Scripture: God's Inerrant Word Given To Us Through Men

[Jason]

Since Daniel has stated that his topic has not been discussed, I thought that I would do a re-run of this post which actually deals with Daniel's topic.

Note that nowhere in this post do I assert the dictation theory of inspiration. Neither do I deny that God used the personalities and gifts of the biblical writers to give us His Word(s). I do assert, based upon the words of Scripture, that Scripture is the Word(s) of God even where dictation did not occur.

Scripture: God's Inerrant Word Given Through Men

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:16–21, AV 1873)

In this final article on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture I wish to address the role of man in the making of Scripture. There is much misunderstanding regarding this. It seems that some hold to a theory that has God dictating Scripture and the biblical writers taking it down word for word. Others hold to an idea that presents man as being of such a nature that he will always err, so that even Scripture has errors. In addressing this issue, I shall embrace neither position. The biblical presentation of how Scripture was given is a very different picture. Scripture presents God as using men, their personalities, their knowledge and backgrounds, and the result being His perfect Word.

God The Source of Scripture

First of all, we must affirm along with the Scriptures that God is the source of the Scriptures. As we have seen in previous articles, when Paul speaks of Scripture as being “given by inspiration of God,” (2Timothy 3:16) it means that God is the source of Scripture because He breathed it out. In our text above we see that Scripture did not originate with man, but with God.

Note that Peter stated that Scripture did not come because men simply willed to give it to us. Scripture came to us because men were carried along by the Holy Spirit. One commentator had this to say about the phrase “moved by the Holy Ghost:” “being borne along. It seems to be a favorite word with Peter, occurring six times in the two epistles.¹” In other words, the Spirit of God moved upon the men who were used to give us the Scriptures. They did not act of their own impulses, but the impulse came from God, and He carried them along as they spoke and wrote.

As we have seen in our other studies, Scripture has God for its source.

The Role Of Men In The Making Of Scripture

What role did men play in the making of Scripture? Is Scripture a Divine production, or a human production? The answer is that Scripture is both a Divine production and a human production.

It seems to be the idea of some that the Divine inspiration of Scriptures means that God somehow overrode the personalities and wills of the men He used when He gave Scripture to us. Is this so? I think not, and it seems to me that the Scriptures disagree with that assessment as well.

Notice that our text presents to us the understanding that men were intimately involved in the writing of Scriptures. In fact, we are told that Scripture came to us because men spoke and wrote. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21, AV 1873) Not only did God move men to speak and write, and then carry them along as they did so; men spoke and wrote. Peter does not speak of men overcome by God, but men moved by God and carried by God. My son is my son with all of his personality traits, whether he walks on his own or I carry him where he and I both choose to go. And so it is with the men who were used of God to give us the Scriptures: they were not suddenly rendered null and void of personality and will, but were just as human as they always were.

Though Scripture quotations could be multiplied regarding this issue, I shall give just a few passages the show us that men were still normal men when God used them to write His words.

• “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 22:41–45, AV 1873) Though Jesus presents to us the Psalms as being the Word of God, He also plainly states that it was David who spoke and called Christ his Lord. It is David who bows to the Lordship of Christ and spoke of Him as Lord.

• “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers; and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.” (John 7:22, AV 1873) The first place that we read about circumcision is in Genesis, and Jesus attributes the composition/authorship of Genesis to Moses. Note that Jesus stated that Moses gave circumcision. While, as we have seen in other articles, Jesus understood the Old Testament Scriptures to be the Word of God, Jesus spoke of Moses as the one who was used of God when the Pentateuch was given.

• “Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.” (Galatians 6:11, AV 1873) Whatever the reason Paul wrote with large letters, it is plain that it was Paul who wrote them.

• “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:” (2 Peter 3:1–2, AV 1873) “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15–16, AV 1873) Peter here writes of the words spoken by the prophets, the commandments of the apostles, his own writings, and the writings of Paul. He does not use a generic term to refer to these as the Word of God, but explicitly mentions the men or groups of men who wrote the words.

As one reads the Scriptures and becomes familiar with them, it is relatively certain that he will eventually become familiar enough to recognize the differences that exist between the various books. Not that the books themselves differ in the sense of contradicting one another, but there is a difference in style. Anyone who is familiar with the New Testament will not mistake the writings of John for the writings of Paul. There is a distinct difference of style as well as thought. Though they agree in their theology, the personalities and styles of John and Paul are obviously very different.

Why is this so? Because God, when He moved men to write and used them to give us His inspired Word, did not overrule the personalities of the men who wrote. God used their unique gifts and personalities to His glory as He used men to write the Scriptures.

This is certainly in harmony with the teaching of the Scriptures regarding the gifts of the Spirit and the unity of the body of Christ. God uses us with our personalities and our gifts to His glory, but it is still His Spirit at work within us. “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” (1 Corinthians 12:4–7, AV 1873) And again, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:12–13, AV 1873) “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (1 Corinthians 12:27, AV 1873) These verses give us the understanding that God uses people with different personalities, gives them gifts, and uses them to His glory, but does not overrule their personalities while using them. So it was with the men God used in the making of the Scriptures.

God-Breathed + Man Written = God's Inerrant Word

That's a bit of a surprise, isn't it? After all, we are often presented with something similar to the following:

Men make mistakes.

Men wrote the Bible.

Therefore the Bible has mistakes in it.

I'll grant that will work as a syllogism. It is not correct, however, because its first premise does not lead to the conclusion. Sure, men make mistakes. The problem with that view is not that those who hold it think that men make mistakes. The problem is that they are asserting that men always make mistakes. That is a self-refuting statement, though, because if it were true it would at the same time be mistaken.

Men do not always make mistakes. The human element in Scripture does not mean that Scripture contains error. The fact that it is God-Breathed means that it is God's Word and thus without mistakes.

Let us remember that the Scriptures are not only God-Breathed, but that those who were used in the making of the Scriptures were holy men and who had no intent to deceive. They were also carried along by the Holy Spirit so that the product was the very Word of God. There was a power guiding them and strengthening them for the task they performed and He enabled them to produce the Word of God free from error. This does not mean that the writers of Scripture were without error in everything that they said and did. It does mean that God enabled them to write His Word without erring.

Finally, let us consider two statements that were recorded by John:

• “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24, AV 1873) John's testimony of Christ was written that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (See John 20:30-31). If we admit error into the Scriptures, where does it end? Ultimately we are left doubting the very truthfulness of the accounts of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. After all, they were written by men. Many will speak disparagingly of this statement and call it a slippery slope argument. The reality is that some slopes are slippery and we should warn people so that they will not get on those slopes.

• “And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.” (Revelation 21:5, AV 1873) John declared that he wrote because He was commanded of God to do so. He was commanded to write words that were true and worthy of our believing them. Would those words be true and worthy of our confidence if they were in error?

We can safely conclude that God's Word, though given to us through men, is without error.

1 Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 2 Pe 1:21 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002).

Addendum:

1. Daniel asks about censuses. There is no problem with a census being the very Word of God. God had His reasons for giving us the records of censuses, so we can be assured that the writings of Moses in a census are the Word of God just as Jesus claimed the writings of Moses to be the Word of God.

While Daniel opposes the dictation theory, he now presents a problem with a passage being the Word of God because it was not dictated.  One cannot eat his cake and have it, too.

2. Another example is that of the Proverbs. Where is the problem? We are neither given a true problem nor a solution to the alleged problem. There is no problem with God using a man (or, men) to collect wisdom sayings and compile them into a book and that book be God's Word. Remember, all truth is God's truth. It was God's before man expressed it. When Proverbs was compiled the inspiration of Proverbs insured that only that which God wished to be present was present, and that in the form that God willed it to be.

3. Another example that somehow shows that Scripture isn't always dictated (I'm still trying to determine why Daniel opposes the dictation theory, but has a problem with passasges that weren't dictated being God's Word.) is that of emotions and feelings in the Psalms. Why is that an issue? Above we saw that David emotionally and rationally worshiped Christ as Lord and did so in the Spirit. In other words, Jesus recognized the inspiration of God in the Psalms. When God used a person as a conduit for His Word, He sanctified that person so that his faculties (reason, intellect, gifts, emotions, etc) were all used in giving us the Word(s) of God.

What we have before us is an issue in which God is limited in the minds of those who think that somehow or another the words of men cannot be the words of God. Though there is opposition to the so-called dictation theory of Scripture, this very theory is then used to argue that there are portions of Scripture that are not the very Word(s) of God because they were not verbally dictated by God. We need to abandon the limitation of God and the double standard of rejecting yet using the dictation theory of inspiration.

Note also the following posts that deal with this issue as well.

Is The Bible The Word of God?

Inspiration 1 2 3

Scripture: The View of Jesus, The Synoptics ,John, The Apostolic View

Also three responses to another blogger. 1  2   3

[Daniel]

You comment of "While Daniel opposes the dictation theory, he now presents a problem with a passage being the Word of God because it was not dictated.  One cannot eat his cake and have it, too" is absurd.  That is NOT what I've said at all.  No wonder you are not addressing my points.  You don't even realize that I've claimed the exact opposite of this.  I've said that if it IS all dictated and from a single source, we have issues.  

[Jason]

There is no absurdity present except in your position. 

The very reason that you have an issue with a census being God's Word(s) is because it was not dictated by God. Thus you have used the very dictation theory that you oppose to oppose all of Scripture being God's Word(s).

If you wish to live with an incoherent and inconsistent view of Scripture, that is well enough for me. Just don't call it absurd to expose your sophistry for what it is.

[Daniel]

It's ABSURD that that is my position.  It's the exact opposite of what I've said.  I've said that we have issues if it is all from a single source (my "contradictions" example), not that there are issues that would be solved if it were all dictated.  My hypothetical about the census has nothing to to with it being wrong if it is not dictated.  The issue I raised with the census question was that it was an example of knowledge gained from a count that God prompted.  It wasn't God telling Moses how many there were, but Him telling Moses to COUNT how many there were.  The information is equally valid and equally inspired regardless of the method in which it was obtained.  So there ISN'T an issue at all, much less one that would be solved it God had dictated it.  

The only "sophistry" going on is that there is some deep held believe in verbal transmission which equates God's Word with God's WORDS.  It's said NOT to be dictation, but the only proof texts used to support it are FROM examples of dictation.  So I'm not the one with an incoherent view of Scripture here.  

[1stjohn]

Ezekiel 2:2 wasn't he dictated to? =)

[Jason]

 

The only "sophistry" going on is that there is some deep held believe in verbal transmission which equates God's Word with God's WORDS.  It's said NOT to be dictation, but the only proof texts used to support it are FROM examples of dictation.  So I'm not the one with an incoherent view of Scripture here.  

That was a very dishonest statement. There are plenty of texts that I gave that do not deal with dictation.

This dishonest handling of the matter, as well as no true attempt to understand what those of us on the other side of the issue are saying, is the reason that I feel it no longer profitable to even discuss the matter with you. 

There is seldom a way to come to a conclusion when the opposing side refuses to discuss things fairly.

 

[David Armstrong]

Hey there, Jason, Daniel, and all!

It's been a few months, but I saw this post and wanted to weigh in, first cause despite what I disagree with I do enjoy Jason's post, and second cause this is an issue I've been studying and debating lately.

My own view stands with Frank Viola, who has stated that it is "unneccessary to use words like inerrancy or plenary to refer to the truthfulness of the scriptures." I think that this argument about whether or not the Bible was dictated, is every verse of it divinely written, etc. stems from how we see the Bible--whether or not we see it as a holistic narrative or a systematic theology book. And I will go further to say that, in my own view, to say the Bible is inerrant is most of the time a way of avoiding truly understanding the Bible.

There are five things we need to remember when reading the Bible.

1. The Bible is incarnational. The Bible was written through God inspiring, breathing His spirit into, human beings who then wrote the Bible. This is divine and human co-authorship, and if we are to call the Bible the written Word of God, we must then admit that it is indeed just as human as it is divine, for if it is Word of God then it takes after Jesus, the ultimate Word of God. Thus the Spirit of God is inspiring words that must go through the psyche of the men who were inspired, the time period in which they lived, and the issues important in that day before they reached the paper. That's not to say that it's warped or distorted, but that in the Bible we hear both God and man's voices, sometimes in union, sometimes in conversation, sometimes in monologue, and the Bible is usually clear about which is which.

2. The Bible is Jewish. Every author of the Bible was Jewish. Jewish worldview, concerns, and culture is prevalent throughout the entire Bible. We can't read the Bible with Western eyes or mindset, and we also can't say something as conclusive as "the Bible is inerrant" without taking into account that much of the Bible is focused as a message to Israel and not primarily to us, though it does have important applications for our lives.

3. The Bible is a library. The "Bible" is not one book. It's a collection of books with a wide variety of literary genres and thus a wide variety of intention, target audience, style, and purpose. To say the Bible is inerrant and to not consider that not every book of the Bible is intended to say the exact same thing--not that they are in disagreement, but they have different purposes and context--is again to essentially say that we are not going to really look at the Bible for all it is.

4. The Bible is a metanarrative that involves many sub-plots and other stories. The Bible tells one grand story--a God who created a world for himself to dwell in and reign in and a human race to do it with, in, and through and how he got humanity to a place where He and they were on the same page. But within that are many stories--the story of human civilization and society, the agricultural revolution (really read Genesis 3 from a historical perspective), the story of Israel and the Abrahamic calling and mission, the progression of empire, the tale of religion and spirituality, etc. All of those stories make up this grand story, but need to be studied in depth themselves to be understood. Again, I propose that to simply say, "The Bible is inerrant," is to simply decide not to try and understand the Bible for all its worth, because to say that is to blend all of these stories together rather than seeing them as divergent tributaries that eventually return to the river of their source in the great waterfall, Jesus himself.

5. The Bible wasn't written in English. Much of our English language is saturated with our own worldview and opinion. When we translate the Bible we often translate it to satisfy Western worldview, which is easy to do with Western language, and thus we lose the Jewish worldview and language of the original Bible. In so doing, when we call the Bible "inerrant," we may actually be calling our translation "inerrant" and the ideas presented by our translations inerrant rather than the Bible itself.

Realizing this--that the Bible is a collection of books by Jewish authors who were writing books primarily intended for their contemporaries to relate something God was saying to the people through members of their own nation that were written in Hebrew at different times and usually not with the intention of bringing them altogether--we should realize that the inerrancy debate is of secondary importance. The primary realm of study ought to be on understanding how the themes of these scriptures remain consistent and come together after their divergence, understanding what those themes, those narratives, those stories, teach us about God's heart and purpose, understand why it matters when the writers are in unison with God's voice and when they're not, etc. then whether or not every single word was dictated by God. Because inspiration does not involve dictation, it involves the Spirit of God speaking through real people, involving their individuality and personhood in the words.

Just my thoughts. What do you think?

--David

[Daniel]

I like it, David.  I was talking to my wife last night about a Sunday School lesson she was preparing on Joshua's farewell address.  But it wasn't about Joshua.  It was about God and how He worked His purposes with His people.  It kinda reminded me of your points.  

[Jason]

David,

My response is here.

[Marv]

I think I'll respond a piece at a time.

 

0. I guess I'm not in the Viola section. This "unneccessary" remark is a total hoot. The very reason for employing words like "plenary" and "inerrant" is that it has become necessary to do so in order to speak with clarity about the matter. If one does not believe assertions about "plenary" or "verbal" inspiration, or that the scriptures are "inerrant," why then those words allow you to say so. If I wish, and I do, to assert that those things are what I mean when I say "inspired" or "true," then they allow me to say what I mean in a context where "true" as been diluted and adulterated. We don't need to use the terms? Thank you very much, but I prefer to be able to speak clearly.

[Marv]

1. Thank you for your speculation, but the relevant verse says nothing about inspiring people. It is the Scritpures that are asserted to be theopneustos.

 

However, you go on then simply to describe the nature of the Scriptures as being the product of human thought and passing "through the psyche" of the authors. Frankly, the fact that you make this point as part of an argument against such terms as "plenary" and "inerrant" suggests to me that you don't quite understand what the docrines of inspiration and inerrancy which you are opposing actually are.