2. Inspiration: (pages 4 – 14)

The Bible tells us that its contents are inspired. We find this statement in II Timothy 3:16-17 where it states:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

But what exactly does this mean? Did God dictate the Bible word-for-word? Did He just give the thought and allow the writer to express it any way he wanted to? Is there a third choice? What exactly is inspiration and how does it work? These are ancient questions and we will endeavor to answer them.

The Greek word for inspiration is theopneustos and is a word created from theos (God) and pneo (to blow) and literally means God breathed. The Hebrew equivalent is used in Gen. 2:7 where we read:

“And the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Many contend that because it was “God Breathed” that it had to be produced word-for-word and that such is the meaning of inspiration. Thus, they contend for verbal inspiration, generally meaning dictated as it appears. Certainly there are times that inspiration meant exactly that. But to hold to the position that the Scripture is inspired only in this way is a position which cannot be defended. Such a position does not prove consistent with the Scriptures themselves.

One of the better definitions ever given concerning inspiration came from Guy N. Woods in the 1976 open forum at the Freed-Hardeman College lectureship. The following is quoted from his answer to a question.

“Though the instruments by which it was delivered to the world were human beings such as we, they were protected against any possibility of error in delivering their message; and, the Bible is, therefore, an inbreathed, inspired, divine document, which, as originally given, is absolutely inerrant, infallible, and true.”

Another excellent article on inspiration came from B. C. Goodpasture at the 1970 Freed-Hardeman lectures. Some of his comments are as follows:

“. . . inspiration has reference primarily to the accurate communicating of knowledge. It preserves its recipient from error in teaching. It is possible that some of the writers of the Bible received no revelations. This is possibly true of some of the writers of the historical books of the Old Testament. The writers were certainly inspired in the selection and recording of facts within the realm of human experience, but this would not require revelation. The account of the wilderness wanderings was not a matter of revelation, but rather of fact known by personal observation. Luke does not claim to be the recipient of any revelation. He says he derived his material from those “which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word.” He “traced the course of all things accurately from the first.” (Luke 1:2,3.) He did this by inspiration, but in doing so he was not primarily the recipient of any revelation. Thus it is possible for one to receive revelation without inspiration, and to receive inspiration without revelation. Not all the Bible is revelation, but it is all inspired. It contains revelation; it is wholly inspired.”

Continuing later he said:

“While the Holy Spirit moved the penmen of the Bible to write, yet they were free to speak through their own individual background, personality, vocabulary, and style. “Inspiration did not involve the suspension or suppression of the human faculties, so neither did it interfere with the free exercise of the distinctive mental characteristics of the individual. If a Hebrew was inspired, he spoke Hebrew; if a Greek, he spoke Greek; if an educated man, he spoke as a man of culture; if uneducated, he spoke as such a man is wont to speak. If his mind was logical, he reasoned, as Paul did; if emotional and contemplative, he wrote as John wrote.” Their inspiration was not purely mechanical. There may be a few cases of mechanical, or nearly mechanical inspiration in the Bible; but it is the exception, not the rule. When Balaam’s ass spoke, that was mechanical; and when men spoke in unknown tongues, as on Pentecost, that was mechanical, or seemingly so. If the writers had been mere pens, instead of penmen, in the hands of God the style and vocabulary of the Bible would be uniform. But such is not the case.”

It is almost universal that writers and lecturers contend for verbal inspiration. Many would indict any other position as heretical. Yet the term “verbal” is not used in the same way by each writer and is even inconsistently used on occasion by the same writer. Most see verbal inspiration as being dictated word-for-word. Some have a problem with this view (and rightly so) and define verbal as God choosing the very words but not mechanically. I see no real difference in these two positions. It becomes a mere matter of semantics. If God chose each and every word then He dictated it, pure and simple. But such a position is inconsistent with the Biblical evidence. Consider just a few arguments against verbal inspiration.

1. The Bible states that the inspiration received by John was not only oral but also visual
     (Revelation 1:11, 19-20)

2. Paul writes some things by permission. They were clearly his own thoughts and in his own words, but they were still inspired.
(I Corinthians 7:6, 12, 25,40)

3. There are quotations used which paraphrase or change the original text
(Psalm 8:4-6, Hebrews 2:6-8)

4. There are differing records of the same event
(Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 28:18-20, Luke 24:46-48)

5. There are different sources and approaches for different books. For example, Hebrews reflects writing which is based on much study while Luke reflects writing based on experience and first hand knowledge
(Hebrews 1 & 2, Luke 1:1-4)

6. In a similar vein, some writers rely on personal remembrances for some of their writings, demonstrating non-verbal inspiration in these cases
(Luke 1:1-4, I Corinthians 1:14-16).

7. The Bible even states that there were various methods of communicating God’s will
(Hebrews 1:1-3).

8. Different writers have different styles. Consider just a few examples.

• Matthew uses the term “kingdom of heaven” almost exclusively.

• John uses the term “little children”.

• Paul uses sports terms
  (Ephesians 6:12, I Corinthians 9:24, 26).

• Luke uses medical terms.

9. There are differences in historical accounts.

• In their order
  (Matthew 4 and Luke 4).
• In the general facts
  (Matthew 8:28, Mark 5:1).

10. Consider the beauty of the Psalms.

• “The Lord is my shepherd … ”
  Psalm 23
• “I was glad … ”
  Psalm 122
• “I will set no wicked thing … ”
  Psalm 101
• “Search me 0 God … “
  Psalm 139

All of these passages (and many, many more) become cold and unfelt if they were not the expressions of the heart of David.

11. Peter states that Paul was hard to understand (II Peter 3:16-17). It is not reasonable that Paul was hard to understand while others were not and yet they were verbally inspired by the same Spirit, dictated to as to choice of words and structure.

12. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. Yet if He so inspired men to write so that it suggested non-verbal inspiration when verbal inspiration was actually the case, then He would certainly have been the author of confusion.

13. The Bible contains grammatical errors, differing styles, personal greetings (i.e. “Prisca” by Paul, II Timothy 4:19), etc., all which show that word choice was not exclusively in the hands of God.

These are just a few of the arguments that show that verbal inspiration was not the exclusive manner in which God inspired the Scriptures. It is also interesting that the same people that argue for verbal inspiration then turn around and argue authorship and setting and time based on word choice and sentence structure. Such argumentation would be useless if verbal inspiration was exclusive.

How then did God inspire the Scriptures? The answer is a simple one. In all of the writing of the Bible, God superintended it so that it contained what He wanted in it, all that He wanted in it, and nothing that He did not want in it. God did not have to choose the very words in order to accomplish this. Men do the same thing all the time, even making their living at it. They are called editors. They do not have to do the actual writing nor do they have to choose the actual words. They simply review it for accuracy and content. If I can understand that men can perform such a task then surely I can understand that God can do at least as much as can they. To deny verbal inspiration as the exclusive method of God in inspiration is not to deny the validity or inspiration of the Bible. It is merely to acknowledge that the facts demonstrate that God used various ways to accomplish His purpose. I believe that the Bible is wholly inspired. I just am wise enough to realize that verbal inspiration is not God’s exclusive method of inspiration.

Earlier I pointed out that the term inspiration is used when telling of God breathing life into man in the garden of Eden. The fact that life was God breathed simply means that it came from God, not that he literally blew into man’s nose (as some actually contend). Inspiration, then, simply means that in some fashion God superintended it so that it would be accurate and complete.

A proper statement in relation to the inspiration of the Scriptures, then, would be that the Scriptures as they were originally given are the plenary, inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God.