What does the Bible say about its own
inspiration?
Neither
the Old nor the New Testament uses the word “inspiration” to describe Scripture
as a whole. The closest example of the idea of “inspiration” is the word
translated “God-breathed” by the NIV[1] in
2 Tim 3:16. This word, theopnuestos,
is only used once in all of Scripture. It comes from the Greek words for “God”
and “to breathe,” with an adjectival ending; thus it is translated with the
descriptive term “God-breathed.” The KJV translates the word “by inspiration of
God,” which is technically a theological interpretation rather than a
translation. In order to avoid reading into the text when the Bible uses a rare
word, Christians must allow the Bible to interpret itself, only speaking where
Scripture speaks and remaining silent where it is silent. This means
considering what Scripture has to say about the modern uses of the words
“inerrant” and “inspired” to describe itself.
The
first places to look to understand theopnuestos
are any other instances where God breathes. Of the verses where the word “God”
and a form of “breathe” both occur, only a few are relevant to this discussion
(Gen 2:7; Job 33:4, 37:9; Ezek 37:5, and 37:9).[2] In
each of these cases, God is the one breathing, so one can compare the result of
that breath to the result in II Tim 3:16—Scripture that is “useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.” Paul, an expert
in the Old Testament, would no doubt have those verses in mind when he chose to
use a word he did not use in any other known letter.
Understanding
these passages should allow a better understanding of theopnuestos as it is used in II Tim 3:16. In Gen 2:7, “God
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”
(NIV). In Job 33:4, “the breath of the Almighty has given me life.” In Job
37:9, “By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is
straightened.” In the Ezekiel passages, God says, “Behold I will cause breath
to enter you and you shall live” and “Come from the four winds, O breath, and
breathe upon these slain, that they may live.” With the exception of Job 37:9,
the result of God’s breath is life, which makes the most sense considering the
context of theopnuestos II Timothy
3:16 and 17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may
be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The result of God breathing in II
Timothy 3:16 is Scripture that “is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting,
and training in righteousness,” leading to spiritual life, and preparation for
“every good work.” This does not answer the question at hand though, because
the verse is not clear about whether “God-breathed” means the same as what most
people call either “inspiration” or “inerrancy.”
Scripture does not make many
universal statements about itself because when it was written there was no clearly
defined body of “Scripture” accepted by all Christians. Too often Christians
say that the Bible is “inspired”—a word not found in Scripture—and therefore is
“inerrant”—another word not found in Scripture. Because the word “inspired” is
often used synonymously with “God-breathed,” one should look at “inerrancy”
first. Though it may not directly speak about inerrancy, Christians can and
should use Scripture itself to define inerrancy. One can do this in two ways, both
looking at biblical accounts in context to see what inerrancy is not, and
looking back to II Tim 3:16 to see how theopnuestos
relates to inerrancy.
Generally, when one claims the Bible
is inerrant, that person is claiming that the Old and New Testaments are
without error in areas such as science, history, geography, chronology, and
theology. Looking at biblical passages that involve these areas will determine
whether they are, in fact, valid ways of looking at inerrancy. First, however, one
must define the term “error.” Most Christians define error as either a
discrepancy between two biblical accounts or a discrepancy between the biblical
account of a story and a known historical or scientific account of the same
story. Many books have been written pointing out this type of error in the
Bible, but a careful reading of the text will show whether these texts actually
contain errors.
The most common scientific argument
against Biblical inerrancy is the creation accounts in Gen 1 and 2. Before
looking at scientific evidence, one must read the stories and compare any
differences they have with each other. Gen 1 begins with darkness (verse 2), while
Gen 2 begins with the earth and heavens (verse 5). Gen 1 has God creating male
and female simultaneously (verse 27), while Gen 2 has God creating male and
female separately (verses 7 and 22). There are several other differences, but
these show the most common non-scientific “errors” mentioned.
Like most parallel stories in
Scripture, these two accounts do not actually contradict each other. They begin
at different places in time, one after darkness was created and the other after
earth was created, with neither actually beginning at God’s first creative act,
which was the creation of the dark void after which He began His orderly work
of creation. The two stories appear to show the creation of humanity in two
different ways, but they are not mutually exclusive. It is certainly possible
that God created male and female in his own image (1:27) out of two different
materials (dust in 3:7, rib in 3:22). Just because two writer/compilers portray
the same event from different perspectives does not mean one contradicts the
other, but that God graciously allows us two viewpoints from which to see his
handiwork.
After addressing the two viewpoints
of creation, one must compare the Biblical account to the scientific account. The
creation accounts in Gen 1 and 2 may contradict “known science” or they may
not. Either way they can still be inerrant. The broader definition of “error”
implies a missing of the mark, an incompleteness of purpose. Genesis was not
written to prove or disprove modern science; it was written to begin the story
of God’s redemptive love for Israel .
The creation accounts set that story in motion and introduce themes that are
important later in the Old and New Testaments. God chose human beings, his own
creation, to pass along the story of his creation to other human beings using
words that they would understand. He had no reason to explain plate tectonics,
orbital patterns, or the reproductive cycle, so Genesis does not record anything
beyond “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry
ground appear” (1:9), “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons
and days and years” (1:14), and “Let the land produce living creatures according
to their kinds” (1:24). Even if God used plate tectonics, for example, to allow
dry ground to appear, he, in his infinite wisdom, allowed Genesis to record his
personal interaction with nature rather than a rational account that would
satisfy modern readers. By understanding the mindset to which the stories were
written, the vast majority of all Bible “errors” become not errors but God’s
choice in revealing only part of his creative formula.
The narrative account is not the
only type of literature in the Bible; it also includes poetic, prophetic, and
pastoral accounts. Each of these genres must be read in different ways.
Otherwise, one can easily take verses out of context and read something into
the text that is not actually there. Poetry must be read as poetry, prophecy as
prophecy, and pastoral writings as pastoral writings. Reading Scripture
differently based on its genre is logical but often overlooked, even though
doing so would greatly reduce the number of “errors” in Scripture.
The
effects of theopnuestos can be seen
in several additional ways. For example, in the Psalms, one can find the
life-giving breath of God in raw human emotions, like the joy of salvation and
the pain of apparent abandonment. Some find “errors” in Psalm 51, which says,
“Against you, you only, have I sinned” (verse 4) and “Surely I was sinful at
birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (verse 5). Verse 4 can be
used to contradict narrative account of David and Bathsheba, because David’s
sin was not just against God, but also against Uriah. Belief in this kind of
“error” represents a misunderstanding of how to read biblical poetry. When the
Psalms are read improperly, they are assumed to be a logical, factual discourse
on the nature of man rather than an emotional, exaggerated plea for God’s
deliverance from sin, which the context suggests.
It
is also possible to take Psalm 137 drastically out of context if one does not
understand the nature of Hebrew poetry. The Psalm says, “O Daughter of Babylon,
doomed to destruction, / happy is he who repays you / for what you have done to
us -- / he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” (Verses 8
and 9). Some say that this passage indicates that God would authorize
retaliation against the youngest of one’s enemies. That too represents an
incorrect view of poetry as well as a conjecture not supported by Scripture.
Upon reading the Psalm, one finds that the Edomites have destroyed Jerusalem and have exiled
and enslaved the Israelites. Not only that, but in their exile, the Edomites
have asked the Israelites to “Sing us one of the songs of Zion !” (verse 3). After being defeated and
humiliated, an Israelite poet penned the words of this story, adding at the end
verses eight and nine, which threaten revenge upon the infants of Babylon because Israelite
infants have been cast against the stones. Not only do these verses describe a
righteous anger against an enemy people who have destroyed the city of David , they also describe an
impassioned plea of a battered people for some manner of retribution. The Psalm
also gives no indication of God’s response, but by using other parts of
Scripture, one can form a theological and anthropological base from which to
view the Psalms. Their unmediated pain must instead be read through the lens of
Scripture written under less traumatic conditions.
Following
poetic texts, prophecies in Scripture produce the most “errors,” because often
prophecies, even those made by God himself, appear to go unfulfilled. In Exodus
32:10 God says, “Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and
that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation” because Israel built
the golden calf, “bowed down to it, and sacrificed to it” (verse 8). Verse 14
continues the story by saying, “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his
people the disaster he had threatened.” This is apparently an unfulfilled
prophecy, which in the minds of some would make the Bible errant and therefore
uninspired. Some say God was just testing Moses by saying he would destroy Israel ,
but that is not important. What is important is God’s purpose in leaving this
prophecy unfulfilled. He not only showed his life-giving grace by not
destroying a guilty Israel ,
but also proved that at times his love for Israel supersedes his anger at her
actions. This will become an important theme elsewhere in the Old Testament as
well as in the Gospel accounts. He also chose to do this in the case of Nineveh ; Jonah prophesied the destruction of Nineveh (Jonah 3:1), but
when the Ninevites “believed God” and “declared a fast” (Verse 5), “[God] had
compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened”
(Verse 10). Changing his mind in this way does not lessen God’s description of
Scripture as theopnuestos, it
actually makes it greater since it allows God to “breathe” in more than one way.
The
pastoral accounts are often misinterpreted as well, producing “errors” that
would cause some people to question the inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture.
Paul said to Timothy, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority
over a man; she must be silent” and to the Corinthians, “women should remain
silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in
submission, as the Law says.” But he says to the Galatians church, “There is
neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Most books about Biblical contradictions cite these verses claiming
Paul could not be inspired because either he taught two conflicting ideas about
women in the church or he changed his mind about women in the church. Neither
of these is the case; it is a case of God, in his grace, providing two
different perspectives on the similar issues. In order to understand those two
perspectives, one must attempt to see what Paul saw then. That is, to study the
Scripture and early church history learning about the churches to which he
wrote.
In
the pastoral accounts, Paul and others give commands, testimony, and wisdom to
“thoroughly equip” the churches “for every good work” (II Tim 3:17). In the
same way that a coach gives different instruction based on the gifts, talents,
and abilities of his or her players, Paul must give different instruction to
the churches on the spiritual and personal gifts, talents, and abilities of
those to whom he is writing. Some Pauline teaching is universal in nature, just
as every football coach says, “Never give up on a play” or a baseball coach
says, “Always run through first base.” A careful reading of the epistles allows
Christians to see both universal teaching and situation-specific teaching, but
not “errors,” because God always achieves his purpose for Scripture.
God
not only breathed into Scripture, but he sent his Spirit to guide Christians in
copying, collecting, distributing, and interpreting the Bible. God’s use of humans,
with all their faults and weaknesses, in both the transmission and application
of his word does not weaken the effect of theopnuestos;
it actually strengthens it. It shows that God can work through even those
people who are not inerrant but do have the life-giving power of the Spirit of
God.
Each of the four Gospels was written from a
distinct viewpoint, including and excluding particular stories based on
particular purposes, and relying on personal memories that often seem very
different from each other. God did not choose perfect people to transmit
Scripture or establish the canon, but “chose the foolish things of the world to
shame the wise” (I Cor 1:27). When the “wise” find apparent errors and
contradictions, they sometimes attempt to purify scripture by removing or
“correcting” them. However, in an effort to clean up God’s word, they often
downgrade important aspects of it. For example, inconsistencies or inaccuracies
in the number of Solomon’s chariots (I Kings 4:26 and II Chron 9:25), the
condition of Pharaoh’s heart (Ex 8:15, 9:12), the killing of Goliath (I Sam
17:23 and II Sam 12:19) or the size of a mustard seed (Matt 13:31 and 32) can
shatter the faith of some. But “errors” such as those do not nullify the
inerrancy, inspiration, or theopnuestos
of Scripture, because they are not true “errors.” They do not affect the
purpose for which God protected and passed on Scripture—which was to be “useful
for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the
man of God may be the thoroughly equipped for every good work” (II Tim 3:16 and
17).
Even
though Scripture has verses that seem to contradict each other, accounts that
might be inaccurate, and teachings that defy logic, it can still be inerrant,
inspired, and theopnuestos. Inerrancy
refers to whether or not God’s purpose was achieved, while inspiration refers
to the effect of Scripture being theopnuestos.
Theopnuestos, then, is an adjective used to describe the nature of
Scripture as focusing on giving new life to those who read it. One does not
need to force pre-Enlightenment, pre-modern texts to fit post-Enlightenment,
post-modern ideas concerning inerrancy and inspiration, because God simply
chose to describe his Scripture as theopnuestos—“God-breathed”.
No comments:
Post a Comment