PARTIAL INSPIRATION
PROBLEM: The most widely accepted view of inspiration in Protestant circles is that inspiration was an enlightening of the Biblical authors which, while it gave them moral and spiritual insight and made their work "inspiring" (or, as some say, a vehicle of God's word to their readers), it did not guarantee doctrinal or historical trustworthiness to all they actually wrote.
SOLUTION:
1. If inspiration of the Biblical writers "did not guarantee doctrinal or historical trustworthiness to all they actually wrote" how does one distinguish the trustworthy pronouncements from those which are not trustworthy? If the writers were liable to err in historical writing, how can they be trusted in anything they wrote?1
2. The Bible records God's purpose and interaction with men. As such, the historical facts have a doctrinal content. For example, God revealed himself to Israel as "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt . . . " (Exod. 20:2). The assertion is not only historical in character but doctrinal.
3. Biblical writers never make a difference between "non-essential detail" and "divine principles". The New Testament writers frequently allude to historical events (e.g., Matt. 12:42; Lk. 17:27), and regard them as factual records of divine instruction. Historical illustrations are cited as "admonitions" and "examples". (1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 3:7-19). As the Apostle Paul expressed it: "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning". (Rom. 15:4).
4. The often recurring expression, "He did evil in the sight of the
LORD", (e.g., 2 Kings 17:2), is history, but it is also a moral judgment from the divine point-of-view. Again, the distinction between "spiritual insight" and "historical trustworthiness" is an abstraction not borne out by the record itself.
5. It is questionable whether the Biblical writers were always, or necessarily, given "moral and spiritual insight."
a) Jonah received revelations from God, yet "it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry . . . I do well to be angry, even unto death." (Jonah 4:1-9).
b) Daniel was also the recipient of revelation but the meaning was not fully revealed to him. "The words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." (Dan. 12:9).
c) Peter stated that the prophets did not fully understand what they
1 Instead of Scripture dictating what human thoughts ought to be, human thoughts are elevated by partial inspirationists to the position of deciding what is human and what is divine in the records. A partly divine and partly human Bible would only be of value if the human mind were sufficiently enlightened and infallible to distinguish between the human and divine parts.
231
231
wrote. "Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently . . . searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow . .. " (1 Pet. 1:10,11).
6. It is desirable for the Christadelphian to be able to mount a sustained offence when a "partial inspirationist" is encountered. All too often the Christadelphian is put on the defensive and his inability to explain all difficulties is taken as evidence that no explanation is possible. A discussion of this sort does not do justice to the case the Bible presents for itself. Scripture teaches a doctrine of inspiration just as it contains a doctrine of baptism, resurrection and the kingdom.
7. The following evidence provides ammunition for the Christadelphian arsenal: (Since many religionists reverence Jesus it is usually advantageous to begin with this common ground.)
a) Jesus quoted the Old Testament as completely authoritative and definitive. In so doing, he never once regarded the authority of the Law, Prophets, or Psalms as in any way dependent upon the personality of the human writers, or on the conditions under which they wrote.1
b) Jesus cited the Old Testament in such a way as to establish its inspiration as infallible, (without error) verbal, (applying to the words used to convey the message) and plenary (extending to all parts alike). For example: i. Jesus answered the Jews, "Is it not written in your law, I said Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken . . . "
(Jn. 10:34,35). Jesus argued on the basis of one word in this quotation from Psa. 82:6. He further affirms that Scripture "cannot be broken", ii. Jesus equated what Moses said with what God said:
Mk. 7:10 "Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother
Mk. 7:9,10 "Full well ye reject the commandment of God. . . " (also vs. 13, "the word of God") Similarly - Mk. 12:26,27 "Have ye not read in the book of Moses. . . ? " Mt. 22:31,32 "But . . . have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God?"
c) The frequency with which Jesus cited Old Testament Scripture and the authority which he gave to it can be shown from the following passages:
-Mt. 4:4,7,10 "It is written . . . " (citing Deut. 8:3; 6:16; 6:13)
-Mt. 19:4-6 "Have ye not read . . . " (citing Gen. 1:27; 2:24)
1 This point is especially noteworthy in terms of the modern interest in hermeneutics, (i.e., the interpretation of Scripture giving consideration to the environment and cultural conditions thought to influence the author's work).
232
232
-Mk. 12:10,11 "Have ye not read this scripture . . . " (citing Psalm 118: 22,23)
-Mk. 12:35,36 "David himself said by the Holy Spirit . . . " (citing Psalm 110:1)
-Lk. 4:18-21 "This day is this scripture fulfilled . . . " (citing Isa. 61:1,2)
-Lk. 16:31 "If they hear not Moses and the prophets . . . "
-Lk. 22:37 "This that is written must yet be accomplished in me. .. " (citingIsa. 53:12)
-Lk. 24:25 "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken . . . " (see also vs. 26,27)
-Lk. 24:44 "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."
d) Four points illustrate the position of the Apostle Paul on inspiration: i. Paul wrote, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made, He saith not, And to seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal. 3:16). Paul is arguing his case on the basis of one word from the Old Testament. (Gen. 13:15). ii. Paul asserts that "All scripture is given by inspiration of
God . . . " (2 Tim. 3:16,17). By inspiration, Paul means "God-breathed" Scripture.1 iii. Quotations from Moses, the Psalms and Prophets are considered authoritative pronouncements. For example, compare the following:
Rom. 15: 9 from Psa. 18:49 Rom. 15:10 from Deut. 32:43 Rom. 15:11 from Psa. 117:1 Rom. 15:12 from Isa. 11:10 iv. Rom. 9:17-"For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." The Scripture cannot literally "say". God said this, (Exod. 9:16) and Scripture reliably records it.
e) New Testament writers consider the Holy Spirit to be the author of Old Testament passages:2
1 "Inspiration" is translated from the Greek word, "theopneustos", which means, "Godbreathed". Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, (London: Lutterworth Press, 1965). In reading poetry one might feel "inspired", but this is not what the Apostle means when he states the Scriptures are inspired. The Scriptures are inspired because of their divine origin which makes their inspiration independent of the way in which they might affect any given reader.
2 The writer to the Hebrews expresses the abiding authority of Scripture in his citation of the words of Psa. 95:7-11 and Jer. 31:33. He cites these passages using the present tense-"The Holy Spirit saith, (not said) (Heb. 3:7). Likewise, the "Holy Spirit bears [not bore} witness to us". (Heb. 10:15, cf. R.S.V.).
233
233
i. Heb. 3:7-"The Holy Spirit saith . . . " quoting Psa. 95:
7-11. ii. Heb. 10:15-"The Holy Spirit also is a witness to us; for after that he had said before . . . " quoting Jer. 31:33,34. iii. See also Acts 1:16 - "The Holy Spirit by the mouth of
David spake . . . " Psa. 69:25; 109:8. iv. Acts 28:25 - "Well spake the Holy Spirit by Esaias the prophet . . . " citing Isa. 6:9,10.
8. The prophets when inspired by God were at times compelled to speak what they spoke. Their human reactions were sometimes either to refrain from speaking or to utter words other than those directed by God. Two prophets serve as examples:
a) Balaam-"If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more . . . have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak." (Num. 22:18,3s).1
b) Jeremiah-"Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay." (Jer. 20:9).
9. The "partial" inspiration position outlined in the problem has resulted in skepticism and barrenness. The epitaph of such theologies has already been written by Amos: "They shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it." (Amos 8:12). A spirit of unconcern about doctrine has resulted since on so many issues it is thought to be anyone's guess as to what is true. Perplexities about the Holy Scriptures have discouraged lay reading of the Bible and the idea has spread that the Bible is a book full of pitfalls which only the learned can hope to avoid. Sometimes it is considered virtuous to censure predecessors for being too definite and dogmatic. New thought is complimented as being open-minded, flexible, and free from obscurantism. It should be noted that those who are "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14) and "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7) are not commended in the New Testament.
1 COR. 7:25 "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful"
PROBLEM: This verse is interpreted by the clergy of the Anglican and United Churches to mean that Paul is giving a personal opinion which may or may not be the right advice. Therefore, it
1 See also Ezek. 2:7. To put words in someone's mouth is to tell him exactly what to say. (See, for example, 2 Sam. 14:2,3,19).
234
234
is argued, the Bible cannot be plenary (fully, completely) inspired.
SOLUTION:
1. Paul's point is not that he is giving advice which may, or may not be right, but that he cannot quote the Lord Jesus as having already pronounced on this subject. Notice the context:
a) Verse 10-"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the
Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband." (Paul refers to the Master's teaching in Matt. 19.) Paul then deals with a matter concerning which the Lord has made no particular pronouncement. So he says, "I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."
b) Verse 40-"I think also that [as well as others] I have the Spirit of God." Paul points out that although there was no specific commandment of the Lord he can be trusted.
2. The Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. 14:37 sets forth his claim to Holy
Spirit guidance as a criterion by which other claimants to Spirit possession might be judged: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."
3. Plenary inspiration affirms that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God". (2 Tim. 3:16). It does not assert that statements made by wicked men and recorded in Scripture are inspired, but only that their statements are recorded because God in His wisdom chose such to be the case for the reader's learning and admonition. (Rom. 15:4;
1 Cor. 10:11). It is inspired that such should be recorded.
235
235
"NON-PROPOSITIONAL11 REVELATION
PROBLEM: Most of the clergy of the United and Anglican Churches
(Episcopalian in the U.S.A. and the Church of England in the U.K.) hold the following view of revelation expressed by William Temple:
"There are truths of revelation, that is to say propositions which express the results of correct thinking concerning revelation, but they are not themselves directly revealed."1
God is viewed as revealing Himself by illuminating chosen observers of "significant events" so that they perceived what the events meant in terms of the divine character and plan. The events, therefore, are considered to gain revelatory status through the divine enlightenment (i.e., through the observer's heightened intuitive and reflective capacities, and sharpened moral and spiritual perceptions). Revelation is not considered to be the act of God communicating words, i.e., propositions. This view of revelation is sometimes referred to as "nonpropositional".
SOLUTION:
1. The non-propositional view of revelation destroys Biblical faith which honours God in trusting what He has said. When Abraham (whom the New Testament sets forth as an example of the man of faith par excellence) believed God, "it was counted unto him for righteousness". (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6 cf. Gen. 15:6). The object of Abraham's faith was a specific promise, a seed which would become as numerous as the stars of heaven. (Gen. 15:1-6). But according to Temple's theory of revelation there never was an objective revelation of promise to Abraham. However, the Abrahamic promise consisted of informative statements, but informative statements are propositional; therefore, revelation is propositional.
2. If revelation is in the event rather than in the interpretation, revelation can be re-shaped according to one's subjective whims. For example, C. Dodd dismisses the divine words of commission which Jeremiah heard (Jer. 1:4-19) as "actual hallucinations".2 Dodd's view requires that a "thus saith the Lord" be read as "I feel quite certain that if God spoke He would say . . . "3
3. The view of revelation outlined in the problem nullifies the claim of
Scripture for its prophecies. In fact, it must disallow even the claim made in Isaiah, "I am God, and there is none else . . . declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are
1 William Temple, Nature Man and God, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1934), p. 317.
2 C. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, (London: Harper, 1958), p. 83.
3 The "death of God" theology is the legitimate offspring of its liberal parents who fed upon such views of the non-objective character of divine revelation.
236
236
not yet done . . . " (Isa. 46:9,10). It might prove enlightening for such expounders to account for the prophecies concerning the Jew in Deut. 28 and Lev. 26, or Tyre (Ezek. 26), and Babylon (Isa. 13).
4. The non-propositional view of revelation in effect makes Jesus a fraud.
If there were no revealed truths, then the statements made by Jesus Christ are not revealed truths. But Jesus claimed to have received revealed truths:
a) "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me . . . " (Jn. 7:16).
b) "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." (Jn. 8:28).
c) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak . . . whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (Jn. 12:49,50).
5. Since revelation is not considered to be a direct communication of information, (in the non-propositional view of revelation), reliance is usually placed on the "assured results" of criticism. This amounts to a kind of papalism-the "infallibility of the scholars" from whom one can learn the "assured results".1 The task of the clergy then becomes that of reconstructing Biblical history (i.e., what really happened). From the Biblical narratives and the reconstruction, assessment is made of the adequacy of the interpretation of history which Biblical writers have recorded. Attempts at reconstruction, from the "modern" point of view square more easily with a naturalistic, evolutionary, anti-miraculous, uniformitarian outlook than it does with belief that Biblical history has been checkered by God revealing information (content) otherwise unknowable.
6. The Greek word for "reveal" is "apokalupto" which means to "uncover" or "unveil".2 Revelation is the process whereby God disclosed to chosen men things otherwise unknowable, (e.g., Dan. 2:22; 8:27;
10:1; 1 Cor. 2:9,10; Eph. 3:3,4,5; Rev. 1:1).
7. Revelation is a divine activity, "God . . . hath . . . spoken". (Heb.
1:1,2). It was a verbal ("hath spoken") and cumulative ("by the prophets . . . by his Son"). Revelation is not, therefore, a human flash of insight or the emergence of a bright idea.
8. The chief fallacy in viewing revelation as other than propositional is the assumption that man can read God's mind, learn his character, guess his motives and predict his movements by unaided brainwork.3
"Modern" theology has yet to learn, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Psa. 55:8,9). "How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord . . . ? " (Rom. 11:33,34).
1 This point is expanded in J. I. Packer, God Hath Spoken: Revelation and the Bible, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965), pp. 12-18.
2 Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, (London: Lutterworth Press, 1965).
3 Denial of the Virgin birth of Jesus, his miracles and his bodily resurrection is the end-product of current theological speculations.
237
237