The Holy Spirit and the Written Word -- Ronald Milton
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE WRITTEN WORD
By RONALD MILTON
OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION A. Greatest legacy of man.
B. Of Man or from God?
DISCUSSION I. Assertions of Inspiration.
A. The bold statement of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
1. Arndt and Gingrich on "scripture."
2. Partial inspiration?
3. Theopneustos.
B. Peter's declaration. 2 Peter 1:19-21.
1. Made more sure.
2. Term "borne."
3. Glass illustration.
4. Sense or sentence?
5.The oral word and written word.
6. Bibliolatry?
C. Definition.
II. Proof of Inspiration.
A. Jesus and apostles' attitude toward O.T.
1. Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6.
2. References to O.T. and to own writings.
B. Unequaled Unity.
C. Unexampled Brevity.
D. Unexpected Accuracy.
III. Into All Truth.
A. Jesus' promise. Matthew 10:19-20; John 14:26; John 16:13.
B. Unity of the faith. 1 Corinthians 13:8; Jude 1:3; 2 Peter 1:3.
IV. "Extra" Operations of the Spirit.
A. Modern Day Revelations.
1. Only three bases of possible support.
2. Gatewood-Farnsworth Debate.
B. Direction Operation.
CONCLUSION.
1. Bible is the word of God.
2. Campbell's quote.
3. Matthew 24:35, Jno. 10:35.
The greatest legacy ever received by man is the Bible. Nowadays it is claimed that the Scriptures must undergo modifications because of the scientific approach. This infers that the Bible as we have viewed it in the past is inadequate and morally defective. We are challenged from many quarters to arise from our blurred and distorted views of God. This brings us to a basic question, Is the Bible a produce of human reasoning or a volume uniquely inspired? It seems to follow immediately that if the Bible is merely of man rather than from God we have on our hands an even greater miracle.
ASSERTIONS OF INSPIRATION One of the most challenging statements regarding inspira-tion is the bold and sensational assertion:
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and bast been assured of, knowing of whom thou bast learned them; and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:14-15).
What had Timothy known from a child and told to con-tinue in? The sacred writings meant, undoubtedly, the Jewish Scriptures. The word "scripture" (v. 10) has in the Bible a definitely technical meaning. Arndt and Gingrich say that it is used in the New Testament always to denote the sacred writings of a religious nature and the Old Testament Scrip-tures in particular. The idea is that of canonicity, and an essential point in that conception is that such canonical Scrip-tures are inspired. The passage could be correctly translated, "Every God-inspired Scripture is also profitable."
The phrase pasa graphe, "every scripture," has reference to every scripture inspired in the same manner as the Old Testament. The phrase admits of no exceptions and of no restrictions. There may be degrees of revelation but there are no degrees of inspiration. To every word and all words, every part alike is true, thus full or plenary inspiration. Nothing is here declared about the mode of inspiration but partial inspiration is ruled out. Even the disputed passage in I Corinthians, chapter seven supports, the claim, for Paul says he had the "Spirit of God" (v. 40).
The word theopneustos, translated "God-breathed" is won-derfully connotative and powerfully suggestive. If we see it as used in the book of God it takes on new beauty and additional strength. It is a compound which begins with an explicit recognition of God as the author. So, the distinctive hallmark is that the Scriptures owe their very existence to the direct creative activity of God. The human agents in the production are not even here mentioned. Warfield points out that "inspired of God" is a clumsy translation since the phrase in the Greek says nothing of inspiring.2 What it does say is not that it is "breathed into by God but that is "breathed out by God."
The first portion of Genesis 2:7 tells us, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground . . ." So far man is no higher than the beasts of the field but the next part, "and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul," speaks of man as a finished product a little lower than the angels. Man is the product of God's breath. So is the Bible! "Breath of God" is the symbol of His almighty power. "By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" (Psalms 33:6).
Made More Sure The classic passage in II Timothy is enforced and extended by another:
And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts; knowing this first that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy every came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21).
The readers had been assured that what had been known to them of "the power and coming our Lord Jesus Christ" did not rest on "cunningly devised fables." Peter says we have something better the testimony of eyewitnesses of Christ's glory. He does not stop here but goes another step by intimating that they have better testimony than even that of eyewitnesses. "We have," he says, "the prophetic word" (v. 19). This term has indisputable reference to the Scriptures but does Peter mean the whole of Scripture or just that portion we particularly call prophetic? Well, in a real sense the whole Old Testament is written prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:21).
There is more in Peter's statement than a simple assertion of the divine origin of Scripture; we are advanced in our understanding of HOW God has produced the Bible. There is a supporting clause that contains first a negative and then a positive declaration. "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man:" This is an emphatic denial of human initative in the relationship to the written revelation. The prophetic word of God did not comp simply by any man's desire, determination or decision. Man was not the prime mover "but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." In a positive manner there is equal emphasis that its source lies in God. As I heard brother Paul Southern say recently, "The penmanship is human but the authorship is divine."
The point is not just that "men spake from God" but also that the Holy Spirit is declared as "bearing" them. The word is from pherein, "to be borne," not agein, "to be led" or odeegein, "to be guided or directed." The term goes beyond allothers in assigning the effect produced to the active agent, so what is "borne" is taken up by the "bearer" and conveyed by the "bearer's" power to the "bearer's" goal. It must have been a knowledge of this passage that induced some writer to say, "Inspiration is a breath which fills the sails of the mortal being while revelation is a telescope bringing into range objects the eye could not discern."
I do not think it out of order to ask, Cannot the Holy Spirit have more than one style? If you can understand how the multi-colored panes in a glass window can refract the rays of the sun, so as to exhibit a beautiful light of perfectly blended colors, then you should have no trouble in under-standing how God could make use of different types of men to express His will in the peculiar style of each writer. He used their voice and manner, did He not?
Sense or Sentence?
Paul wrote that he "came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring the testimony of God" (1 Corinthians 2:1). He claimed that the apostles of Christ "speak the wisdom of God in a mystery" (v. 7), that "by His Spirit" God "revealed them" unto the apostles so that they spake those things "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth" (v. 13). Foy Wallace, Jr. once wrote in the Torch: "It was not ancient wisdom in these men; it was divine revelation to these men."4 Paul contends for inspiration in sense and sentence. It was this kind that Jesus promised:
When they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what he shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you (Matthew 10:19-20).
The "what" is the thought and the "how" means the man-ner of expression. If Paul had intended to affirm the fact of verbal inspiration so explicitly that it would be impossible to misunderstand him, he could not have better or more clearly expressed himself than he did. J. W. McGarvey, in a brisk argument with Isaac Errett recorded in the Missouri ChristianLectures of 1893, wrote:
If the sacred writers were left to their own choice of words, and their own construction of sentences, we know that some uncertainty attaches to their writings, and what is worse, we know not how to locate this uncertainty in any given place but are compelled to let it spread like a mist over the whole Bible. The conception robs us of certainty in regard to anything.
The Oral and Written Word The oral and written word are both on the same level of divine inspiration. "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions, which we were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Form criticism rests upon the basic assumption that there was an oral tradition which was later solidified into the Scriptures, more or less accurately. But why not assume that the same Spirit that guided the apostolic preaching also bore the writers of Scrip-ture? "It is incredible," says Gregory, "that they who were assisted by the Holy Spirit in their pleadings when they preached, should be deserted by that spirit when they com-mitted what they preached to writing."6
Bibliolatry? The charge is often made that the fundamentalist is "in bondage to the Biblical," that the Bible is an idol and we are its slaves. Who has not felt scandalized by the term "bibliolater" and by statements calling the Bible the paper pope of protestantism? I really find it difficult to think these are justified charges against people who are sincerely seeking to bring their lives to the light of the Word as to the judg-ment of God Himself. The assertion of modern theologians that "God's word is petrified in a dead record" cannot stand when inspiration itself says, "For the word of God is living and active."
Definition
We should be cautions in defining inspiration. The term has been used in many senses and sometimes with no sense at all. Of the many definitions available I suggest this one:
Inspiration is that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit exerted on the minds of selected men which rendered them organs of God for the infallible reception and communication of His will.
In the Millennial Harbinger of 1846 its editor wrote that the promise of "leading into all truth," and of "bringing all things before known to rememberance" by the Holy Spirit includes all that was understood by inspiration. Campbell suggests that this precludes the selection of incorrect or un-suitable words and sentences.7 In another work he wrote:
The Spirit of God inspired all the spiritual ideas in the New Testament, and confirmed them by miracles; and he ever present with the word that he inspired. He descended from heaven on the day of Pentecost, and has not formally ascended since. In the sense in which he descended he cer-tainly has not ascended; for he is to animate and inspire with new life the church or temple of the Lord . . .
We cannot separate the Spirit and the Word of God and ascribe so much power to the one and so much to the other; for so did not the apostles. Whatever the word does, the Spirit does; whatever the Spirit does in the work of converting men, the word does . . .
Without inspiration the works of Paul and Peter, John and James and Matthew, Moses and Mark possess no more value than works of Augustine, Luther and Calvin. Keyser has mentioned, "We hesitate to use such language but it cannot be avoided. If the Bible is not inspired of God it is a bad book."
PROOF OF INSPIRATION Are we guilty of circle reasoning when considering internal evidences? No one would accuse the New York Times book reviewers of circle reasoning because they judge books on the basis of content. A music critic is not criticized who eval-uates a new symphony from hearing the work.
The Lord's Attitude toward the Old Testament To the omniscient Son of God, Adam and Eve were not mythical characters but historical persons. He not only quoted Genesis 2:24 as an authoritative statement about marriage but introduced it as a statement made by the creator Himself:
Have ye not read, that he who made them in the be-ginning made them male and female, and said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matthew 19:4-6).
This passage does not give us a saying of God's recorded in Scripture but just the Word of Scripture itself. It can be treated as a declaration of God's only upon the hypothesis that all Scripture is a declaration of God's!
The Apostles' Use of Scripture
It was the basic assumption with New Testament writers that Old Testament Scripture had God as its author. Inspiration was never a question. For instance, Old Testament words in Romans 9:17 and Galatians 3:8 are quoted with the for-mula, "the Scripture saith," yet in the passage quoted God as the speaker. The book of Hebrews is another good example. It identifies the written doctrine with the word of God and rather than referring to the human authors, it introduces quotations of the Old Testament by referring to God or the Holy Spirit as the speaker. In Hebrews 3:7, the quotation is from Psalms 95:7 and is introduced by, "even as the Holy Spirit saith." The same statement which is quoted in the next chapter, Hebrews 4:7 is assigned this time as coming through David. Both statements are true. David was the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit.
Attitude Toward Own Writings
If, as is claimed by the New Testament authors, their writ-ings are on a par with the Old, we can expect them giving instructions with the authority of heaven behind them. This is the case exactly. Paul "commands" the Thessalonians three times in one paragraph and concludes, "And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed" (2 Thessalonians 3:14). He had commended them for receiving his word "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (2 Thessalonians 2:13). It is little wonder that Paul should quote in the same verse a passage from Deuteronomy and one from the gospel of Luke and refer to both by the simple term "scripture" (II Tim. 5:18)) . Peter confesses to the writing of two epistles to stir Christians up and places Paul's writings on a par with "the other scrip-ture" (2 Peter 3:1; 2 Peter 3:15-16).
Unequaled Unity The distinct unity of the Bible argues eloquently for its divine inspiration. The sage of Bethany wrote:
The skeptic or the infidel might as well argue that King Hiram's 30,000 woodsmen and builders and King Solomon's 150,000 hewers, stonecutters and carriers of burdens, with his 3,000 supervisors and directors were severally and in-dividually working each after a plan of his own: and that without concert or pre-arrangement, all their materials were fitted up into a temple the most splendid and mag-nificent that ever stood upon this earth as that shepherds, husbandman, fishermen, artisans, historians, lawgivers, kings, living in different countries, in ages remote, speaking diverse languages could have, eithr by accident or design, got up such a volume as the Bible . . .
Unexampled Brevity
Before the University of Missouri YMCA in May of 1893, J. W. McGarvey proposed some questions. He asked, for example, who could have been with Jesus for three and a half years and confined himself to sixteen short chapters, or to eight hundred lines in the history of the whole of .that life? Who could have refrained from writing of that life? Who could have refrained from writing of the first thirty years? Consider the many kindnesses and not one exclamation. So many miracles and yet no reflection on them. So many sublime thoughts without emphasis, sufferings without complaint and acts of injustice without bitterness. If it were said of Jesus, "Never man so spake," we must say of the Bible writers, "Never men wrote like these men!"
Unexpected Accuracy
Luke is very accurate in the use of political titles. This is important because of the frequent interchanges of provinces. The governor of Cyprus in Acts 13 is called an anthupatos. Some contend Luke used the wrong word. The term refers to the governor of a senatorial province. Antistrategos, the term for propraetor, referred to the governor of an imperial province. You see, when making arrangement of the empire Caesar Augustus divided provinces into two classes: one to the senate and the other he retained for the emperor. A prov-ince in peaceful times would be placed under a procounsul and was senatorial in nature. If martial law were in force it would be transferred to the charge of a propraetor who was answerable to the emperor. So then, these frequent inter-changes rendered the provinces alternately senatorial and imperial. To be strictly accurate a writer would have to know of these changes as well as being acquainted with the terms employed by the two types. Since Luke refers to Sergius Paulus as a proconsul he is the same as saying that Cyprus was then a senatorial province. Up till 22 B.C. the island had been among the imperial provinces but afterwards was award-ed the Senate. There are many more cases of Luke's accuracy but this will have to suffice.
INTO ALL TRUTH The promise of Jesus to his apostles of supernatural guidance was addressed to them on at least two different occasions: first, when they were sent out the first time to preach the kingdom of God (Matthew 10:19-20), and secondly, during His last address (Jno. 14:26; 16:13). No language could express with greater force the most absolute inspiration and complete revelation. John Calvin, who held that this promise was in a peculiar sense limited to the apostles, asked: "If they were guided by the Spirit of truth when they published their writings, what prevented them from embracing a full knowledge of the Gospel, and consigning it therein?"
Just prior to his going to the Father Jesus said, "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you:" (Acts 1:8). Did the apostles live to receive Him? Ten days hence would see the fulfillment. They did not come to the whole truth all at once (Acts 10:16); but if language means anything at all, within their lifetime the Holy Spirit was bearing the writers by revealing to them truths they did not know and bearing them in recording with infalliable accuracy what they had seen and heard or had learned from human sources.
Unity of the Faith This is why Paul wrote, "When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" (1 Corinthians 13:8). That is how come we are able to read in Jude, "Be-loved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (v. 3). The author here is not speaking of the act of believing but that which believed. He asserts the existence of a formal body of truth under the title of "the faith." The word "once" asserts further-more that this organized body of truth is complete. Neither change nor addition can take place without a violation of the eternal order. "Once" does not mean twice. "Once" means it is complete. Inspiration ceased when the last inspired writer laid his pen down. "Seeing that His divine power hash granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that called us by His own glory and virtue" (2 Peter 1:3). "All" does not mean some. The Bible is the complete, final and sufficient will of God to man (James 1:25; Ephesians 4:11-13).
"EXTRA" OPERATIONS OF THE SPIRIT Modern Day Revelations
Some religious bodies justify their existence on the contention that their founders received one or more revelations from God. Only one question is necessary: Why did God give them the purported message? It may be claimed that God gave such revelations in order to change what had already been written in the Bible. But surely this cannot be for the Word of God teaches us not to go "beyond the things which are written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). (cf. II Jno. 9; Galatians 1:8-9). The religious teacher who claims to have a special revelation that changes what is written contradicts God.
Some say they received their revelation to tell us additional truth. This cannot be taken seriously for the Lord promised the apostles the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (Jno. 16:13). If the apostles were guided into all truth it is impossible that modern claimants could be guided into any truth (Acts 20:27; Jude 1:3). Mr. Farnsworth in his debate with Otis Gatewood claimed that Job 32:8 helped support the doctrine of continuous revelation. He maintained that "one must be inspired by the Spirit to understand the inspired word. The inspired writers revealed nothing to the uninspired. The Bible is not a revelation, a revealing of the mind of God to man, to anyone except one who is inspired."12 Well, if the word when written by inspired men could be understood only by an inspired audience. Peter, instead of saying, "Hear these words" (Acts 2), should have said, "Ye men of Israel, be inspired so that you can understand what I am talking about."
It is further claimed by advocates of progressive revelation that leaders received special revelation to a correct interpretation of the Scriptures. This says that the Holy Spirit originally either could not or would not guide the writers of the Bible into thoughts and words to unlock the Scriptures for understanding. If God could not, where did He get the power to enable someone else to write plain enough so people could use it to explain one not understood at first? On the other hand, if it is argued that God would not, one is faced with a contradiction as to the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:17). It is the rankest fraud to claim the necessity of another revelation to unlock the meaning of the Bible. It would be no more absurd to ask God to give us another plan of salvation than to ask the Holy Spirit to come down and do His work again. As bad to ask the Spirit to add to what He has done as to ask Christ to repeat his suffering upon the cross.
Direct Operation
Even though the Holy Spirit and the word are not identical, they are so intimately joined that in His witness, the Spirit never goes beyond the written word. Luther said, "The Spirit never enlarges the area of divine revelation, he merely con-veys to the individual hearts what the words declare that proceed from Christ's mouth." William Barclay put it ac-curately: "The Holy Spirit does not gate-crash into any man's heart." The theory of direct operation of the Spirit upon the sinner's heart makes the Bible as useless and senseless as a boy who writes a letter to his girl-friend and goes to explain it to her.
CONCLUSION
We recognize and reverence the Bible as the word of God. We bow before its author. In so doing we think we are fol-lowing the example of our Savior who interpreted His mis-sion, waged His conflicts, comforted His heart, and guided His steps, in dependence upon the written word.
"The Bible is to the intelligent and moral world of man what the sun is to the planets in our system the fountain and source of light and life, spiritual and eternal. There is not a spiritual idea in the whole human race that is not drawn from the Bible. As soon will the philosopher find an in-dependent sunbeam in nature, as the theologian a spiritual conception in man, independent of THE ONE BEST BOOK."
QUESTIONS FOR CLASS DISCUSSION
Is it proper and reasonable to allow the Bible to speak on its own behalf regarding inspiration?
What does the word inspiration mean?
What is meant by inspiration? How far does it go?
Name some objections to inspiration.
Is there a need for later revelations? Why?
Could men have written the Bible? Give reasons for so answering.
What to you seems the best proofs of inspiration?
How would you answer the charge that the Bible could not be from God because of the immorality recorded?
How did the authors of the New Testament view their own work?
How would you show that Biblical authors were assisted in writing as well as speaking?
Explain how both God and men can be spoken of as authors of the Bible.
Discuss the possible "proofs" of progressive revelation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35).
"And the scripture cannot be broken" (Jno. 10:35).
Alexander, Archibold.Evidences of Christianity. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, n.d.
Campbell, Alexander. Christian Baptism. Bethany: A. Campbell,Publisher, 1852.. The Christian System. St. Louis: Christian Board of Publication, n.d.
Millennial Harbinger. Bethany, 1830 1870.
Gaussen, L.The Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures. Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.
Gregory, Olinthus.Evidences of the Christian Religion: London:George Bell and Sons, 1890.
Henry, Carl F. H. (ed.) Revelation And The Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958.
Keyser, Leander S.A System of Christian Evidence. Burlington: The Lutheran Literary Board, 1950.
Miller, H. S.General Biblical Introduction. Houghton: The Word-Bearer Press, 1952.
McGarvey, J. W.Sermons. Cincinnati: The Standard PublishingCompany, n.d.
Orr, James. Revelation and Inspiration. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eardmans Pub. Co., 1952.
Ramm, Bernard.The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1955. Special Revelation and the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1961.
Roberts, J. W.Restoration Quarterly. Abilene, Texas, 1957-63.
Wallace, Foy E. Jr. Torch. Oklahoma City: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publications, 1950-1951.. God's Prophetic Word. Oklahoma City: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publications,