The Inspiration of Scripture | Part 1

The word “inspiration” brings many different thoughts to mind. In the modern sense, we sometimes think of inspiration as a motivating or energizing force. An artist may feel a flash of inspiration for his next painting, a musician may be inspired to compose a new song, or I may search for inspiration to study for and write this article.

Yet, historically and theologically, inspiration carries a different meaning. The word comes from the Latin inspirare, which means “to breathe or blow into.” It was carried over to English through use in theology, and, within that vein, inspiration came to mean, “to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural influence or action.”¹ When used of Scripture, it is a strong metaphor of God’s very breath being at work. When we use the phrase “the inspiration of Scripture,” we indicate that God actively energized the writing and compilation of the Bible we hold. Specifically, God orchestrated the human writers so that the message of Scripture as delivered to us is exactly what He intended for His people to have.

A Need for Clarity

Though most Christians believe that Scripture is inspired, they vary when they define that inspiration. Though the term used to clearly indicate that the entirety of Scripture is divinely given, that definition has degenerated over time. Ryrie, describing this, says:

Formerly all that was necessary to affirm one’s belief in full inspiration was the statement, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.” But when some did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible.” Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible.” But then “infallible” and “inerrant” began to be limited to matters of faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became necessary to add the concept of “unlimited inerrancy.” Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching.²

Obviously, based on this, we need clarity in this discussion. Inspiration is a vital Christian doctrine, but we must explain and defend what we mean when we use the term. We’ll first examine different views on how God inspired the writers of Scripture, then look at perspectives on the degree of inspiration, and finally we’ll look at what Scripture tells us about the issue.

The Methods of Inspiration

If we agree on the fact that Scripture is inspired, we’re still left with questions on exactly how that inspiration happened. What method/means did God use to breathe out His Word? In inspiration, we have two distinct elements—the human and the divine. As we read Scripture, the human authors—not the divine—are the most clearly seen. Yet we believe that God is the true Author, directing the process so His truth is clearly revealed. How these elements come together is difficult to understand, though men have developed various theories to try to explain them (with more or less success).

The aberrant views usually slide down one of two slopes. Either they major on the human aspect, overlooking the divine Author, or they major on the divine to the point of eliminating the unique characteristics of the human authors. “The rationalistic explanations emphasize unduly the human element while the [supernaturalistic] theories minify it, maintaining that the sacred writers were so possessed by the Holy Spirit as to become passive instruments rather than active agents.”³ But neither side rightly represents the truth—the Bible is both undeniably human and undeniably divine.

God-Centered Inspiration

The Dictation Theory (or Mechanical Theory) takes the supernaturalistic side, to the point where the writers are merely the Holy Spirit’s penmen. While it is true that the Holy Spirit used men to compose the Word, this perspective holds that their unique personalities disappeared entirely when they wrote Scripture. They had no more involvement than does the courtroom teller—simply recording the information given. This is problematic because it simply doesn’t fit with how the Bible is composed. Scripture is peppered with the various styles and perspectives of the men who wrote it and isn’t bound to a single approach. It is refreshingly human. As Wenger points out:

“[It] contains the expression of human emotions such as disgust, discouragement, hope, aspiration, joy, and sorrow, and frequent accounts of the struggles and trials and temptations of various saints of God. Even the accounts of historical events . . . are told in simple honesty. The fact that style and vocabulary vary sharply from writer to writer . . . is adequate proof that inspiration does not mean mechanical dictation.”⁴

The error in the Dictation Theory is not that it says God wrote Scripture—the problem is it overemphasizes that fact and forgets that God empowered the writers, not just the writings.⁵ Such is clearly the case in 2 Peter 1:21, where he says, “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” This implies that the men were not passive agents, but were actively involved in the writing of Scripture.

A second issue with the theory is it implies that Scripture is merely the Holy Spirit’s memoir, when in fact it is composed from a variety of sources. The writers refer to personal experiences, their own knowledge of history, or facts gathered from others who witnessed the events—all of which are apart from God’s direct revelation. Ryrie gives us four sources of Scripture that clearly show its diversity: material directly from God, prophetic material, researched material, and historical material.⁶ Of these, two are divine and two are human. Thus, it’s better to hold that God directed the writing rather than teach that He dictated everything.

Man-Centered Inspiration

On the other side of the slope we find teachings that almost entirely remove God from the picture. Such are the Intuition Theory and the Illumination Theory. The Intuition Theory is rationalistic—”inspiration is merely a superior insight on the part of natural man.”⁷ By this, the formation of Scripture didn’t require God to do anything; man simply figured the truth out himself. The problem here is twofold: it teaches that man can discover God on his own (which disagrees sharply with 1 Cor. 2:14),⁸ and it flies counter to Scripture’s own testimony of divine inspiration (2 Peter 1 again, as well as 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The Illumination Theory takes a step in the right direction, allowing for some divine involvement. But it still doesn’t suitably account for the data in Scripture. It places inspiration on par with illumination, making no distinction between the empowerment every Christian experiences and the special revelation given to the inspired writers.⁹ “This view puts some of the church’s great hymns on a level with the Bible.”¹⁰ Like the Intuition Theory, it doesn’t require that God reveal anything. He gives the ability, but men still discover the truth themselves. This denies a fundamental tenet of Scripture—God’s grace displayed as He reveals to us what we could never discover ourselves.

As in the Dictation Theory, these two views get a certain aspect right (though in the opposite extreme). They focus on the fact that men were a necessary part Scripture’s formation. But, in that skewed perspective, God nearly disappears. The Dictation Theory majors on the opposite end and isn’t much better. The right understanding requires balance.

This kind of tension shouldn’t be foreign to us. Jesus—the God-man—is truly human and truly divine. We hold to both, even as we admit we don’t understand how that can be. Many other biblical beliefs require a certain tension and a confession that we don’t always understand God’s ways (that’s a good thing). Likewise, the biblical understanding of inspiration requires a willingness to believe what the Bible teaches—even when it doesn’t make sense to our human minds.

Finding the Balance

The theory that is generally accepted among Christians (and that I believe best agrees with Scripture) is sometimes called the Dynamical Theory.¹¹ This is a marriage of the divine and human elements. In a nutshell, it holds that God used men to write Scripture without stripping away their personalities. They wrote, God guided, and the Word was created. Theissen points out that God directed the content so that “they wrote all that he wanted them to write, without excess or error.”¹² Nothing should have been in Scripture that is not, and everything is exactly as God wanted it to be. Yet they did write, using their own knowledge and experience.¹³ The Bible is distinctly supernatural and distinctly human.

This combination evidences a wise, loving Revealer. The fact that it is human makes it accessible, but the fact that it is divine means it teaches us truths we could not understand if it weren’t from God.

It is fortunate that the Bible was not written in the form of an oracle from heaven, without any evidence of human emotion or experience. The fact is that the Bible employs the language of common people in everyday life as they experience their trials and difficulties and receive divine grace from God. It is just these truly human factors which make the Bible meaningful to millions of people in all ages of the world. Fortunate, indeed, it is that the Lord did not allow His Word to be written in the language of science, philosophy, and theology. The purpose of the inspiration of the Scriptures is to make the sacred writings able to instruct us for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”¹⁴

While it’s easy to lose focus in the muck of this discussion, several things are clear. We will dig further into inspiration in the following articles, but for now, I’ll leave you with these six things.¹⁵

1. Inspiration is essentially guidance. The Holy Spirit supervised the writing, preserving the authors from all error and all omission.
2. The Holy Spirit’s involvement covers a spectrum—sometimes He was directly involved, other times less so. Yet He was always involved, and the resulting Bible is exactly as He wanted it to be.
3. Inspiration includes the thoughts and concepts, but it also includes the individual words the writers used.
4. The writers were not passive. Each one wrote from his own perspective and experience.
5. Inspiration (in this sense) only applies to the authors of Scripture. It is distinct from the individual revelation and Holy Spirit guidance each Christian experiences.
6. Inspiration is fully true only of the original documents. That said, the manuscripts we have today are still entirely trustworthy for all things pertaining to life and godliness.¹⁶

---

1. “Inspire,” Merriam-Webster, accessed June 30, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inspire.
2. Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1999), 76.
3. H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1940), 173.
4. John C. Wenger, Introduction to Theology (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1954), 161.
5. Wiley, Christian Theology, 174.
6. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 80-81.
7. Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 63.
8. Wiley, Christian Theology, 175.
9. Theissen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 63.
10. Ibid.
11. Wiley, Christian Theology, 176.
12. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 65.
13. I’ll admit at this point, we’ll never have space to cover this fully here. My goal is to provide a primer to pique your interest and encourage further study. See the books cited here in the footnotes for good places to start.
14. Wenger, Introduction to Theology, 161.
15. Compiled from: Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 65-66 and Ryrie, Basic Theology, 81-82.
16. The accuracy of our biblical manuscripts is astounding when compared to similar manuscripts.