My elders and I have been discussing an important matter: To what extent is the Bible crafted in the words of eloquent men “borne along by the Spirit of God,” and to what extent did God select the very words used to express His mind? —Query from Quebec
It was interesting to hear about your discussions with your elders regarding the issue of inspiration. It obviously is a complex matter and in a way has mystery associated with it similar to the Incarnation. Both the living Word and the written Word are the linking of what is both human and divine.
I think we can say in a general way that the whole Word of God is inspired and that it is inspired in every part (verbal plenary inspiration). Thus “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Mt. 24:35). “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God” (Lk. 4:4). Or see the contrast in the Lord’s High Priestly prayer: “For I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me; and they have received them…I have given them Thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (Jn. 17:8, 14). Both the Word and the words are God-given.
This can be seen in Galatians, for instance, where in 3:16 the argument hinges on the word “seed” being singular, not plural. In 4:9 the argument is based on the passive rather than the active voice. There are many other examples of such careful word distinctions.
But specifically how was this done? Here is the point where I think both you and the elders could be right at the same time, but about different passages.
Some sections of Scripture were given by direct dictation: “Thus saith the Lord…” There was no creativity needed to simply copy down what the Lord was saying. This sort of inspiration by direct revelation occurs hundreds, maybe thousands of times, in the Bible.
Some passages were given in such a way that when the author was done, he still didn’t know what it meant. An example is Daniel after completing the prophetic section of his book: “And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end” (12:8-9). So obviously what he wrote was given to him from heaven in such a way that he understood the words but not the meaning of them.
Then there are some passages that were not inspired at the time of their original writing but became part of the inspired Word when they were quoted in the Bible. The lies of men (for example, David saying that the king’s business required haste—he wasn’t on royal business at all), the words of the devil, quotations from pagan poets and philosophers (e.g., Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12), and quotes from apocryphal books were not inspired when originally spoken or written but became so when included in the Word—and I believe the authors were “borne along by the Holy Spirit” to include these lies, devilish quotes and pagan philosophies, or else they would not be there.
There are also many passages which are evidently the inspired Word but were the result of the Lord picking up a particular instrument to accomplish a specific task. In other words, God used certain men to write certain books because their personality, vocabulary, life experiences, etc., made each one the right man for the job. I’m sure the Lord could have overruled who they were and how they expressed themselves to say what He wanted to say—He did that with Balaam. But I think we can agree that Peter and Paul and James and John wrote differently and that those differences reflect something about them personally.
When we read Peter’s epistles in particular, we see his life experiences coming out on every page. How could Paul have written such a book? He would have to have been constantly referring to Peter’s life to explain such words as the stones and the Rock, being “eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16) on the holy mount, being as sheep going astray, etc.
So, yes, the men were “borne along” by the Holy Spirit. And yes, it is the Word that is God-breathed. And “every word of God is pure” (Prov. 30:5).
And yet the personalities of the writers peek through their writings. The Book is human and divine, the words of men but the very Word of God.
You are right in carefully stating that the holy men who wrote were Spirit-borne and that the resultant Word is God-breathed. Could God have used any man to write any book? He could have, just as surely as He used Balaam to bless Israel (or his donkey to rebuke the prophet!). But Paul was a “chosen vessel” because the Lord thought Paul was the right man for the job in communicating the gospel to the Gentiles.
I appreciate your concern in not asking me to choose between the two positions. It is a similar problem when one brother appears to emphasize Christ’s humanity or deity at the expense of the other. He may not mean to do it, may not actually be doing it, but you can understand why brethren get skittish with such important doctrines involved.
So your brethren are concerned about how your ministry is perceived, and want others to think of you as dependable and orthodox. It is possible to say something that is true, but to leave a false or unsettling impression. If I said the Lord Jesus was “unsaved” on the cross, it would be consistent with the verse, “He saved others; Himself He cannot save” (Mt. 27:42). There was no ram caught in the thicket to be a substitute for Him. It may be true in a certain sense, but it could be very unsettling to young believers who could misconstrue it. So in speaking about the influence of these authors, we must constantly underline the overriding principle that the process was controlled by God in such a way that every word is the word God would have used if He Himself took pen to paper.
I trust the Lord will give you good discernment as to how you approach this matter and hope these notes will help rather than hinder “the unity of the faith.”