If you are anything like me, we believe that scripture is the inspired word of God. Our go-to scripture (as modern Christians) seems to generally start with Second Timothy.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Most of us stop here. We've been taught that this is far enough, but is there anything useful to learn beyond this point? I think a single question will help impel us beyond this point and perhaps take us into thoughts and revelations that are (in fact) helpful in our day to day living as an imager of God with the Spirit of Christ in us.
QUESTION: 2 Timothy 3 is based on something Paul knew. What is it that Paul knew and where did he get it from and how?
Paul was steeped in the old testament Jewish scripture, but that was not enough. Why? Because—even his deep training as a Pharisee led him into persecuting and attacking Christ and His church. Only after Jesus swatted him off his horse and invited him into knowing Jesus and being filled with His Spirit did Paul get plugged in and filled with godly wisdom. So, is that it? Does knowing this answer that question? It seems to be a step in the right direction, but perhaps we can go further.
We want clean, but reality is messy
Another way to view this is that we want an "easy button". However, reality is complex, hard, and demands our labor. It is labor that has reward. Gold must be mined, which requires work and tools. It is not generally laid out in the open for us to walk up, pick up, and then enjoy. Results require process and process requires labor. This is why Paul wrote that those who labor in the work of the spiritual gospel deserve to be paid in physical resources. It is also his thought behind how the study of scripture as a process yields results that demonstrate approval as a minister of the gospel (2 Timothy 2:15).
Therefore, the question at hand is something like this: By what process did Paul become inspired (breathed into by God) to write 2 Timothy 3, wherein he writes that all scripture is God breathed (inspired)? Do you see how the question is circular? The very declaration that the word of God is God-breathed comes from the process of God-breathing it into men like Paul. Moreover—it implies that Paul knew something about the process which opened the gate to his ability to make the assertion. From there, we consume this as "God-breathed" words.
A range of views
We are not the first (or last) ones to place this matter in view and try to reason it out to answer the question. So, what is the lay of the land?
Verbal plenary inspiration: This view holds that every word of the original manuscripts of the Bible was directly chosen by God and is therefore without error in all matters of faith and practice, as well as history, science, and morality. The human writers were fully involved in the writing process, but they were supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit to write exactly what God intended. This view is held by many conservative evangelical Christians, such as the Assemblies of God and Moody Bible Institute.
The statement above just drips with unanswered questions, doesn't it?
- - Precisely what does it mean for words to be "directly chosen by God"?
- - Precisely what does it mean for human writers to be "fully involved in the writing process"?
- - How does one define: "supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit"?
NOTE: As you read and finish this article, return here and see if you have answers to these questions. Moreover, if you answer them for yourself with what you presently know and think, will your answers change based upon what you will read below?
Let's keep these questions in view, but explore more of the range of views held by others with regard to inspiration.
Dynamic inspiration: This view holds that God inspired the thoughts and ideas of the human writers, but not necessarily the exact words they used. The writers expressed God’s message in their own words, styles, and personalities, using their own knowledge and sources. Therefore, the Bible may contain some minor errors or discrepancies in matters of history or science, but it is still reliable and authoritative in matters of faith and practice. This view is held by many moderate evangelical Christians, such as some Baptists and Lutherans.
Some of you reading are going to get to the bolded-text above and have a giant "NO!" well up inside you. The previous view (verbal plenary) may not have rocked your boat because your comfort zone is that "every word" is somehow "perfect" and "God-breathed", so the verbal plenary view did not offer a contest. In the case of the dynamic inspiration and some actual and factual history to back it up, you may find this view of inspiration disturbing. You may feel the urge to run away from it internally. Hold fast!
Dead Sea Scrolls and redaction and editing
The discovery and subsequent study of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) has given us a window into the Second Temple era and the birth process of the bible. Their discovery caused a great deal of consternation among Christians worldwide because no one could predict the contents and outcomes that study of the DSS would yield.
Some of the DSS contain evidence of different stages of editing or redaction of biblical texts. For example, some scrolls show signs of harmonization, expansion, deletion, or revision of earlier sources or versions. Some scrolls also contain variant readings or textual traditions that differ from the Masoretic Text, which is the standard text of the Hebrew Bible used by most Jews and Christians today.
One example of a scroll that shows evidence of editing is the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa a), which contains the entire book of Isaiah. This scroll has been studied by researchers who used artificial intelligence tools to analyze the handwriting and identify the scribes behind it. They found that this scroll was written by at least two scribes who shared a similar writing style, but had some distinctive features and preferences. They also found that one scribe corrected or changed some words or letters written by the other scribe, suggesting a process of quality control or revision.
Another example of a scroll that shows evidence of editing is the Temple Scroll (11Q19), which contains a rewritten version of the laws and instructions for building and operating the Temple. This scroll has been studied by researchers who used digital reconstruction techniques to reassemble its fragmentary pieces and restore its original order. They found that this scroll was composed by combining and modifying different sources, such as Exodus, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and other texts. They also found that this scroll was copied by at least two scribes who made some errors or corrections in their transcription.
Serious questions to ponder
The DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) have illuminated some realities that will make the hairs on the necks of some fundamentalist Christians stand up straight and send chills down their spines: "How dare you attack scripture!" (sigh) BUT—let's ask some questions and see what we think. Moreover—please realize that we must do this because non-believers, atheists, and the like are watching and waiting. Obstinate denial of reality will just drive them further into unbelief. So, answer we must!
Let's list out some of the "issues" as a bullet-list from the DSS materials above:
- - Harmonization, expansion, deletion, revision of texts
- - Variant readings or textual traditions different from Masoretic Text (common source of your OT)
- - One scribe changing/correcting words/letters of another scribe
- - Combining/modifying different sources (e.g., Exodus, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, et al)
All of the above, from the start of this article to the list above, begs questions. Is your faith in scripture disturbed by these notions?
The bible we hold in our hands obviously went through a process over centuries of time. Perhaps the greatest and most palpable fear arising from knowing these things is doubts leading to unresolved questions, which lead to a loss of faith and trust. We might actually end up entertaining the faithless questions of the faithless: How can the word of God in our hands live up to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as "God-breathed" if it went through this very messy process?
Cooperative providence with free-will
God does not "zap" scripture into the minds of men, removing their free-will and volition. Scripture did not come by way of paranormal events or sci-fi downloads-from-heaven into the minds of men. There are some people who actually think the word of God came by divine dictation like a court stenographer secretary mindlessly writing it all down in shorthand and then expanding it into plain text later. My hope is that as you ponder what you have read so far that you realize how silly all of the notions presented in this paragraph actually are.
Let's examine a story from scripture (you know—that God-breathed thing in your hands):
19 And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; 20 and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.”
We do well to notice some key realities in the story above. While God knows ahead of time what the "spirit" coming forward is going to say and do, He makes room for the free-will of His created divine council beings to think for themselves, offer their free-willed ideas, and help shape the functioning and history of God's sovereign rule over everything. This includes the God-breathed word of God.
The other thing to notice is that Micaiah starts off by saying, "hear the word of the LORD" and then immediately transitions into speaking words from himself in the first person: "I saw the LORD ...", whereupon, Micaiah proceeds with the story. Now, are these the direct words of the LORD spoken by the LORD or is the Holy Spirit carrying Micaiah along in his recounting of what he "saw the LORD" and others do and say? Can you see the intertwining of God's sovereign providence coupled with the human being He selected for this task of telling the story?
Therefore, the story of 1 Kings 22:19-23 is providentially orchestrated, and woven into it is the free-will words and actions of those subject to God. The LORD has providentially chosen, prepared, guided, and allowed His created free-will beings (both heavenly and earthly) to participate in the playing out of history; this includes the recorded word of God. The participation is not just the originator of the source text, but every mind and hand providentially involved in the process leading to its final assembly and presentation that we hold in our hands as our bible.
Therefore—based on this—what do you think of any of the following?
- - Is God out-of-control of any of His selected agents in the formation of His word—His story—to all men?
- - Is God providentially involved, over, and guiding the sources? The editors? The redactors? Their combinations, harmonization's, editing, and smoothing?
- - Has His providence lost control at any point as He has allowed all free-will agents involved in scripture to work with and under Him?
- - Does the level or extent of loyalty or disloyalty to God impair the outcome? Is God capable of providentially using the limited loyalty of His chosen agent to perfectly accomplish His goal? What about a completely disloyal agent—even Satan himself?
- - And what of any of their errors? Do the flaws and errors of His chosen agents cause the scripture to be any less effective in the face of His divine will and purpose? In other words, has God lost something because of these things, which implies He has been deficient and suffered loss at His own hand and word?
Wrapping it up
Nothing about this short article is exhaustive. Multiplied books are written and still more could be written on the topic. My goal here was not to be thorough, but to be provocative—that is—to inform and intrigue. Have I provoked you? I hope so. Yet, there is a question that remains: Of what usefulness is there to you, the reader, in pondering all of these presented things? While I have my own ideas, I await your thoughts and feedback!
Post-script
The article above talks about two views on inspiration of scripture: Verbal plenary and Dynamic inspiration. There are a couple of others that are noteworthy.
Limited inspiration: This view holds that God inspired only certain parts of the Bible, such as the prophetic or moral teachings, but not other parts, such as the historical or poetic writings. The human writers used their own judgment and creativity to compose the non-inspired parts, which may contain errors or contradictions. Therefore, the Bible is not fully authoritative or infallible, but it still contains valuable spiritual truths and insights. This view is held by some liberal or progressive Christians, such as some Anglicans or Presbyterians.
Limited inspiration appears to be a fleshly fallen human attempt to cherry-pick what is authoritative of God and what is not. Literally—looking for ways to avoid obedience to God by simply side-stepping authority. Isn't that convenient. If only it worked that way, right? Thankfully, it does not.
Neo-orthodox inspiration: This view holds that the Bible is not the word of God, but a human witness to the word of God, which is Jesus Christ. The Bible contains human words that point to God’s revelation in Christ, but it is not itself a revelation. Therefore, the Bible is not authoritative or infallible in itself, but it becomes so when it encounters the reader through the Holy Spirit. The reader must discern what parts of the Bible are relevant or applicable for today’s situation. This view is held by some neo-orthodox theologians, such as Karl Barth.
Is the Neo-orthodox inspiration a musical chairs of inspiration leading back to the authority and sovereignty of God? What stumbling blocks live within this view? How do the Verbal plenary and Dynamic inspiration avoid the stumbling points and lift up God's sovereignty when compared to the Neo-orthodox inspiration?