A Foundation of Truth
Getrouw, the Dutch monthly publication of the International Council of Christian Churches last November featured a brief and extraordinarily clear article on the Bible’s inspiration and authority. Rev. L.W.G. Blokhuis, Netherlands Reformed minister at Schiedam, observed that this doctrine is not only an old and honored Christian belief, but that it lies at the bottom of the controversial problems of the churches today. This central question about the nature of the Bible’s authority cannot be answered without considering the doctrine of its inspiration. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit. This fact rests upon the testimony of the Bible itself, for only it can tell us what authority it has.
Christ’s Teachings
How did the Lord Jesus, the Son of God regard the Bible? He honored the Old Testament more highly than did the Jewish scribes. In the Sermon on the Mount he maintained the law against the tradition of the elders. He said that He had not come to destroy ” the law or the prophets,” but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). The .Lord maintained that authority of those parts of the Bible that in present-day theology are dismissed as unhistorical. He did that in His reference to the beginning of Genesis in dealing with questions about divorce (Matt. 19) and in His appeal to the Book of Jonah when He compared Jonah‘s three days and three nights in the sea monster with His own three-day burial (Matt. 12:40), as well as in many other such references to the Old Testament.
The Apostle’s Testimony
How did the apostles regard the Bible? The preaching of Peter and Paul in the Book of Acts and in their letters show that in this respect they were true followers of Christ. The New Testament states emphatically that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16) and that no prophecy of Scripture permits “private interpretation.” “For the prophecy came not . . . by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). The New Testament apostles and prophets have the same authority as their predecessors in the Old Testament. When Peter says that in the letters of Paul there are things “hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16), it is evident that the letters of Paul were counted with the Scriptures. “God, after He spoke long ago to our fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Hebrews 1:1). The New Testament has the same authority as the Old. In John 2:22 we read that His disciples “believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken.” Thus we must believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments if we remain in the faith of the apostles.
The Bible‘s Authority is Basic to Its Interpretation.
In all explanation of the Scriptures we first face the question, how the exegete or interpreter regards them. That is also the first question facing each Bible reader—each one of us. One who believes in the total inspiration of the Bible will explain it differently from one who acknowledges no inspiration or only a partial inspiration.
Historical Survey
What in the past has been the belief of the church regarding the Bible? Before the Reformation it was the common conviction that the Holy Scriptures speak with an authority that is not to be criticized by men. Augustine saw them as dictated by the Holy Spirit. Later in the Middle Ages the tradition of the church was given an equal authority beside that of the Bible. Only in the Reformation did “Sola, Scriptura,” “the Bible alone” come to be demanded. But the representatives of the Medieval church, at least in theory, did not attack the Divine authority of the Bible. They spoke of Scripture and tradition. One of the last of the scholastics, Gabriel Biel, suggested that there are many other things which must be believed and done regarding which the Bible says nothing. That was the classic Roman Catholic view. In practice this meant a great weakening of Biblical authority, as one of Luther’s teachers showed when he suggested that one must go to the church fathers for guidance, for the Bible only creates confusion. Happily, Martin Luther did not follow that suggestion. The Word of God, the “sword of the Spirit” became too powerful for him. Although he made an occasional critical remark, regarding the book of James, for example, he acknowledged the Divine authority of the Holy Scripture. In 1520 he wrote that only the Divine words must be the first principles of Christians, but all words of men can only be conclusions derived from them and to be supported by them. The other Reformers spoke in the same way. The Reformation confesses that the Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and life, in contrast with the Roman Catholic appeal to Scripture and church tradition as two rules of faith. The instruction of the church is subjected to the Word of God. In the Roman Catholic Church, tradition interprets the Scripture and the Bible is subjected to church doctrine.
Almost 2000 times we read in the Bible, “The LORD spoke,” “the Word of the LORD came to . . .” and similar expressions. Although this number may be interesting, the fact of inspiration is decisive. One who denies it contradicts the self-testimony of Holy Scripture. One who denies its inspiration, in effect, accuses the Bible of lying. One can, while acknowledging the Divine inspiration of Holy Scripture, yet seriously undermine its authority by subjecting it to fallible church tradition. We may recall also the oddities of Origen’s (“allegorical”) methods of interpretation of the Bible, whose total inspiration he acknowledged. Yet the church of all ages has acknowledged that the Holy Scriptures came from God.
Modern Historical Criticism
Only in recent history did the Bible, fust for individuals, later for an even larger number, become the object of men’s criticism. This is not to deny that the Bible was also attacked in earlier times. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14).
The Christian church throughout the centuries has accepted the Bible as the inspired Word of God. The self–testimony of the Bible is too clear on this point for a believer to contradict it. but the difficult question which now arises regards the nature of the inspiration. Three answers have been offered to the question, explaining it as inspiration of (1) persons, of (2) subjects, and of (3) words. The first is the inspiration of people whom the Lord calls to speak and write. The second is the divine inspiration of the content of the revelation. The third is the inspiration of the words of the Scriptures. The third explanation, that of word or verbal inspiration, goes the farthest and is the center of controversy.
Word Inspiration
In “verbal inspiration” we are not to think of God using people mechanically as though they were typewriters. He made and uses them with their personalities and gifts (Luke 1:1–4). And we are not able to explain the relationship between God’s activity and man’s activity in this process. The Bible’s inspiration is a miracle. But it is verbal. The exalted Christ says, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18, 19). New revelations after the closing of the canon are to be rejected, just as is tearing parts out of the Bible.
Inspiration extends to the words. Where would we be if in each part of the Bible we had to do only with human imperfect, fallible formulations?* Christ did not say of His thoughts but of His words, “they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). Spurgeon once said that we defend every word of the Bible and believe in the verbal and literal inspiration of it. We believe that there can be no other kind of inspiration. If we are deprived of the words the true meaning of the text is lost.
Many will dismiss this as a belated, unscientific and old-fashioned statement. But have we really progressed further than Luther, Spurgeon and many other people of God? Has the modern historical-critical method improved our understanding of the Bible? Has the knowledge of God’s Word increased through all of the helps, and schools available to us today? Has preaching become better, more powerful and more effective?
Anyone who will not acknowledge verbal inspiration must seek a criterion by which to determine what is truth and what is fiction. And that is a criterion that has never been found and never will be.
Modern Historical Criticism
Only in recent history did the Bible, just for individuals, later for an even larger number, become the object of men’s criticism. This is not to deny that the Bible was also attacked in earlier times. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14).
The Christian church throughout the centuries has accepted the Bible as the inspired Word of God. The self–testimony of the Bible is too clear on this point for a believer to contradict it. but the difficult question which now arises regards the nature of the inspiration. Three answers have been offered to the question, explaining it as inspiration of (1) persons, of (2) subjects, and of (3) words. The first is the inspiration of people whom the Lord calls to speak and write. The second is the divine inspiration of the content of the revelation. The third is the inspiration of the words of the Scriptures. The third explanation, that of word or verbal inspiration, goes the farthest and is the center of controversy.
Word Inspiration
In “verbal inspiration” we are not to think of God using people mechanically as though they were typewriters. He made and uses them with their personalities and gifts (Luke 1:1–4). And we are not able to explain the relationship between God’s activity and man’s activity in this process. The Bible’s inspiration is a miracle. But it is verbal. The exalted Christ says, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18, 19). New revelations after the closing of the canon are to be rejected, just as is tearing parts out of the Bible.
Inspiration extends to the words. Where would we be if in each part of the Bible we had to do only with human imperfect, fallible formulations?* Christ did not say of His thoughts but of His words, “they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). Spurgeon once said that we defend every word of the Bible and believe in the verbal and literal inspiration of it. We believe that there can be no other kind of inspiration. If we are deprived of the words the true meaning of the text is lost.
Many will dismiss this as a belated, unscientific and old-fashioned statement. But have we really progressed further than Luther, Spurgeon and many other people of God? Has the modern historical-critical method improved our understanding of the Bible? Has the knowledge of God’s Word increased through all of the helps, and schools available to us today? Has preaching become better, more powerful and more effective?
Anyone who will not acknowledge verbal inspiration must seek a criterion by which to determine what is truth and what is fiction. And that is a criterion that has never been found and never will be.
Facing Problems
What must we then say about the discrepancies and contradictions which people claim they find in the Bible? They are to be attributed to an erroneous translation or a mistake in a particular manuscript, and it may be that we have too little understanding of the time and circumstances. The LORD has not always spoken in the same way. The Bible books were dated in a particular time and they show indications of that time. That is not the same as saying that they are timecontrolled or limited. All Scripture is useful for us. The time of Israel under the law was different from that of the church under the cross. And the situation in the first years of the Christian church was different from that in which Paul wrote his later letters. There is a mistaken view which seeks to ignore all such differences and apply all texts directly to ourselves. The Bible must be read with understanding and with a sense of its history. But this is all quite different from what the historical-critical method intends.
We cannot now trace the whole history of Biblical criticism. But how has it come about that many no longer acknowledge that the Bible is wholly reliable? How has the notion of “content and wrapping” become common? By such a way of thinking people try to preserve some content or message while dismissing much in the Bible as out-dated and useless packing material. Is the testimony of the Bible concerning itself not clear? The testimony is clear enough, but it is not accepted in faith .
Emil Brunner, well–known Swiss theologian and early companion of Karl Barth, is a good example. How did he regard the Bible? He rated it highly as a first rank testimony to revelation, but held that revelation must always consist of a personal encounter. Therefore, according to Brunner, all notions of verbal inspiration must be discarded. What must one then say of 1 Timothy 3:16 which says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” “Yes,” says Brunner, “that’s what it says, but this letter is not Paul’s, but from the second century and full of Jewish Scripture-formalism.” Today we find such explanations everywhere. The circles of the World Council of Churches are preoccupied with the problem of the Bible. The whole Bible is in a crisis of readability, and all kinds of theological conceptions have destroyed the living Word. The Faith and Order conference of 1971 pointed out how applying the methods of historical criticism to the Bible led to an understanding of it as a collection of many discordant testimonies. Thus it was no longer acknowledged as the authoritative Word of God, but only as a collection of testimonies of religious people. Accordingly, the conference concluded that we must not regard the Bible as a norm to which we must submit in the questions we face, but read it expecting that it will help us see the truth. Thus the whole Bible has no authority over all of life.
Reformed Surrender to Criticism
Large parts of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands have made this change in their understanding of the Bible. This is evident in their report “God Met Ons.” It was earlier apparent in the change in the thinking of Dr. G.C. Berkouwer from his former belief in the complete authority of Holy Scripture to a later acknowledgement only of its existential scope which dismissed its infallible inspiration. Already in 1970 he admitted doubting the historicity of the Adam-figure in Genesis. In others’ so-called Cahiers for the church, it was suggested that ‘the formulation “The Bible is God’s Word” be replaced by the formulation “The Bible is good for God’s Word.” The consequences of this weakening commitment to the Bible are apparent to anyone acquainted with the church situation in the Netherlands.
The church is like a beseiged city, surrounded by revived paganism and undermined by new theologies. All questions can be traced back to the basic one, “What do you think of Holy Scripture?” We are encountering the predicted “falling-away” of the end-time. All of the great historical facts of salvation are being denied or questioned. “Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His, And let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity” (2 Tim. 2:19).
Notes:
*Dr. Harry R. Boer in his little book Above the Bible? The Bible and its Critics, attempts to defend the historical criticism of the Bible. He finds that those who maintain that the Bible is infallible and inerrant usually appeal finally and fundamentally, as Blokhuis does, to the way our Lord Himself regarded it. This Boer brushes aside by arguing that Jesus didn’t know everything (p. 95), and that we have no certainty regarding any words which Jesus said since “Jesus left not a single written word to posterity” (p. 96). Thus Boer leaves the whole field open to the critical scholar, but at what cost? What is left of Christianity when the words of Christ Himself are brushed aside?
This is a free and somewhat abbreviated translation. Blokhuis brief treatment of this subject reminds the reader of the mare extensive treatment of it given in J. I. Packer’s superb little books, God Speaks to Man, and its later revision, God Has Spoken, probably the best that I know of the many books on the subject.