03.13 - Modern Theories of Inspiration

(13) Modem Theories of Inspiration

These may be roughly classed under two heads Plenary and Partial. The latter of these is not of much practical moment, and need not detain us for discussion, since no theory which leaves it open to the human mind to determine for itself what Scripture is inspired and to what extent, is of no practical importance and utility. Under this head may be placed all merely natural and literary theories, theories opposed to all supernatural and extraordinary gifts and powers, theories which limit inspiration to natural genius and intelligence, to mere rational illumination, and which accept as divine and true what “finds me” rather than what commands me. According to this theory the Scriptures are placed on the same level as any other book, and are treated as mere human productions. The sacred writers are regarded as honest and trustworthy witnesses, faithful teachers of what the}- knew and had acquired in the ordinal } way of knowledge, and nothing more. This theory runs counter to the whole trend of this lecture, to all the claims and evidences of Inspiration which the Scriptures make for themselves, and which has been accorded to them by the Church from the beginning. The plenary vie\v is the one accepted by Christian teachers generally, while they differ largely as to what it means and what it includes. The term plenary denotes what is full, adequate, or sufficient to account for the phenomena of the Scriptures, and to meet the needs of men. The term is objected to by some because it is associated with the mechanical or dictation theory, which theory regards the sacred writers as mere machines moved by the Holy Ghost, or unconscious and irresponsible instruments used by the Spirit as lie willeth. This theory Dean Farrar describes as “an untrue and unscriptural hypothesis,” signally “ dishonouring to the majesty and holiness of God, and tending to materialism and idolatry.” This theory is erroneously said to be “ the view of orthodox evangelical churches.” It may be the view of a few extreme individuals in those churches, but certainly is not the view of the Evangelical Free Churches of this country as set forth in their creeds and confessions, their catechisms and recognised doctrinal standards. The term plenary is objected to by others because it is identified with Verbal Inspiration: as held by us, it must be distinguished from it.

Verbal inspiration denotes that action of the Holy Spirit on the minds of the sacred writers, which not only secured infallibility in all particulars, but secured the form and expression as well as the subject-matter of the truth; the words as also the contents and thoughts of Scripture, the language as well as the truths of Scripture. It declares the words of Scripture to be the words of God and not of men. There is a certain reason and ground in Scripture for this view within proper limitations. It is reasonable to suppose if God gave man a revelation of His will, He would secure its faithful and accurate communication by guarding the language in which it is expressed.

Moreover, the close connection which exists between thought and language, ideas and words, truths and symbols, has led some to conclude that we can only think in words, and receive ideas and truths in some form of language or thought-symbols. It is also reasonable to conclude that if Scripture be a revelation of the mind and will of God to man, and is to be accepted as authoritative, it must be infallibly true.

There is not only a ground, in reason, for some form of verbal inspiration, but also in the Scriptures them selves. They speak of the truth being preached and taught “ not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth,” implying that the truths of Divine revelation were not in ideas, thoughts, and voiceless visions only, but were clothed in some form of words, or suggested to the minds of the writers in certain forms of thought-symbols.

Bishop Westcott says: “ The slightest consideration will show that words are as essential to intellectual processes as they are to mutual intercourse. For man the purely spiritual absolute is an imagination or a dream; thoughts are wedded to words as necessarily as soul to body.” 1 When Prophets foretold things of which they had no personal knowledge or adequate conception; when Apostles spoke with tongues and in languages they had never learned; when Evangelists gave “the words” of the Lord Jesus; when Moses recorded the words of the Decalogue as given him on the Mount, and when the sacred writers use arguments and make statements of fact and doctrine, the import and value of which turn upon words, tenses, and parts of speech, there must be in some sense verbal inspiration. It must be to these cases, and to those in which the sacred writers claim to speak; the words God had put into their mouths,” verbal inspiration should apply. To ascribe all the words of Scripture to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would be to make the Holy Spirit responsible for all the errors, defects, discrepancies and imperfections in the expressions, language, and narratives of Scripture, a position which involves serious issues.

Under Plenary Inspiration we include degrees of inspiration.” This theory is of Jewish origin. It obtained with the Rabbis, who held to a triple inspiration, agreeing with the threefold division of the Hebrew Scriptures Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa with a descending grade of inspiration. Professor 1 “Study of the Gospels/ Introduction, p. 14.

Cave, in his “ Inspiration of the Old Testament,” holds by a threefold inspiration; the Hagiographic inspiration which resulted in the assimilation of revelation, the Prophetic, resulting in the apprehension and communication of revelation, and the Transcriptional, prompting to the act of writing and assisting in accomplishing it. This theory of degrees was urged mainly in opposition to the mechanical and verbal theories, and obtained favour and currency under the threefold conception of “ superintendence, elevation, and suggestion.” “ Superintendence “ was ascribed to the historical and narrative writings, “ elevation “ to the poetical and ethical Scriptures, and “suggestion” to the doctrinal and prophetic. The main idea of the theory is, that assistance was given by the Holy Spirit to the several writers for the purpose (a) prompting to write; (b) imparting to them a knowledge of tilings they did not otherwise know; (c) superintending and securing them against radical error; (d) suggesting and guiding them into the truths of doctrine and “race. This theory has certain support in the Scriptures.

All the sacred writings are not equal in importance and authority, do not claim the same significance, nor rank the same in doctrinal teaching and value, nor exert the same moral, spiritual, and beneficial influence on the minds and hearts of men. They are not equally inspired, nor do they equally inspire the reader. Moses was a much greater prophet, holds a much higher place, and enjoys a higher distinction and inspiration as a pattern-prophet than Nathan, Samuel, or any of the Minor Prophets. What Moses and Isaiah were among the Old Testament writers, Paul and John were among the New Testament writers. If we would examine and make a comparison of the moral and doctrinal teaching of the several books of Scripture, we shall find that Numbers and Judges will not compare with the Psalms and the book of Job; or Ezra and Nehemiah with the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah; or Esther and Chronicles with Deuteronomy and the Minor Prophets; nor the Old Testament Scriptures with the New; and this difference is largely attributable to a difference of inspiration. Dr. Sanday, in his Bampton Lectures, holds “ that prophetical inspiration was typical of all inspiration “; he also says, “it is not safe to transfer what is said of this to all other kinds of inspiration whatsoever. The Psalmists and wise men had an inspiration of their own, which may be in part prophetical but is not entirely so. It would be less safe to ascribe prophetic inspiration to the writing historian, “ because prophetic inspiration is most remote from the writing of history.” The two may be connected so far, “ That the knowledge of the ways of God acquired in inspired moments, might when applied without the afflatus give an insight into the meaning of history greater than would be possessed without it. But there is no evidence that such inspiration would in any way supersede the ordinary use of historical materials, or interfere with the use of that material in such a way as to prevent possibilities of error.” 1 The theory of degrees of inspiration applied to the Old Testament is applied in a similar way to the New. The chief place is given to the Gospels of 1 Bamp. Lee, p. 268.

Jesus Christ as the source of the facts and the fount of the doctrinal truths of the New Testament, and among the Gospels supremacy in doctrinal truths and teaching is accorded to the fourth Gospel. Next to the Gospels are the Epistles, and among the Epistles those of Paul and John rank before those of Peter and James, and these again before Jude and the Apocalypse. In this gradation of inspiration in the New Testament the ruling principle would seem to be the Christological one. Supremacy is given to the work and teaching of Christ, to the doctrines of redemption and salvation, those Scriptures which are Christocentric being regarded as of the highest inspiration.

While much may be said in favour of the theory of degrees of inspiration, and it may best explain certain differences in teaching, and accord with the Divine contents of the Scriptures, it is not without its difficulties and drawbacks. It tends to sectionalise and split up the Scriptures into divers parts and portions, and gives rise to a teaching inconsistent with the unity of Scripture as an organised whole.

It fails to give an adequate and satisfactory view of the historical and ethical Scriptures, and to account for the superiority of Scripture history to any other; nor does it sufficiently explain the gradual unfolding of the Kingdom of God and the development of the Divine purpose according to selection, and so to answer the purposes and ends of Divine Revelation. It does not clearly discriminate between Inspiration and Revelation; it is somewhat arbitrary and artificial in its distinctions and degrees, and affords no more satisfactory explanation of the phenomena of Scripture than is supplied by the dynamical view of inspiration. The defect of most theories is their a priori character and assumptions. Instead of being drawn from the facts and phenomena of Scripture they are largely brought to them. The only way of arriving at a true theory of Inspiration is to make a complete induction of the phenomena to be accounted for, to inquire into their origin and cause, and find their solution. This has been the main purpose of this discussion in the distinctions made between the historical character of Scripture and the development of the doctrines, morals, and truths of revelation. In giving our adherence to the doctrine of Plenary In spiration we do so believing that theory best meets all difficulties, accounts for all phenomena, and, legitimately interpreted, will be found sufficient and complete lor all ends and purposes. It recognises Divine and human factors; emphasises the spiritual in contradiction to the rational consciousness; it respects the gracious ends and purposes of Revelation and its historical aspects; it secures the character and authority of the Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice; while it has the advantage of holding with the past, of being in accord with the creeds and confessions of Christendom, and upholds the trust worthy character of the Scriptures as a record of God’s revealed mind and will to man. It is also dynamical in the sense of admitting a dunamis or supernatural power moving the minds of the sacred writers and carrying them along in the execution of their work, as also a Divine and supernatural power working with the Scriptures themselves. It duly recognises the unity and diversity of the Scriptures, and secures to each its proper place and value in the redemptive purposes of God.

“It does not,” says Professor Rooke, “ regard every part of Scripture as a perfect infallible revelation, even though it does accept every part as part of God’s in fallible and perfect record.” Every Scripture reveals some aspect of God’s gracious purpose as the work of Divine inspiration and revelation to the mind of the writer. While it holds all parts are not equally inspired, it recognises that measure of inspiration which renders each Scripture a reliable and trustworthy writing. Though it does not support the dogma of mechanical dictation, and leaves room for the free play of the writers personality, it at the same time finds room for those revelations of God which communicate unknown truths to the mind, with an impulse to write and speak and a sufficient guarantee of correct expression. As a theory it respects the Divine activity and human freedom, whereby God is free to declare His mind and will to the writer in His own way, and the writer is able to receive and express the same with fulness and accuracy. It may not as a theory solve every difficulty nor secure the full adhesion and confidence of all thinkers, yet to us it is an adequate working theory, and we are able to receive what God has been pleased to inspire the writers to communicate, we have “ the heavenly treasure in earthen vessels,” but we accept the vessels as of God’s own choosing, for God was pleased to “ choose the foolish, the weak, and the base things of the world, to confound and bring to nought the wise, the strong, and the things that be, that no flesh should glory before God.” “ The weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:25-30.)