescing only to the extent that the two messages are bound in one volume. Practically every “theory” of Inspiration is an exhibition of one or another of these natural tendencies. It is in the way of truth, though somewhat more difficult, to observe and respect the dual authorship of the Bible giving to each its full, inherent, and undiminished import. Having proven the divine authorship of the Scriptures, it is natural, when attempting to protect the purity of the same, to contend that the human authors were mere pens in the hand of God, and not penmen; that they without volition and as automatons wrote only as the words were dictated to them. Such a conception degrades the human authorship to the vanishing point. On the other hand, having proven the human authorship, it is natural, when attempting to conserve the importance of the same, to contend that the Scriptures are as given to limitation and error as would be the product of any human author. This latter line of reasoning may be expanded thus: If there is a human element in the writings, it must be fallible, and if it is fallible it might be, to any degree, inaccurate and untrue.

Though there are secondary suggestions and variations proposed, there are but four primary classifications of opinion with respect to inspiration. These are: (a) The Bible is of divine authorship almost exclusively; (b) The Bible is of human authorship almost exclusively; (c) The Bible is in some parts almost exclusively divine and in other parts almost exclusively human; and (d) The divine and human authorship are both without impairment to either wholly present in every word from the first to the last. The final of these four classifications is here declared to be the true representation of the fact of inspiration. This solution is doubtless to the natural man more burdened with difficulties than all the other three put together, and only because of the preponderance of the supernatural element in it. Manifestly, the Person of Christ would be more easily comprehended under the Apollinarian hypothesis that He is almost wholly divine, or under the Arian conception that He is almost wholly human. But, regardless of these difficulties to the natural man which the supernatural element introduces, the Scriptures present a Theanthropic Person in whom both the divine and human natures subsist each in its undiminished fullness. Thus it is with the dual authorship of the Written Word of God.

If the conjunction of two authorships involved logical contradictions or the compounding of opposing principles, objection might be advanced against it. But in the case of the dual authorship of the Scriptures the elements which coalesce are the same in nature, and by divine arrangement are made to converge into none other than the Written Oracles of God. If this combined authorship cannot be understood it can be believed. In all matters supernatural, men are unable to understand, but they are able to believe. “He who refuses to believe what he cannot understand will have a short creed.” We are not able to explain the mode of union of the authorships, nor are we free to solve the problem by rejecting its claims. Philip Schaff has written: “The Bible is thoroughly human, though without error, in contents and form, in the mode of its rise, its compilation, its preservation and transmission; yet at the same time thoroughly divine, both in its thoughts and words, in its origin, vitality, energy, and effect.”[4]

So-called “theories” of inspiration are the attempts men of varying faith have made to frame a relationship between these two authorships. Some of these “theories” are here presented:

a. The Mechanical or Dictation Theory.

Had God dictated the Scriptures to men, the style and writing would be uniform. It would be the diction and vocabulary of the divine Author, and free from the idiosyncrasies of men (cf. 2 Pet 3:15, 16). All evidence of interest on the part of the human authors would be wanting (cf. Rom 9:1–3). It is true that the human authors did not always realize the purport of their writings. Moses could hardly have known the typical significance latent in the history of Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, or of the typology of Christ hidden in his description of the tabernacle which he wrote according to the pattern that was showed him in the mount. He could not have understood why no reference should be made to the parents, or the beginning or ending of days, of Melchisedec (Heb 7:1–3). A message which is dictated is obviously the product of the one who dictates; but if one is left free to write in behalf of another and then it is discovered that, while written according to his own feelings, style, and vocabulary, he has recorded the precise message of the one in whose behalf he wrote and as perfectly as though it had been dictated by that one, the conviction is engendered that a supernatural accomplishment has been wrought. Under this arrangement, the human author is given full scope for his authorship, yet, the exalted message is itself secured. The result is as complete as dictation could make it; but the method, though not lacking in that mystery which always accompanies the supernatural is more in harmony with God’s ways of dealing with men, in which He uses, rather than disannuls, their wills. There is no intimation that God ever dictated any message to man other than that which Moses transcribed when in Jehovah’s presence in the holy mount. This theory is easily classified as one in which the divine authorship is emphasized almost to the point of exclusion of the human authorship.

b. Partial Inspiration.

According to this conception, inspiration reaches only to doctrinal teachings and precepts, to truths unknowable by the human authors. Thus the objective in all inspiration—to secure inerrant writings—is denied to certain parts of the Bible. It matters nothing as to what the human author may have previously known, inspiration secures accuracy in all that he wrote. This theory is an assumption which finds no support in the Bible. It is obvious that it tends to separate the two authorships.

c. Degrees of Inspiration.

The postulate that there are degrees of inspiration is a theory which has claimed many supporters. Advocates of this theory attempt to classify the degrees they propose by such words as “suggestion,” “direction,” “elevation,” “superintendency,” “guidance,” and “direct revelation.” Though the Scriptures yield little encouragement to such distinctions, these distinctions do offer a wide field for the play of the imagination and for speculation, the value of which, at best, is most doubtful. This theory is classed as one in which some parts of the Bible are claimed to be inspired to a greater degree than others; giving latitude for the contention to be made that the Bible is infested with errors. The two authorships are acknowledged, but are not always conceived of as in coalition in any given text.

d. The Concept and not the Words are Inspired.

This hypothesis attempts to conceive of thoughts apart from words; the theory being that God imparted ideas but left the human author free to express them in his own language. Quite apart from the fact that ideas are not transferable by any other medium than words, this scheme ignores the immeasurable importance of words in any message. Even a legal document which men execute over trivial matters may depend wholly upon one word therein. Almost every covenant and promise contained in the Bible depends for its force and value upon one of the words used. Exegetical study of the Scriptures in the original languages is a study of words. It is to the one end that the concept may be gained from the words rather than that unimportant words represent a concept. Apart from verbal inspiration reaching to the words, exegetical study is at an end. The Bible, when referring to its message, never calls attention to a mere concept; it rather speaks of its message as committed to man in the words which the Holy Spirit teacheth (1 Cor 2:13). Christ said, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63), and, “I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me” (John 17:8). “And God spake all these words, saying” (Exod 20:1). Such clear teaching of the Scriptures as to the significance of the specific words which are used is disclosed in hundreds of Bible texts.

e. Natural Inspiration.

As there have been exceptional artists, musicians, and poets who have produced masterpieces which have not been excelled, it is contended by the proponents of this theory that there have been exceptional men of spiritual insight who, because of their native gifts, were able to write the Scriptures. This is the lowest notion of inspiration and emphasizes the human authorship to the exclusion of the divine. One writer states: “Inspiration is only a higher potency of what every man possesses in some degree.” To this another has replied: “The inspiration of everybody is equivalent to the inspiration of nobody.” The main objective in all Bible inspiration—to secure divine accuracy for every portion of it—is wholly wanting according to this opinion.

f. Mystical Inspiration.

Since Christians are empowered of God for their various task—God working in them “both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13)—, it is held by some that, in like manner, the human authors were enabled to write the Scriptures. If this theory were true, any Christian might at any time by special divine energy write Scripture. The defenders of this scheme are evidently not concerned with the basis on which the authority of the Bible rests. Schleiermacher, who was himself a genius of no small magnitude, is probably responsible for the more general dissemination of this view of inspiration. His statement is that inspiration is “an awakening and excitement of the religious consciousness, different in degree rather than in kind from the pious inspiration or intuitive feelings of holy men.” Of the influence of Schleiermacher upon the general beliefs concerning inspiration, Dr. B. B. Warfield, writing of the mystical view of inspiration, states: “Very varied forms have been taken by this conception; and more or less expression has been given to it, in one form or another, in every age. In its extreme manifestations, it has formerly tended to sever itself from the main stream of Christian thought and even to form separate sects. But in our own century, the nineteenth, through the great genius of Schleiermacher it has broken in upon the church like a flood, and washed into every corner of the Protestant world. As a consequence, we find men everywhere who desire to acknowledge as from God only such Scriptures as ‘finds them,’—who cast the clear objective enunciation of God’s will to the mercy of the currents of thought and feeling which sweep up and down in their own souls,—who ‘persist’ sometimes, to use a sharp but sadly true phrase of Robert Alfred Vaughan’s, ‘in their conceited rejection of the light without until they have turned into darkness their light within!’ ...Despite these attempts to introduce lower conceptions, the doctrine of plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, which looks upon them as an oracular book, in all its parts and elements, alike, of God, trustworthy in all its affirmations of every kind, remains today, as it has always been, the vital faith of the people of God, and the formal teaching of the organized church.”[5]

Under the stress of the mystical theory of inspiration, the divine authorship is submerged by the emphasis which is placed on the human authorship. It appears only as the usual and general spiritual insight vouchsafed to all believers in degrees which vary according to their personal relation to God.

g. Verbal, Plenary Inspiration.

By Verbal inspiration is meant that, in the original writings, the Spirit guided in the choice of the words used. However, the human authorship was respected to the extent that their own characteristics are preserved, their style and vocabulary are employed, but without the intrusion of error.

By Plenary inspiration is meant that the accuracy which verbal inspiration secures, is extended to every portion of the Bible so that it is in all its parts both infallible as to truth and final as to divine authority. This, as has been stated, is the traditional doctrine of the church and that set forth by Christ and the Apostles. This teaching preserves the dual authorship in a perfect balance, ascribing to each that consideration which is accorded it in the Bible.

Certain citations where dual authorship is recognized are here given: The command, “Honor thy father and thy mother” bears the authority of “God said” in Matthew 15:4; but in Mark 7:10 Christ introduces the words “Moses said.” In like manner Psalm 110:1 may be compared with, Mark 12:36, 37; Exodus 3:6, 15 with Matthew 22:31; Luke 20:37 with Mark 12:26; Isaiah 6:10 with Acts 28:25; John 12:39–41; Acts 1:16 with Acts 4:25. Certain passages, and there are many, combine a reference to both authorships in the one passage: Acts 1:16; 4:25; Matthew 1:22; 2:15 (R.V.). The Holy Spirit is declared to be the voice speaking through the Psalms as quoted in Hebrews 3:7–11; through the Law—Hebrews 9:8; and the Prophets—10:15.

Referring to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Olhausen writes: “In this remarkable Epistle, God, or the Holy Spirit, is continually named as the speaker in the passages quoted from the Old Testament; and this not merely in those of which it is said in the context of the Old Testament Scriptures, ‘God said,’ but also in those in which some human being speaks, e.g. David, as composer of the Psalms. In this the view of the author clearly expresses itself as to the Old Testament and its writers. He regarded God as the principle that lived, and wrought, and spoke in them all by His Holy Spirit; and accordingly Holy Scripture was to him a pure work of God, although announced to the world by men.”[6]

Conclusion

The human side of the dual authorship of the Scriptures is rendered exceedingly complex by the fact that upwards of forty men partake in this incomparable service. In other books than the Bible, human authorship stands alone, but God has exerted His own power by thus working through many writers; yet He has preserved the unity of His revelation, and, at the same time, demonstrated His control over men of varying degrees of authorship qualifications. The human imagination could hardly visualize what the Bible would have been had it been the work of one man. All men are not naturally historians, or poets, or logicians. To secure Scripture which incorporates such diversity of literary features, God evidently employs the personal talents of the human authors, selecting them according to their natural ability for the task He commits to them. Moses the historian, David the sweet singer, and Paul the logician, are examples. When—following the death and resurrection of Christ and the Day of Pentecost—the new system of truth which is termed Christianity was to be developed and introduced, God did not draft one of the twelve who, because of three and a half years of association with Christ, would naturally have been selected, but, having called him out from his unregenerate state by salvation, He prepared and used the greatest intellect of his generation, if not of all generations. But whether it be Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, John, or Paul, the standardized fact abides that, apart from the form of literature they produced and their personal qualifications for the same, the individual human author wrote in its purity the sublime message which was committed unto him, and the whole of these writings—unique as it is because of its dual authorship—constitutes the Oracles of God.

A triune statement by Dr. Basil Manly is all inclusive on the fact of the dual authorship of the Scripture:

(a) The Bible is truly the Word of God, having both infallible truth and divine authority in all that it affirms and enjoins.

(b) The Bible is truly the product of men. It is marked by all the evidences of human authorship as clearly and certainly as any other book that was ever written by men.

(c) This two-fold authorship extends to every part of Scripture, and to the language as well as to the general ideas expressed.

Or it may be summed up in one single statement: “The whole Bible is truly God’s word written by men.”[7]

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Notes

1. Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 51, 1894.
2. Richard Rothe, Zur Dogmatik, p. 177.
3. Stewart, The Principles of Christianity, p. 345.
4. History of the Christian Church, Vol. I, p. 93.
5. Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 51, 1894.
6. Die Echtheit des N.T., p. 170.
7. Bible Doctrine of Inspiration, p. 90.