Bovine Droppings in the House of Prayer - 4. Verbal Inspiration

It does appear that the first several papers in this series all concern Scripture. This is another, and there will be at least one more. However, concerns about the Bible are not the only concerns to be numbered among my pet peeves. Patience, there will be other themes, but meanwhile, let’s begin with two texts:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Scripture claims for itself and every conservative, historic, or traditional Christian affirms, that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and constitutes the written Word of God. This, obviously, is true for “Sola Scriptura” Protestants, but can equally be affirmed of Roman Catholics whose reliance on “Scripture and Tradition” still ends up giving Scripture the place of preeminence; and it is equally true of Eastern Orthodox who speak of Scripture as a part of Holy Tradition, but yet treat it as the most important deposit of that tradition.
So it has always been. The Apostles’ Creed does not mention Scripture, but is largely a pastiche of Scriptural phrases. The Nicene Creed mentions Scripture in passing (Jesus rose again “according to the scriptures”; and the Holy Ghost “spake by the prophets”), with an assumption of their authority. The Fathers and every notable writer through the centuries of the early church and the middle ages constantly quoted scripture and affirmed its divine character. The Reformers based their case on Scripture, and the counter-reformation answered with Scripture. Scripture, beyond all debate, was God-breathed, inspired.
However, for a millennium-and-a-half this fact of inspiration was scarcely defined at all. Simply knowing that God had spoken in these writings was sufficient. Truly, prior to the Reformation there doesn’t seem to have been a theory of inspiration at all, and no lack was felt, and what theories were advanced at the Reformation were still a bit sketchy. In actuality, it was not until the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as a response to burgeoning modernism, that the doctrine of inspiration became laden with the heavy burden of verbiage now so fervently insisted upon and argued over. I tend to consider, even under the provocations of the modernist heresies, that this excrescence of more and more detailed terminology is not only not necessary, but absolutely harmful, picking fights in the wrong places and causing orthodox Christians to look a bit foolish, and this without truly adding anything constructive to the ancient doctrine of inspiration. My purpose here is to discuss a few of these terms, and hopefully lay them to rest.
Verbal Inspiration

What precisely is meant by the phrase ‘verbal inspiration’? It certainly is bandied about with great freedom and insisted upon with great vehemence, but just what does it mean? Well, any theory of inspiration of Scripture has to take into account that the Word of God is only expressed by words, and that therefore inspiration has to be inspiration of the words used, or ‘verbal inspiration’. Truly the words used by the Scriptural authors can be seen as inspired words, chosen under God’s prompting to express what God wished to have expressed.
‘Modernists’ and ‘Liberals’ tend to see the Bible as a book like other books, to be accepted or not, in full or in part, insofar as it appears to express truth (as truth is judged by the reader). Inspiration, by them, would be seen, perhaps, as no more than the ‘inspiration’ of a gifted artist or poet painting or writing beauty from the depths of his heart; or, perhaps, there might be a recognition of divine inspiration in the sense that the writers were in touch with God through the impartation of some spark of divine illumination, and reflected this in their writing. This, obviously is not ‘verbal inspiration’, and the phrase could usefully be employed to exclude such a minimalist view. The inspiration of Scripture is manifestly something different and superior to that of, say, Shakespeare or Milton, but is truly God’s chosen means of expressing His own thoughts.
If that were the full meaning of the phrase, one could be content to use it, but such is not the case. “Verbal inspiration” is often used to express a notion that each and every word in the Scripture was specifically chosen by God, that the writers themselves were not free to choose other words than these, and that the Bible, in effect, was dictated to copyists, rather than being written by inspired men. This is, quite simply, unacceptable. God simply does not manipulate puppets. He reveals His will to men and gives them the ability to express His thoughts faithfully, whether in deeds or in writing, but it is holy men of God who speak when they are moved by the Holy Spirit, not puppets, automatons, or mediums. Each book of Scripture is as thoroughly an expression of the personality of its writer as it is of the nature of God.
Could it be that John was deliberate in the oblique language of his Prologue? Could it be that He intended to say something more general about incarnation than just the Christmas event? In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God . . . and the word was made flesh . . . God, in the supreme expression of Himself took flesh of the virgin Mary and the God-man was born. Might this also imply that God, in the revelation of His nature and will, used the flesh of men to write it, and a human-divine book was born, having a dual nature much like that of the Christ? I would not be the first to have advanced such an idea.
For these and other reasons, while holding a high view of inspiration, I simply will not use this phrase ‘verbal inspiration’. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.

Plenary Inspiration

Now this written Word does indeed consist of a number of separate and distinct documents, dictated and/or penned by a number of separate and distinct individuals, with a variety of different ends in view, and that over a quite considerable span of centuries. Could this disparate body of writings indeed be inspired by God in its entirety and in every part? One’s answer here could indeed be considered a fair test of whether one is a traditional orthodox Christian or a modernist liberal. Historic Christianity does answer with a resounding ‘yes’. ‘Plenary’ or “full and complete’ inspiration has this as its basic meaning, but I have observed that the louder one shouts about plenary inspiration the more likely one is to fall into certain basic errors of scriptural interpretation. Does inspiration mean that every passage speaks authoritatively about what is? Well, yes and no. I believe that every statement in the Book is there for a purpose, succeeds in its purpose, and expresses precisely what God would wish to express. However, that does not mean that every passage of Scripture, in and of itself, conveys truth that must be heeded. For many passages inspiration consists in that this is an accurate presentation of error to be avoided, as in the declamations of Job’s friends, parts of which are often quoted as God’s truth, even though God Himself is depicted as refuting them. Other passages, such as 3 John 2, are often made to carry a burden they were never intended to bear. This is not a declaration about healing, or even less about prosperity, but simply a statement of the wishes of a godly old man concerning his addressee. Yes, God desired it to be said, but nowhere did God guarantee that John’s wish was everywhere and always precisely His own.
In short, though I am fully convinced that divine inspiration permeates the entire body of the Scriptures, I refuse to describe it as ‘plenary’. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.

Infallible and Inerrant

These also are popular ways of describing the Scriptures. It is true that God’s written Word will not and can not fail in its purpose. It is also true that God simply does not make mistakes, and that his Scriptures will not therefore contain mistakes. It is therefore not appropriate to do as Liberal theology does, and continually pick and choose among passages we do or do not agree with. However, “infallibility” of the Scriptures is all too often used synonomously with the infallibility of a given way of interpreting them. This becomes most blatantly obvious in the various schemes of prophetic interpretation. Every teacher (and there are a multitude, disagreeing violently one with another) asserts categorically that his scheme of things is what the Bible says. If such a proclamation be believed, what happens when a prophecy goes unfulfilled (as in 1844 when Miller’s prediction of the end did not come to pass)? Did Scripture fail?
“Inerrancy” comes to refer to statements which appear to conflict with discoveries of modern science. Unbelievers will sometimes point to Scriptural statements that appear to conflict with present-day understandings of how the universe works, and use this perceived conflict as a pretext for rejecting the whole thing. Literal minded believers, on the other hand will consistently try to shout down the scientific voices with, “The Bible says . . .” Does either side understand what God, in the Scriptures, is intending to do? I think not.
Divine inspiration means, at the least, that God has placed into this Book precisely what He intends us to hear, the fullness of His eternal truth, the richness of His promise, the surety of His salvation, and so much of His own nature as men are able to comprehend. Human authorship means that those men who are infallibly and inerrantly conveying that message are doing so as men, and are expressing and illustrating it in terms of what they know and have experienced. A work divinely inspired and humanly authored will assuredly present eternal verities, will sometimes reveal matters of fact beyond the author’s prior knowledge, but will always be a work of its own time, presenting the eternal worldview in terms comprehensible to the author’s own worldview. Is it, then, necessary to accept every scientific or historical statement, every number, dimension, or date, in Scripture as absolutely true? Does the truth of the Bible stand and fall on this kind of understanding? By no means! Do I need to accept that the world came into existence in seven twenty-four hour days in 4004 BC? Do I need to accept a literal world-wide flood that submerged every bit of earth’s landsurface? Does my faith as a Christian hang upon these things? Jesus said, “Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.” There’s the purpose of inspiration. The whole corpus of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, is inspired of God in order that we might see the redemption wrought by God in Christ. It would seem quite sufficient to declare, as the Scripture itself does, that the written Word is ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’, and leave it at that.


BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

From the droppings of sacred cattle, Good Lord deliver us. Amen.