SCRIPTURE

I. NT Terminology

A. Descriptive terms

1. Focusing on the written form. The word Scripture (γραφή, G1210) occurs with some frequency in the NT, sometimes in the sing., sometimes in the pl., sometimes without, but usually with the article. B. B. Warfield has pointed out that even where the article is absent some other feature indicates definiteness; e.g. the use of an adjective (John 19:37; Rom 16:26). Although its extra-Biblical use is wider, it is always employed in the NT with reference to sacred Scripture. The pl. denotes the sacred Scriptures as a whole (Matt 21:42; John 5:39; 1 Cor 15:3, 4) and so is collective rather than distributive in force. There is no passage where it clearly means “the books” considered as separate entities, but it is used in a way which approaches this in 2 Peter 1:16 (although Warfield maintained that the phrase here means “the other passages,” 234f.). The use of the sing. has led to a certain amount of debate. Some hold that it always refers to one particular OT passage, while others hold that it sometimes has the same significance as the pl. A stronger case can be made out for the latter. G. Shrenk (753) points, e.g., to Galatians 3:8, 22, “where the personification of γραφή, G1210, makes it quite inconceivable that Paul should simply have in view an individual text.” An expression like “this scripture” is clear evidence that a single passage is in view (e.g. Mark 12:10; Luke 4:21; Acts 8:35; cf. John 19:37). It is also likely though not certain, that γραφή, G1210, denotes an individual saying whenever followed by a quotation (e.g. John 7:38; 13:18; 19:24, 36). Even in such cases there may well be a reference to Scripture as a whole (ibid.). The use of the sing. for the whole OT is certainly not frequent outside the NT, but it is difficult to eliminate it from the NT itself. The term γραφαὶ̀ ἁγίαι, “Holy Scriptures,” occurs once (Rom 1:2), but the authoritative use of the OT as divinely inspired lit. makes the term an altogether appropriate description.

Γράμμα, “writing,” occurs very rarely in the NT with reference to the Scriptures per se. The expression ἱερὰ̀ γράμματα “The holy Scriptures” (2 Tim 3:15) is the only clear case, although John 5:47 approaches this technical sense. When Paul uses γράμμα, G1207, he often does so in a somewhat depreciatory sense (Rom 2:29; 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6f.; cf. 3:14-16). As appears from Paul’s general use of the OT, his intention is not to belittle the law as Scripture, but only as conceived as making salvation possible by the works of the flesh. Hence he can oppose it to the Spirit, although he sees the Spirit as the Author of Scripture (Acts 28:25).

Τὸ̀ γεγραμμένον, “the thing written,” is of frequent occurrence in the LXX in its pl. form (e.g. 2 Chron 35:26; Dan 9:11). It occurs also in the NT both in the sing. (e.g. Luke 20:17; 2 Cor 4:13; cf. 1 Cor 15:54) and in the pl. (Luke 18:31; Gal 3:10; cf. John 12:16), and it refers to a passage or a group of passages in terms of their content. It is interesting to note that it occurs also in Revelation 1:3; 22:18f. in reference to a NT book; and this suggests an extension of the concept of Scripture beyond the OT into the NT. The impressive nature of the context confirms this.

Τὸ̀ βιβλίον, “the book,” a term used in the LXX of particular books of sacred Scripture (Deut 17:18; Jer 25:13; Nah 1:1). In Daniel 9:2 its use in the pl. could be a reference to the collection of prophetic lit. The NT use of the sing. is similar (Luke 4:17), and the pl. in 2 Timothy 4:13 could refer to a number of scrolls of OT books. ̔Η βίβλος, “book,” is used in a similar way in the sing. (Josh 1:8; Acts 1:20) and does not occur in the pl. in Bib. Gr. Even though these two words had not established themselves as technical expressions for Scripture in the same way as some other terms, this is their most characteristic use both in the LXX and the NT. The most significant exception is only an apparent one, for the book mentioned in Revelation 5:1ff. is sacred even though it is heavenly and written by no human hand (cf. also Rev 17:8; 20:12; and, significantly, 22:7, 9, 10, 18, 19).

2. Focusing on some further quality of the literature. ̔Ο λόγος του θεοῦ, “the word of God.” This term centers attention on the divine origin of the Word and is used of Scripture in Mark 7:13; John 10:35; Romans 9:6; Hebrews 4:12. The concept of the Word of God or, more frequently, the Word of the Lord, is extremely common in the OT, and the pl. also often occurs (e.g. cf. Jer 18:1 and 2). It is significant that the Gospel as proclaimed first authoritatively by the Lord (Luke 8:21; 11:28) and by His apostles (Acts 6:7; 11:1; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:23) is also called “the word of God.” This suggests that it comes into the same category as the OT Scriptures. Also important is the great value set upon “words of the Lord” (i.e. words of the Lord Jesus) in the NT (Luke 22:61; cf. Acts 20:35; 1 Cor 7:10, 12, 25). 1 Timothy 5:18 apparently quotes as Scripture not only Deuteronomy 25:4 but Luke 10:7, whether from this gospel or from the oral tradition of the words of Jesus. Once again, one finds an extension of the concept of the “Word of God” beyond the OT into the NT.

Τὰ̀ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, “the oracles of God.” This expression, occurring in Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; and 1 Peter 4:11, is usually understood to be a reference to the OT, although in 1 Peter 4:11 it may refer to the inspired utterances of the Christian prophet of NT days. G. Kittel, however, maintained that it concerns rather the salvation-history contained in the Bible, but Doere and Warfield argue cogently for the traditional view (Doere, 111-123; Warfield, 251-407). As used in the classical and Hel. lit., Warfield says that “it means, not ‘words’ barely, simple ‘utterances,’ but distinctively ‘oracular utterances,’ divinely authoritative communications, before which men stand in awe and to which they bow in humility: and this high meaning is not merely implicit, but is explicit in the term” (403).

Νόμος, “law.” This word is used in a variety of ways in the NT (cf. J. Murray, “Law,” NBD, 721-723) but when used of sacred lit. it normally designates the Mosaic lit., and so is sometimes called “the law of Moses” (cf. Matt 12:5; Luke 2:22), or “the law of the Lord” (Luke 2:23). There are, however, passages where it clearly means the OT as a whole, such as John 10:34; 15:25; and 1 Corinthians 14:21 which give quotations from the Psalms and Isaiah as from “the law.” The Heb. equivalent is תּﯴרָה, H9368, which really means “instruction” and the whole OT is divine instruction for the people of God.

̔Οι προφῆται, “the prophets.” This term is used both in this pl. form (Matt 5:17; Rom 1:2; cf. Matt 26:56) and in the sing. (Matt 2:5; Luke 3:4) for OT prophetic lit. Like the term “law,” however, this can also be used of the whole OT, for Matthew (11:13) records that “all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” It seems probable that Matthew 26:56 and Romans 16:26 are references to the whole OT and not just to the lit. which was prophetic in the strict sense. The entire OT is prophetic, for it is God’s speech to man through human channels and it points forward to Christ (Luke 24:27).

̔Η πολαιά διαθήκη (“the old covenant,” 2 Cor 3:14) seems to be a reference to the written record of the Mosaic law (cf. v. 15) but it prob. gave rise (through a different rendering of the underlying Gr., reflected in the KJV “old testament”) to the later patristic designation of the two divisions of the Canon as the OT and the NT.

3. Composite terms. The Jews employed the terms “the law and the prophets” and “the law and the prophets and the writings” to designate the whole OT. The “writings” are the other Scriptures which are not sufficiently homogeneous for a single title and the third general term was sometimes omitted, so that the OT was known by its two major types of lit. In the NT there are frequent references to “the law and the prophets” (Matt 5:17; 22:40; Luke 16:16; Rom 3:21) or to “Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29). In Luke 24:44 “the law...and the prophets and the psalms” are named, the last word pointing to the first and largest of the Writings and, perhaps, the one that spoke most clearly of Christ. Just as we have seen that “the Law” and also “the Prophets” may bear a narrower or a broader sense, so the term “Writings” in the NT usually refers to the whole OT (see esp. Luke 24:27 where the broader sense is prob. intended, but where there is perhaps an allusive glance in the direction of the narrower).

B. Introductory formulae

1. Stressing the written form. Γέγραπται may be tr., “it is written,” or “it stands written”; and its use implies the existence of an authoritative written document beyond which there is no appeal. In classical Gr. it was used of legal documents while in the NT it is uniformly employed of OT Scripture. It occurs most frequently in the synoptic gospels, Acts, and the Pauline epistles. Sometimes a reference to the place of citation is added; e.g., “it is written in the law of Moses” (1 Cor 9:9) or, “it is written in Isaiah the prophet” (Mark 1:2). The gospel of John occasionally uses it, although it normally employs the periphrastic equivalent γεγραμμένον ἐστίν, “it is written,” which is, in fact, peculiar to John in the NT (John 2:17; 6:31, etc.). Shrenk (745) points to the fact that John used these forms of lang. (John 20:30f.) in relation to his own book and declares, “Yet there is no less solemn emphasis on the testimony of writing in 1 John.” He goes on to refer to the conviction of the revelatory significance of writing in the Apocalypse. (See 1 John 1:4; 2:1; 2:12-14; 5:13; Rev 1:11, 19; 14:13; 22:19.) Here then is further evidence pointing in the direction of an extension of the concept of Scripture to include writings of the New Covenant.

2. In terms suggestive of a living voice. Λέγει, “he says” or “it says” and φησί, “he says” or “it says,” occur with some frequency in the NT. Sometimes they have an expressed subject such as God (Matt 19:4f.; Acts 4:24f.), or the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7), perhaps even Christ (10:5) and, frequently, Scripture (John 7:38, 42; Rom 4:3; James 4:5). In some of these and other examples other tense forms of the verbs are used and occasionally other verbs of speech, such as λαλειν, “to speak.” E. E. Ellis (Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 107-113) has drawn attention to the formula λέγει κύριος, “the Lord says,” in the NT and esp. in Paul (Rom 12:19; 1 Cor 14:21; cf. Acts 7:49; Heb 8:8-12). This formula is of extremely frequent occurence in the OT prophets, but the NT writers sometimes include it even when it is not present in the OT text. Moreover, formulae like this are employed sometimes of the utterances (Acts 21:11) or writings (Rev 14:13; 1:8) of NT prophets.

What of passages where no subject is expressed or clearly implied in the context? Such passages are very frequent, esp. in the Pauline epistles (Rom 9:15; Eph 4:8; 5:14; also in James 4:6). Some would understand them to mean, “God says,” others, “Scripture says,” while still others maintain that they sometimes mean, “It is said,” with the assumption that the source is not important. Warfield has demonstrated in masterly fashion that this last is not a live option (ch. 7). He says at the conclusion of his survey of the evidence, “We may well be content in the NT as in Philo to translate the phrase wherever it occurs, ‘It says’—with the implication that this ‘It says’ is the same as ‘Scripture says,’ and that this ‘Scripture says’ is the same as ‘God says.’ It is this implication that is really the fundamental fact in the case” (p. 348). In line with this, and despite his general difference of approach from that of Warfield, Alan Richardson points to the inaccuracy of the RSV tr. of Ephesians 4:8; 5:14 (“Scripture, Authority of,” IDB [1962], 249). Ephesians 5:14 presents difficulties, for the matter quoted cannot be found in so many words in the OT. It may perhaps represent a grouping of passages, of course, but some modern writers have suggested that it is from a primitive Christian hymn. The introductory formula suggests strongly its inspiration and so, if no convincing OT equivalent is to be found, it is best to view it as a NT prophetic utterance.

3. In terms of fulfillment. The Eng. “to be fulfilled” is usually a tr. of πληρωθῆναι or τελειωθῆναι or one of their compounds. Such lang. occurs widely in the NT but most frequently in Matthew and in John. It shows the unity of the Biblical revelation in terms of prophecy and fulfillment, of type and antitype. John also saw this same principle in operation in relation to the words of Jesus (John 18:9; cf. 2:22).

C. Summary. The use of the terminology considered above is striking testimony to the belief of the NT writers in the OT as a divinely-inspired and authoritative book. This belief can be indicated without the use of such terms, of course, and the Book of the Revelation, which contains no NT quotation with quotation formula, nevertheless shows the most complete dependence upon the OT at every point. It is noteworthy also that the NT writers show some tendency to extend their own technical lang. to the utterances and writings of inspired persons under the New Covenant.

II. The inspiration of Scripture

A. The term “inspiration.” Inspiration as applied to Scripture has been well defined as “a supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon divinely chosen men in consequence of which their writings become trustworthy and authoritative” (C. F. H. Henry, “Inspiration,” BDT [1960], 286). The word θεόπνευστος, G2535, “given by inspiration of God” (KJV), is found only once and means “God-breathed,” i.e. “breathed out by God” (2 Tim 3:16). The Eng. word “inspiration” tends to be misunderstood sometimes because it seems to suggest breathing into or within rather than breathing out. The Eng. word also occurs in Job 32:8 (KJV) but later Eng. VSS have removed it and it is irrelevant for the present subject.

B. The relation of inspiration to revelation. These are closely related without being identical. Revelation is concerned with God’s disclosure of truth to men, while inspiration is its communication in verbal form. The term “inspiration” may be properly applied to the spoken as well as to the written Word, as in the Spirit-given utterances of the OT prophets before these were given written form, but spoken and written communication is alike verbal. For revelation to have permanent form it needs to be communicated in writing and thus inspiration is its servant. This does not mean that Scripture is simply the record of revelation (although it is this) for it possesses revelation status in its own right, as one sees from NT quotations of OT passages as “the word of God” (e.g. John 10:35; Rom 3:2). Much modern theology denies the propositional element in revelation and so it is not surprising to find that the return of “revelation” to a central place in the theological vocabulary has not been followed by a renewal of interest in inspiration. The Bible itself is concerned with both, however, for the infrequency of the word “inspiration” in Scripture does not reflect the importance of the idea there.

C. The inspiration of the OT

1. The OT phenomenon of inspiration. Many of the OT channels of revelation exhibit a clear consciousness of their inspiration. Particularly is this true of the line of prophets from Moses onward. In the light of 2 Samuel 23:1-3 it is instructive to note that David is described in the NT as a prophet (Acts 2:30). In general, it would seem that the true prophet was not only an inspired person but conscious that he was so.

The prophets, by their employment of expressions such as, “Thus says the Lord,” and “The word of the Lord came unto me, saying,” show that they were conscious of inspiration in the oral communication of divine truth. Of course, only those prophecies which were later committed to writing have survived, but there can be no doubt that the inspiration of a communication does not depend on its being in oral, as opposed to written, form (Jer 36). So long as it is preserved unchanged, it matters little how many channels are employed before the Word reaches the recipient. Moses, for example, received the Word of God, but it passed to the people through Aaron (Exod 4:15, 28, 30). Although the end product in this instance was an utterance of Aaron, it lost none of its character as divine Word by this process of mediation. Moses also wrote the words of the Lord (Exod 24:3f., 7). The book of the covenant is therefore just as much the Word of the Lord as the two tables which God wrote on the Mount (Exod 31:18).

An important quality of the word of the inspired man is its divine and objective character. This does not mean that the Word of God included anything from the prophet’s experience—in the case of men like David, Jeremiah, and Hosea, it is clear that it often did—but that it was never simply their own thought and word but always the thought and Word of God. The prophet Nathan was able to distinguish between his own thought and the Word of God (2 Sam 7:3ff.).

It is esp. the divine origin of the inspired word which distinguishes the true from the false prophet, although this is obviously not open to direct testing. The tests of prophecy are such criteria as fulfillment and conformity to the revelation given earlier, esp. through Moses (Deut 13:1ff.; 18:15ff.; Jer 23:9ff.; Ezek 12:21-14:11). There is an excellent discussion of true and false prophecy in J. A. Motyer, “Prophecy, Prophets,” NBD, 1041f., where he shows helpfully that it was not so much the fulfillment of the word of the true prophet but the non-fulfillment of the word of the false which was the test. It is worth noting that although the prophets were normally godly men and their word was always adapted to the divine purposes of holiness, it is not even their godliness and character which constituted them as true prophets, as the (admittedly unusual) case of Balaam shows (Num 22:1-24:25; 31:16; 2 Pet 2:15f.; Rev 2:14). What matters is whether his word is simply a product of his own mind (Ezek 13:2f.) or of an evil spirit (1 Kings 22:19, 20), or is the Word of the living God.

This discussion of inspiration in the OT has been concerned chiefly with prophecy, because in the prophets inspiration is conscious. Other writers, such as historians and poets, do not disclose such a consciousness explicitly. Inspiration is not, however, to be equated with the declaration of it nor even with the consciousness of it. There is other testimony to the inspiration of other OT writers.

2. Christ’s testimony to OT inspiration. The Lord recognized that OT books had human authors (Matt 15:7; 22:43; 24:15; Mark 7:10; John 5:46), but He saw these as instruments of the divine Spirit. The word came “through the prophets” (Matt 21:4f.; Luke 18:31) and this suggests that they were employed by Another, who was the ultimate Author of their word. For Jesus, Scripture is “the word of God” (John 10:34f.). It is clear from Mark 7:1-13 (a passage which deserves much more detailed study than can be given to it here) that the Lord rejected the authority of the “traditions of the elders” but that for Him what “Moses said” (v. 10) constituted “the word of God” (v. 13). In Mark 12:35-37 He clinched an argument, already weighty without it, with an affirmation of the inspiration of David when he wrote Psalm 110. “And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, ‘How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.” David himself calls Him Lord; so how is he his son?’”

3. The testimony of the NT writers. Wherever one looks in the NT, he finds exactly the same attitude toward the OT as that manifested by Jesus. Like Him, the writers of the NT acknowledged the human authorship of the books. The writer to the Hebrews, however, seems to avoid reference to human authors wherever possible in order to underline the divine authorship of Scripture (e.g. cf. Heb 1:5-8, 13 with 2:6). This is simply an emphasis upon a fact which is a general characteristic of the NT writers; i.e., their unqualified acceptance of the divine origin of OT Scripture. The prophets “spoke in the name of the Lord” (James 5:10). In the gospel of Matthew, for example, there is a certain amount of variety in the formulae of quotation employed, but it is clear always that for Matthew the OT writer was an instrument of God, whose word came “through the prophet” (cf. also Acts 1:16; 2:16; 28:25; Rom 9:25). The Scriptures are “the oracles of God” (Acts 7:28; Rom 3:2; Heb 5:12). Warfield pointed out the great significance of the use of the word “Scripture” instead of “God” in certain passages (Rom 9:17; Gal 3:8, 22; cf. also James 4:5f.). He said, “These acts could be attributed to Scripture only as the result of such a habitual identification in the mind of the writer, of the text of Scripture with God as speaking that it became natural to use the term ‘Scripture says’ when what was really intended was ‘God, as recorded in Scripture said’” (299, 300, cf. 145f.).

The importance of this phenomenon is that it discloses a psychological fact of great significance for the estimate of Paul’s concept of OT Scripture. A partial parallel from the lips of the Lord may be found in Matthew 19:4f., where it is clear that for Him Scripture and God, as speaking, are to be equated.

D. The inspiration of the NT

1. Apostles and NT prophets as men of the Spirit. The Spirit of God did not cease His work of inspiration with the completion of the OT canon. After a period of silence, a new era of prophecy dawned just prior to, and in witness to, the advent of Christ, as we see esp. clearly in Luke (chs. 1 and 2). Prophesying is mentioned in the passage from Joel to which Peter referred on the Day of Pentecost (Joel 2:28f.; Acts 2:17f.). Moreover, there are sundry references to prophets in the Acts of the Apostles and elsewhere in the NT (Acts 11:28; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10f.; 1 Cor 12:28f.; Eph 4:11; et al.).

Of even greater importance than the prophets, however, were the apostles. The Twelve were specially chosen by the Lord and instructed by Him throughout His ministry. To them He gave special promises concerning the work of the Spirit in them as the Spirit of Truth (John 14:16f., 25f.; 15:26; 16:12-15). He would witness to Christ by declaring to them the things of Christ, by calling to their minds the teaching of their Master, and by showing them things to come. In this way the Spirit would complement and complete the instruction which Jesus had given to them.

2. Their consciousness of inspiration. There is evidence of a consciousness of inspiration in the OT prophets and the same phenomenon appears in the inspired men of the NT period. In this connection 1 John 4:1-6 is a passage of interest, as it is concerned with false prophecy. After prescribing a confessional test, John said, “They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” On the assumption of the apostolic authorship of the epistle, the first person pl. of the assertion, “We are of God,” will allude to the apostles and their witness to Christ (cf. 1:1-5). The words “Spirit of truth” (the capital letter is to be preferred) are reminiscent of the Upper Room discourse (John 14-16). Here there is a clear indication of a consciousness of inspiration. Note also the same phenomenon discernible in the following passages: 1 Corinthians 2:9f., 13; 7:40; Ephesians 3:5; 1 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 1:1-3, 10ff.; 22:18.

Once again, one needs to remember that a writer’s failure to refer to his being inspired is no indication that it is lacking, just as the claim to inspiration does not furnish logical proof of it. Paul was conscious that his word was accepted as the Word of God by the Thessalonians through faith (1 Thess 2:13) and as the Holy Spirit wrought a conviction of its truth in their hearts (1 Thess 1:5). It is important also to remember that the only form in which we have the inspired utterances of the men of the NT as well as of the OT is the written form.

E. The character of Biblical inspiration

1. The Spirit as the ultimate Author of all that is rightly called “Scripture.” The Bible is not merely human lit., and all that is rightly called “Scripture” is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). This v. in its context refers primarily to the OT, but its principle is equally applicable to other lit. to which one may apply this term. The precise delimitation comes under a study of the Canon of Scripture, but we may note that the claim to inspiration occurs in the NT as well as in the OT, and that Peter regarded the epistles of Paul as Scripture (2 Pet 3:15f.).

2. All Scripture of full and equal inspiration. The statement of 2 Timothy 3:16 concerns “all Scripture.” It is not permissible to tr. these words as “every scripture inspired of God” (ASV, cf. RSVmg.) if this is understood to distinguish Scriptures which are inspired from those which are not. Whether the adjective πᾶσα, “all” or “every,” is attributive or predicative is a matter of little consequence. It is the interpretation of the statement that matters. The NT knows nothing of “Scripture” which is not divinely originated.

This passage gives justification for the use of the term “plenary” (“full”) in reference to Scripture and the rejection of the concept of degrees of inspiration. Revelation certainly admits of degree, for a disclosure of truth may be small or great; but a book either is Godbreathed or it is not. Scripture passages may even differ in their value, but they do not differ in their inspiration, and so must all find a place in the Word of God.

3. The control of the writers by the Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21 affirms, “No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” Commenting on this, Warfield says, “What is ‘borne’ is taken up by the ‘bearer’ and conveyed by the bearer’s power, not its own, to the bearer’s goal, not its own” (p. 137). Inspiration is not the mere heightening of the powers of the writers but their control by the divine Spirit.

4. The Spirit’s use of the individuality of the writers. Inspiration did not override or suppress the individuality of any particular writer but employed it. The Word of God came into existence through many different human channels and the evidence of stylistic variation bears testimony to the reality of the human factor. This is true even of the OT prophets where the form in which the word was often received—in a vision or dream—testifies most strongly to the objectivity of it. It is even more evident in writings like the epistles. Paul’s letters, for example, show signs of his own individuality. A great deal of research went into the production of a book like the gospel of Luke (Luke 1:1-4). Hodge wrote concerning inspiration from God: “When He ordains praise out of the mouths of babes, they must speak as babes or the whole power and beauty of the tribute will be lost” (C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. I [1872], 157). When the Reformers used the term “dictation” in relation to Scripture, as they occasionally did, they seem to have employed it simply to lay stress upon the divine origin of Scripture and not to define its invariable method.

5. The “verbal” character of inspiration. Inspiration refers to the verbal communication of truth. While recognizing the Spirit’s superintendence of all the processes which lie behind the actual writing (or speech), it is to the end-product that the term “inspired” is properly applied. It is Scripture which is Godbreathed (2 Tim 3:16). In the nature of the case then, inspiration must be verbal, since it is concerned with the communication of the truth in lang. This does not mean that it consists of the dictation of words but that the various processes which lie behind it, involving the writer’s individuality, environment, training, experience, and other factors, are so manipulated by God that the result is words which are not only man’s, but fully His. The commonly held notion that the ideas were divinely given but that the writers were left to themselves in the verbal expression of the thought will not fit the Biblical evidence. Passages like Exodus 4:30; Jeremiah 1:9; Ezekiel 2:7ff.; 1 Corinthians 2:13; and Revelation 22:18f. center attention on the words as divinely imparted. Such an attempt to drive a wedge between ideas and words faces psychological difficulties also. Moreover, there are passages of Scripture where stress is laid upon the use of one word rather than another (e.g. Matt 22:43-45; John 10:34f.; Gal 3:16).

On the other hand, one must not fall into the opposite error of imagining that the words of Scripture have importance apart from the meaning which they convey. It is the sense which is all-important, and it is for this reason that the inspired writers of the NT sometimes employed a free rendering of some OT passages when it could bring out more forcibly the point which they were making. The matter would be a problem only if the sense of the original passage were violated. This raises the whole question of the use of the OT by the NT writers, which belongs to the subject of interpretation.

6. Inspiration as a finished work. Inspiration, which is a completed work of the Spirit, is not to be confused with illumination, which is continuous. Between the original inspired MSS and ourselves lie one or two processes. If the original languages are known to the reader the only process is the transmission of the text. The science of textual criticism of the Bible is a very refined and exact one, and the study of it shows that the text, although not preserved completely from the normal processes of corruption which affect all transmission, has been wonderfully protected so that the message disclosed in Scripture has been available to each successive generation. Translators have a duty to reverence the wording of the original and to seek to convey in another lang. the thought of the Heb. and Gr. The extensive use of the LXX (a Gr. VS of the OT) by the NT writers shows that tr. is legitimate and it may be laid down that a tr. may be—indeed must be—treated as the Word of God insofar as it conveys faithfully the thought of the original.

7. Inspiration and the difficulties of Scripture. The Christian receives God’s Word on His own testimony. This does not mean, of course, that the reverent reader of Scripture encounters no problems. Difficulties in Scripture are a spur to seek divine enlightenment and to diligent study. They are not a call to abandon a high doctrine of Scripture. The scientist’s conviction of the unity of the universe is not overturned when he encounters problems. Likewise, the Christian’s conviction of the unity of Scripture is not surrendered in the face of Biblical difficulties. It is sometimes maintained that the doctrine of Scripture should be based on all the phenomena of Scripture, including its difficulties. It is questionable whether this is practicable, for the evaluation and harmonization of all the phenomena is considerably more than a lifetime’s work. Moreover, the Bible itself contains clear statements concerning its own inspiration. It is on these that the doctrine of inspiration should be based. The acceptance of Scripture as divinely-given on this basis implants the conviction of its unity, and the problems can now be approached, and progressively solved, in the light of this.

III. The authority of Scripture

A. Its relation to inspiration. The inspiration and the authority of Scripture are distinguishable but inseparable. Matters of religion are of such great importance that merely human authority is insufficient. It is not the human authors as such who give the Bible its authority, but its divine Author. It is because it originates from Him that its message is to be received and trusted. Accordingly, inspiration is rightly discussed before authority, and there can be no stable doctrine of Biblical authority where there is no stable doctrine of inspiration.

B. The authority of the OT

1. Its recognition within the OT period. An examination of the historical books of the OT discloses the fact that the law was treated as authoritative by those who read it. On the borders of the Promised Land, God directed Joshua to it. “Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded you; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall have good success” (Josh 1:7f.; cf. 8:30-35; 22:5; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 22:8ff.). In 2 Kings 23:24f. the wording is particularly significant: “Moreover Josiah put away the mediums and the wizards and the teraphim and the idols and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might establish the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord. Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.” There is a close relationship between turning to the Lord and obeying the precepts of the law. For recognition of the authority of the law in other parts of the OT see also Psalm 119; Daniel 9:10-13; Amos 2:4; and Malachi 4:4.

The law was obviously intended for posterity and not just for the generation to which it was first given, and evidence is not wanting that this is true of the prophetic revelations also (Isa 30:8; Jer 30:1ff.; 36:1ff.; Hab 2:2ff.). Daniel 9:1f. states, “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans—in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.” Daniel’s prayer, which immediately follows this, makes it clear that he regarded the Word of God through Jeremiah as completely authoritative. Psalm 89 also shows the psalmist pleading the promises of God given to David (2 Sam 7) in such a way as to show his acceptance of their divine authority.

2. Its recognition by Christ. Jesus did not quote the rabbis as authoritative, but He was constantly quoting Scripture in this way. He contrasts scribal tradition with the Word of God in the OT (Matt 15:1-6). His oft-repeated formula γέγραπται, “it is written,” being in the perfect tense, might well be tr., “it stands written,” for it implies the present relevance and not just the original writing of OT Scripture (e.g. Matt 11:10; Luke 22:37; John 6:45). Note should also be taken of the present tense as used by Jesus in Matthew 13:14; Luke 20:42; and John 5:45. Consider the significance of the words “to you” in Matthew 22:31f. Addressing the Sadduccees, Jesus said, “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” For Him, then, the OT was a book which spoke with a living voice, having abiding authority. His teaching in Matthew 5:21-48 is sometimes thought to involve a belittling of the OT in comparison with His own instruction, but this is a misunderstanding of the passage. The strong statements concerning the law which precede it (5:17-20) show that this could not be His intention. He is actually showing how profound are the implications of the law, disclosing even higher standards than those which the law required, and correcting certain wrong inferences from the law. The parenthetical assertion in John 10:35 sums up His attitude to OT Scripture: “and scripture cannot be broken.”

Jesus treated the OT as authoritative even for His own life. The whole point of the temptation narratives (Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) is that it was the Lord’s duty, as true Man, to listen to the voice of God through the OT and not to the voice of Satan.

The Lord assumed the reliability of even small details in the OT. He referred to many events the historicity of which is called into question by many today: the marriage of Adam and Eve (Matt 19:4f.) and the stories of Abraham (John 8:56), Noah, and Lot and his wife (Luke 17:26-32). It may be objected that fictitious stories may be employed to convey spiritual truth. Yet such an argument cannot be consistently applied to the Lord’s use of the OT. He was speaking to people who believed in the literal truth of the OT stories. There is no hint that He took them in any other way, and there are some passages where the whole point would be destroyed if they were not historical. It is impossible to defend His lang. in Matthew 12:41 and Luke 11:50f. unless the OT events He refers to are absolutely historical and factual. How can men who are represented as repenting in a fictitious story rise at an actual judgment to condemn actual men? (see Wenham, 12-14).

3. Its recognition by the NT writers. Jews and Christians were agreed on the authority of the OT Scriptures. Accordingly, a major factor in Christian witness to the Jew in NT days was the demonstration of the OT witness to Christ. This characterized Peter’s preaching at Pentecost and all the sermons to Jews in the Acts of the Apostles (e.g. Acts 2:24-36; 17:2f., 11; 18:28; 28:23). It is not that the witness of the prophets was treated by the apostles as authoritative only for the contemporaries of the prophets, but their prophecies in written form have continuing validity (Rom 1:1, 2; 16:26; Mark 1:2; 2 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 2:6; 2 Pet 1:20). For the NT writers, as for Jesus, the OT has present authority. They, too, use the formula “it is written” extensively and the use of the present tense in the following passages should be noted: Romans 4:3; 9:25, 27; Galatians 4:30; Hebrews 8:13; 2 Peter 1:19. The up-to-date character of the OT also emerges in certain important passages where it is expressly stated that it was written with the men of the NT era in mind and not simply for men of old. For example, Paul, writing about Abraham (Gen 15:6), has this to say: “But the words ‘it was reckoned to him’ were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:23f.; cf. Acts 7:38; 13:47; Rom 15:4f.; 1 Cor 9:9f.; 10:6-11; 2 Cor 7:1).

C. The authority of the NT

1. The nature of apostleship. It is of vital importance to grasp the fact that the apostles of Christ were appointed by Him to a very special office, which was unique and unrepeatable. In retrospect, we can see that one of the major tasks of the apostles was to be the production of the body of the NT lit. J. B. Lightfoot, exhibiting the difference between the words ἄγγελος, G34, “messenger,” and ἀπόστολος, G693, “apostle,” says, “Applied to a person, apostolos denotes more than angelos. The ‘apostle’ is not only the messenger but the delegate of the person who sends him. He is entrusted with a mission, has powers conferred upon him” (Galatians [1865], 89). It is true that it is not completely clear how many persons were looked upon as apostles of Christ. There can be no debate about the original twelve or Paul, who, like them, was specially appointed by Him (1 Cor 9:1; Gal 1:1; cf. Acts 1:8, 22). Some consider that the word was still being used in this special way when it was applied to Andronicus and Junias (Rom 16:7). Barnabas (Acts 14:14, cf. 13:1) and James the Lord’s brother (1 Cor 15:7; Gal 2:9) may also be included in the circle of apostles of Christ. There is evidence, however, of a somewhat wider use of the term to denote apostles (i.e. specially designated messengers) of the churches who were given a commission by a particular church for a particular purpose (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). These were not comparable to those who were apostles of Christ.

The Lord evidently regarded the selection of the original apostolic band as a matter of great moment, for He prepared for it by an extended time of prayer (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12ff.). Matthew 10:1-11:1 gives the terms of their commission during the period of His earthly ministry. Jesus concentrated on these men, giving far more time to their instruction than to the instruction of others. Whether they were right in appointing Matthias after the defection and death of Judas has been the subject of some debate, but in any case, they realized that it was the divine choice which mattered supremely (Acts 1:24f.).

The Apostle Paul often associated another Christian or Christians with him in the writing of an epistle, but it is noteworthy that for such a person he never used the term “apostle” (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1). The words “we might have made demands as the apostles of Christ” (1 Thess 2:6) are prob. not an exception to this but simply the literary employment of “we” in a sing. sense (cf. 3:1: “we...alone”!).

2. The nature of apostolic tradition. “Tradition” means “that which is handed over,” and the Jews possessed a large vocabulary of terms connected with tradition. They spoke of receiving it, holding it, keeping it, standing in it, and handing it over to another. They used it of the oral traditions of earlier rabbis which were handed over to their followers. Jesus was opposed to these rabbinic traditions when they were given the same reverence as the Word of God (Mark 7:1-13; cf. Gal 1:14). The NT writers took over this vocabulary and applied it to the true traditions, the deposit of apostolic testimony (see e.g. the phraseology of Luke 1:2; Acts 2:42; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1ff.; Gal 1:9, 12; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; Jude 3). What is it that makes this tradition valid and authoritative when that of the Jews was not? It is the fact that it was the deposit of teaching which was given to the apostles by Jesus Himself, both before and after the resurrection (Acts 1:1, 2). It was “received from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23) and bore the stamp of His own supreme authority upon it.

The apostles were completely at one as transmitters of authoritative teaching from Jesus Himself (1 Cor 15:9-11). Does Galatians 2:11ff. constitute an exception? It should be noted that this passage does not refer to Peter’s teaching but to an event in his life in which, as Paul indicates, he acted against his own convictions (not just against Paul’s!) and so presumably against what he would have taught others. The veracity of his teaching is not in question at all. Galatians 2:1-10 shows that Paul and the earlier apostles agreed completely on matters of doctrine.

Pa