Reflections on Inspiration and Interpretation: The Nature of Inspiration (Part One)

Posted By Guest on Aug 3, 2014 | 2 comments

by Matthew McAffee

In the following two-part essay, I would like to entertain the connection between one’s view of biblical inspiration on the one hand, and one’s approach to biblical interpretation on the other. In Part One we will provide a brief assessment of what God has revealed to us in Scripture about the nature of these writings. In Part Two, we will explore a few of the implications that arise from biblical inspiration that should guide us in the area of biblical interpretation.

Biblical Inspiration & Interpretation: Two Illustrations

The importance of biblical inspiration cannot be overstated. But in order to appreciate this, we will begin by illustrating its importance for biblical interpretation. The way in which we approach the text of Scripture greatly impacts the results of our exegesis. This point can be illustrated on two fronts: (1) interpretation in the pulpit, and (2) interpretation in the academy.

In the pulpit, the pastor’s responsibility to shepherd his flock is in constant competition with his need to devote himself to the study of the Scriptures. This tension is vitally important because the pastor/teacher, to use Paul’s nomenclature (Eph. 4:11), is called to both duties as the overseer of the flock entrusted to him (1 Pet. 5:2). Neither role can be neglected.

Yet the increasingly busy schedules of CEO-type pastors, or even pastors of smaller congregations, often prohibit them from devoting proper attention to the interpretation of Scripture.[1] Or worse, these pastors do not invest in adequate study, and therefore use the biblical text as a springboard for their own motivational speech regarding the church’s spiritual matters. In these cases, the Bible is not being given a voice in the edification of the local congregation, but is replaced by the pastor’s charisma and leadership/communicative abilities.

A second illustration comes from the academy, where a myriad of interpretative approaches are routinely espoused. The nuances of these approaches can be subtle, but a common theme for many of them is a disconnection between the reader of the text, and the author(s) of the text. This approach is often dubbed “reader response” because of its focus on the reader(s) as the sole determiner of meaning.[2] Numerous interpretive schools have emerged, yielding Marxist, feminist, homosexual, or Buddhist readings of the text (to name a few). What these viewpoints all have in common is this: “It is not what we get out of the text, but what we bring to it that truly matters. Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder: What do I see in the text when I read it from my perspective?”

Surprisingly, these two approaches, the one from the pulpit and the other from the academy, have much in common. To be sure, the pathways are strikingly different, but their end is much the same. In the church, preachers who do not exercise care and diligence in the study of the Scriptures can fall into the rut of making the Bible a sounding board for their own agendas, whether good or bad. So the result is one of default: we interpret ourselves, our cultures, or our community concerns, rather than the Scriptures.

The road of the academy has been much more sophisticated and goes beyond the concerns of our discussion here. But suffice it to say that methodologically (or in practice) they are one. The difference lies in the peculiarities of the distinct groups approaching the Scriptures and what they bring to the process of interpretation.

This leads to an important point: we must be clear on what we mean by what we say. For instance, we could make the case that the Bible must be central in our ministries to just about any Bible-believing congregation or pastor, and most would agree. But what do we mean by the biblically-centered preaching of ministry? It is likely that most pastors of our own Free Will Baptist churches (not to mention those of other conservative groups) would agree on the need to “preach the word,” as Paul instructs Timothy (2 Tim. 4:2). But what does this mean? For many, though not all, it means that we read the Bible in light of ourselves. So how can we avoid this tendency? For this we turn to biblical inspiration and the dual nature of Scriptural authority.

The Dual Nature of Scriptural Authority

As stated above, my primary concerns in this brief discussion are twofold: to highlight (1) the need to give more careful consideration to the nature of Scripture, and (2) how the character of Scripture should inform our approach to interpretation for the church (which we’ll consider in Part Two). In light of the context of biblical interpretation established above, what does the Bible say about itself, and how does this guide the way we should read it? In short, the Bible claims to be a collection of dually-authored texts that were written over the span of some 2,000 years. By dually-authored, we mean that Scripture is both divinely given and humanly written.

2 Timothy 3:16

One of Scripture’s more familiar passages dealing with the Bible’s nature is 2 Timothy 3:16. It describes Scripture as God-breathed (theopneustos), sometimes translated as “given by inspiration of God.” As B.B. Warfield once emphasized, our English word inspiration does not exactly correspond with what this passage means. The Greek term is a combination of the word for “God” (theos) and “spirit” (pneustos), which can also mean “wind.”[3] Essentially, God breathes out the Scriptures. But how should we interpret pneustos: spirit, wind, or both?

I am inclined to see a double meaning here. The Scriptures are somehow given through the mysterious breath of God, but at the same time we know they are given through the work of the Holy Spirit. And as Warfield also cautioned, God did not breath into the Scriptures His divine will. This language would seem to suggest that human writings were then invested with divine purpose after the fact. Rather, God breathed out the Scriptures through the human agents who wrote them. In this way of thinking, they are the product of the divine will.

2 Peter 1:20-21

The dual authorship of Scripture is also particularly clear in 2 Peter 1:20-21. Whereas Paul focuses on Scripture as the divine product in 2 Timothy 3:16, Peter brings out the manner of inspiration, or the way in which the Scriptures were given.[4] Because of the importance of this passage for our concerns, we render it fully here:

Knowing first that no prophesy of Scripture is one’s own explanation. For prophecy was never brought about by the will of man, but men spoke from God being carried along by the Holy Spirit (my translation).

There is much to say regarding this passage, but we will limit our comments to two: (1) the manner of inspiration: men speaking from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit; and (2) the resulting implications for interpretation.

First, this text explains the dual-authorship of the Scriptures: men spoke the prophetic word as men, while being carried along by the Holy Spirit in what they said. Accordingly, Scriptural truth is not the will of human authors, but is the supernatural process whereby God speaks His divine will through them. In this way the author is truly represented in what he writes, exhibiting his own personality, cultural background, and writing peculiarities in the final literary product. Yet it comes from God through the superintending work of the Holy Spirit.

The process is somewhat of a mystery. Dictation does not account for the variety of writing styles and circumstances reflected in the Bible. The Scriptures are truly written by men who invested themselves in the literary process. But neither does a vague notion of spiritual illumination explain it either, since this text specifies that men spoke from God, and that they were supernaturally carried along by His Spirit.

This is why I have been careful in saying that the Scriptures are both divinely given and humanly written. They are definitely dually authored, but the divine and human aspects must be qualified and distinguished. God gave us His word and men wrote His word for us. Both of these factors must be considered in our approach to biblical interpretation.

In Part Two, we will consider how the dual-authorship of Scripture should inform the approach and process of biblical interpretation and application.

____________________

[1] Not to mention the issue of application. Application must be drawn out from one’s interpretation of the biblical text, as the message of Scripture for the original audience is then transferred to the setting of today’s hearers. The degree to which we err in our interpretation is only magnified when we turn to the process of application.

[2] These groups are often called “interpretive communities.”

[3] Technically speaking, pneustos is a nominal form related to the verb pneuō (or pneustiaō?) “to expire,” perhaps meaning “breathed out” (see A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 449-50, and the more extensive discussion in B.B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 229-59). It is related to the more widely used word pneuma meaning “wind, spirit.”

[4] We should keep in mind that Paul’s discussion in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 also addresses the proper use of the Scriptures within the church’s ministry. It is because of their nature as divine product that they are deemed worthy of use in the building up of the body of Christ.

____________________

Matthew McAffee serves on the Ministry/Biblical Studies faculty at Welch College. He is completing a doctorate in Northwest Semitics at the University of Chicago. He is also a graduate of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Welch College. He has ministered in Free Will Baptist churches in Virginia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Canada. He is married to Anna, with whom he has two daughters, Abigail (9) and Lydia (4), and one son, Samuel  (2).

The best way to stay up-to-date with HSF

SUBSCRIBE!

You have Successfully Subscribed!