The doctrine of inspiration continues to be in many ways the critical issue underlying all other issues in the Church today. A variety of statements vie with one another for assent. Labels are often attached to those who have no desire to follow any particular school. Judgments are passed in terms of traditional or less traditional alignments. Yet behind all other problems, concerns, or assessments, the primary question is still, as always, that of the biblical teaching itself. What are, in fact, the essential demands of the Bible with regard to its own inspiration? What are the basic factors without which no doctrine can claim to stand by the biblical and apostolic norm to which all attempted theological statements must be subject?
A first point is the obvious one that a human authorship is also assumed for all the books of the Bible. “Holy men of God spake” is quite definitely stated of the writing of the Old Testament. These men used ordinary media. They adopted or adapted known literary genres. They had distinctive styles. Their works emerged in specific situations. This is not the most important thing. It is not even the first thing in 2 Peter 1:21, for there we are first told that prophecy came by the will of God. Yet it is a real thing. As the Lord Jesus Christ himself took flesh, so the written word was clothed in the form of human writings. This is a part of the matter which must be given due weight even though its importance may be exaggerated in some circles.
The second point is that, in fulfillment of the will of God, these holy men, whether prophets in the Old Testament or evangelists and apostles in the New, were “moved by the Holy Ghost.” In other words, there was a distinctive breathing of the Spirit of God in relation to the actual composition of the works. Whatever else the Holy Spirit may do in respect of these writings, for example, in their reading and hearing, he was present and active objectively and once for all in their original compilation. If the “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit is an act of God, it is an act which has taken place when the writings were first given. This must be emphasized in response to the legitimate concern of the Church in every age for the givenness of the work of God.
Three subsidiary points call for notice in this connection. The Bible obviously means writing as well as speaking, as we gather from 1 Timothy 3:16. Again, the writings of the New Testament may be legitimately included with those of the Old, as seen in the witness of 2 Peter 3:16. Finally, the Bible makes no similar claim for any other writings. Hence, whether or not we suppose that all literary activity is in some general sense due to the operation of the Spirit, this work of the Holy Ghost in relation to Scripture is unique. Not even great Christian classics based on Scripture can claim inspiration of this nature. The additional observation may perhaps be made that Holy Scripture does not seem to describe or define the mode of the Spirit’s operation in this work, and therefore statements in this regard must always be made with modesty and caution.
A further main point is that the purpose of this written word is plainly linked in the Bible with the work of God in Jesus Christ. In its biblical sense the word “witness” or “testimony” is important in this regard. The Old Testament Scriptures testify of Christ (John 5:39). The Lord expounds in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:27, 44 f.). The function of the Holy Spirit is to testify of Christ (John 15:26), speaking what he has heard and glorifying the Son (16:13 f.). The New Testament no less than John’s Gospel is written with a view to faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (20:31; cf. Luke 1:1 f.). It is a declaration under the Holy Spirit of what has been seen and heard and handled of the Word of life (1 John 1:1 f.). Inspiration is not just a matter of the pronouncement of general religious and moral truth. It is the special declaring of the will and mind and words and works of God as supremely fulfilled in the life and death and resurrection of his incarnate Son. This demands recognition irrespective of the fact that its implications may sometimes be worked out in certain ways which may be inadequate or even harmful.
The next point is that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth. The Bible thus presupposes that what is given under his moving or inspiration is true, authentic, and trustworthy. Considered abstractly, that is, apart from this work of inspiration, the human authors are no doubt fallible and sinful like the rest of us. But in this work, for this purpose, they have the promise that he will bring all things to their remembrance, and guide them into all truth (John 14:26; 15:13). The compilation is with a view to certainty of knowledge (Luke 1:4), and the claim is made in the case of the New Testament that this is a true record (John 21:24). In addition, the Old Testament is authenticated not only by the claims, for example, of the prophets, but by the express statements of the New, often in regard to factual matters. The hotly contested terms “inerrancy” and “infallibility” are not perhaps used explicitly by the Bible in relation to itself. But it indisputably claims to be true, authentic, reliable testimony under the moving or inspiring of the Spirit of truth, and nowhere is there the suggestion that its real miracle is that of the using of erroneous ideas or information for the passing on of some basic or kerygmatic truth. Justice must be done to this claim of the Bible doctrine which makes any claim at all to be biblical, and it is to be noted that the Holy Scriptures themselves know no distinction whatsoever between supposedly spiritual truth on the one side and historical or scientific truth on the other.
Article continues below
Again, the Bible makes it plain that the work of the Holy Spirit does not cease with this moving or inspiring. The work of inspiration ceases. It has been done. The books are written. The authors have finished their work. No new prophetic or apostolic testimony is to be expected. But since their works are written in the Spirit, they must also be read in the Spirit if they are to accomplish their primary function. Ordinary reading can be profitable for the amassing of such information as is also given, or the study of such doctrinal or ethical truths as are also imparted. But as regards the main purpose and content of these Spirit-given books, the mind is blinded and there is a veil which is not taken away until they are read in the Spirit and Christ is seen as the theme and center of Scripture (cf. 2 Cor. 3:14 f.). In other words, the minds and hearts of the readers must be enlightened by the same Spirit by whom the writings themselves were inspired. This enlightenment or illumination is not properly inspiration itself. But rejection of this confusion should not blind us to the fact that it is the biblical complement of inspiration, and that an important place must thus be given to it in any doctrine of Scripture.
Finally, the Bible teaches us plainly that as the inspired word, read or heard in the enlightening power of the Spirit, it is an efficacious word. It pierces to the inmost being of man (Heb. 4:12). It brings new life (Jas. 1:18). It accomplishes that which it is sent to accomplish (Isa. 55:11). In this older sense in which it was sometimes used by the Reformers, Scripture is infallible; that is, it does not fail to do that which it was designed and is empowered to do. A biblical doctrine of inspiration will be characterized by this confidence in the power of the written word itself to do its own work and to carry its own conviction. It therefore demands prayer, as we read it ourselves or commend it to the reading of others, that the Holy Spirit who has given this word may open the eyes of the readers to perceive its truth and receive its light. “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold the wondrous things of thy law” (Ps. 119:18).
Article continues below
Geoffrey W. Bromiley is Professor of Church History in Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, and author of several published volumes on the Reformation period.
Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.
Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.