IS.Chapter3.docx

CHAPTER THREE THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE 1. THE BACKGROUND OF THE DOCTRINE IN his Vindiciae S. Scriptarae John Huelsemann 1 asserts that had it not been for the rise of the Jesuits the inspiration and divinity of the Scriptures would not in his day have been questioned. Except for a few rather fre...

CHAPTER THREE THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE 1. THE BACKGROUND OF THE DOCTRINE IN his Vindiciae S. Scriptarae John Huelsemann 1 asserts that had it not been for the rise of the Jesuits the inspiration and divinity of the Scriptures would not in his day have been questioned. Except for a few rather free-thinking Catholic theologians like Erasmus and Albert Pighius most Catholics before the seventeenth century spoke of the origin of Scripture in terms very like those employed by the seventeenth century Lutheran dogmaticians.2 The Jesuit order, according to Huelsemann, wished to render the doctrine of inspiration doubtful in order that they might prove the necessity of unwritten tradition in formulating Christian doctrine. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of Huelsemann’s observation. Before the rise of the Jesuit controversialists in the late sixteenth century Lutheran theologians had never considered the inspiration of Scripture as a separate locus, although Chemnitz, for instance, expended a great deal of effort on defending the Lutheran position regarding canonicity and authority of Scripture in his celebrated polemic, Examen Concilii Tridentini. Huelsemann also adds the interesting remark that the Augsburg Confession, although it does not specifically treat of a doctrine of inspiration, nevertheless presupposes that Scripture was the inspired Word of God. This is also the judgment of Leonhard Hutter in the preface to his Libri Christianiae Concordiae.3 Hutter was acquainted personally with the framers of the Formula of Concord. He says that the sola scriptura principle cannot be upheld unless the inspiration of Scripture is predicated. According to the dogmaticians, the inspiration of Scripture, as taken for granted in the confessions, becomes a confessional principle. The inspiration of Scripture is a doctrine of Scripture, but it is also a Lutheran confessional doctrine and divisive of Church fellowship. This fact is clearly perceived in Calov’s Consensus Repetitus Fidei Vere Lutheranae which he had designed as a new Lutheran confession. Calov argues that Scripture is sufficient and is the absolutely certain rule of faith (unica & certissima credendorum regula) simply because it is absolutely trustworthy (),1 It was a canon with the dogmaticians that Scripture as the source of theology postulates absolute self-authenticating authority (), inspiration and infallibility.2 All this brings up the question of the dogmaticians’ quia subscription to the Lutheran confessions. Can such an unqualified acceptance be made if one rejects the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture? Can one consistently claim that one irrevocably accepts the confessions ‘because’ they agree with Scripture while at the same time refusing to accept the infallibility and inspiration of Scripture? The dogmaticians would, of course, answer no. And it is difficult to understand how an idea so rigid and uncompromising as a quia subscription to the symbolical books could arise unless the inerrancy and complete self-authenticating authority and inspiration of Scripture were taken for granted. 2. THE DEFINITION OF THE DOCTRINE Inspiration is generally defined by the dogmaticians as the act whereby God conveyed to men both the content of that which He wished to be written for man’s sake and the very words expressing that content. It connotes a communication of the content of Scripture (suggestio rerum), a communication of the words (suggestio verborum) and the urge (impulsus), or, which is the same thing, the command, to write (mandatum scribendi). Inspiration is not a general action of God like that by which He incites good works in all men. Neither is inspiration a special or advanced action (concursus specialis seu gradiosus) of God like that by which He is present in believers, guiding and approving their actions (Job. 32. 8). It is an ‘absolutely unique and extraordinary action’ of God, according to Quenstedt,1 which pertains only to Scripture. It embraces not only a supernatural enlightenment of the minds of the writers, but a unique impulse, urge, inspiration, inbreathing, incitement and suggestion to write this [Scripture] and nothing else.’ 2 Quenstedt goes on to explain himself further. (1) The writers were incited by God to apply their minds to the writing of doctrine and to move their pens with their hands (Acts 17. 16). (2) They were enlightened inwardly with a supernatural light. (3) They were inwardly supplied by the Holy Spirit with those things which make for writing, both with respect to content and with respect to the very words. Dannhauer in his inimitable way remarks 3 that the of Scripture is not brought about only by the Spirit’s aspiration, or general command, such as the command to make disciples of all nations; neither is it effected merely by the Spirit’s postspiration, which would resemble a teacher correcting and approving what his pupils had written. It consists also in His inspiration, by which, through His concomitant grace, He reveals things which are above human understanding and certifies things which were seen and heard by the amanuenses. And it includes finally the respiration of the Spirit, since as a musical instrument when it is played comes to life, so to speak, and makes sound, the Holy Spirit also brings to life those who read Scripture and meditate upon it and teaches them all they need to know for salvation. 3. INSPIRATION AS AN ACTION OF THE TRINITY Inspiration is an act of the Trinity, of the Father as the fountain of wisdom, of the Son Christ and through the Spirit who judges our hearts and by whose impulse men of God were moved and spoke.4 Gerhard states that the author of Scripture, the causa efficiens scripturae principalis, is the true God in one essence and three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.5 He says,6 ‘As in the case of the other works of God, also in regard to the revelation of His word and promulgation of Scripture order and distinction must be observed.’ He then goes on to say that according to Scripture the inspiration of Scripture is attributed to the Father (Lk. 1. 55; Heb. 1. 1); to the Son (Jn. 1. 18), who is called the Word of God (Jn. 1. 1) and the wisdom of God (Prov. 8. 12; Matt. 11. 19); and to the Holy Spirit (2 Sam. 23. 2; Acts 28. 25; 1 Pet. 1. 11; 2 Pet. 1. 21; Acts 15. 28). The inspiration of Scripture is an external action (opus ad extra) of the Triune God. There is a manner of speaking, however, whereby that work which is common to the whole Trinity is ascribed in a special sense to the Holy Spirit.1 But inspiration cannot be attributed to the Spirit exclusively. The dogmaticians firmly hold to the old rule, opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa.2 To compromise this rule would involve them in a sort of tritheism which they very consciously wished to avoid. The dogmaticians are therefore almost wilfully careless, one might say, in the way in which they speak of the author of inspiration and of Scripture. They call Scripture not only the ‘vox Dei’ but also the ‘vox ipsius Christi’ 3 and the ‘vox supremi Iudicis Spiritus Sancti.’ 4 On the one hand the Holy Spirit is designated as the author of Scripture.5 On the other hand Christ is said to be the only author of Scripture.6 This free manner of speaking indicates that the dogmaticians do not wish to ascribe inspiration exclusively to the Spirit but regard inspiration as an operation ad extra of the Trinity. 4. INSPIRATION AND REVELATION The Lutheran teachers of the seventeenth century are careful to distinguish inspiration from revelation. Revelation is defined generally as an act of God by which he reveals Himself and His will to man. It is given not only to the regenerate but also to the reprobate, as in the case of Balaam, Saul and Caiphas. God is the author of revelation not only in the general sense that He is the truth, and all truth and good have their origin in Him, but also in the specific sense that revelation is immediately given by Him. Revelation is always to be considered an external act of God; man is only the instrument through which revelation is made.1 The ultimate purpose of all revelation is salvation. Revelation, then, may be said to be the means by which God speaks to us— in ancient times in a great variety of ways, but in particular through His Son.2 The difference between revelation and inspiration is explained by Quenstedt 3 in the following manner: ‘The distinction between divine revelation and inspiration must be observed. Revelation is normally and by virtue of its name a manifestation of something unknown and hidden, and can be made in many and various ways, namely, either through external speech or through dreams and visions (for ‘to reveal,’ in Greek, is to uncover that which was hidden). Inspiration is an act of the Holy Spirit whereby the actual knowledge of things is communicated supernaturally to the created intellect, or it is an inner suggestion or infusion of concepts, whether the concepts were known or unknown previous to the writing. The former (revelation) could antedate writing, the latter was concomitant with writing and was a part [confluebat] of the very writing itself. However, I do not deny that that same or divine inspiration can be called revelation according to this idea, namely, in so far as it is a manifestation of certain circumstances as well as of the arrangement and method by which facts were written and set down, and also when revelation concurs and coincides with divine inspiration itself, namely, when divine mysteries are revealed by inspiration and inspired by revelation in the same writing.’ From this statement of Quenstedt’s it would appear that the dogmaticians think of inspiration as a mode of revelation.4 However, because revelation is always a communication and therefore a word, a word which is inspired by God in the very nature of the case, Calov 1 speaks of inspiration as the form of revelation, as that which makes revelation divine. In making this statement Calov is thinking of Scripture in particular. All the dogmaticians call Scripture revelation. Scripture was more than merely a record or history of God’s revelation; it was revelation, or, to put it more accurately, it was revelation put down in writing. Hence there was no real difference between the revealed Word of God and holy Scripture.2 However, the dogmaticians never called revelation Scripture: the two terms were never equated as if Scripture was God’s only revelation. God’s revelation has taken place in a great variety of ways: by personal encounter (Gen. 18. 2 and 19. 1; Ex. 19. 10); by the Urim and the Thummim in the breastplate of Aaron (Ex. 28. 30): by visions (Dan. 10. 15; Acts 10. 10; Ez. T. 4); through dreams; through riddles, as in the case of Ezekiel and John; and by immediate illumination in the intellect without the use of dreams or visions (2 Tim. 3. 16; 2 Pet. 1. 21).3 God revealed Himself hypostatically () in the person of the Son, Jesus Christ (Jn. 1. 18). Today objective supernatural revelation has ceased and the record of God’s revelation to man is to be found only in Scripture. Subjectively, however, these mysteries of the faith which are the contents of the revealed Word of God are being communicated and revealed to men today through the Word, and the Holy Spirit working in and through the Word. For the holy Scriptures have been written and divine mysteries have been revealed therein in order that we may be instructed to eternal life.4 God speaks to us still today, but only mediately through His revealed Word in Scripture, not through angels or outward appearances.5 After God had made known to man what was necessary for his salvation and this knowledge had been perfectly inspired in a canon, He ceased revealing Himself immediately. Therefore the Church today is to look for the supernatural revelation of God only in Scripture,1 for outside Scripture and the preached Word there is today no revelation, only false enthusiasm.2 It has been said that the dogmaticians ‘by their strong and almost exclusive emphasis upon the divine revelation as doctrine almost completely forgot what is fundamental, namely, the revelation by deed.’ 3 This is an overstatement, due perhaps to the fact that the old Lutheran dogmaticians do not clearly and systematically express their views regarding the whole idea of revelation. Furthermore, what they say concerning revelation in their sections dealing specifically with Scripture gives at times a rather incomplete picture of their views in regard to revelation. In his Isogoges ad SS. Theologiam Calov 4 speaks about revelation specifically. He says that God revealed Himself in many ways until the fulness of the time when He revealed Himself through His Son. Then through the preaching and writing of the apostles to whom was given information of this revelation immediately, and upon whom the Holy Spirit visibly descended, God informed the world of His revelation in Christ. Essentially then, revelation is an act whereby God reveals Himself, but in this act He also reveals things about Himself and His will.5 One way in which God has revealed Himself is in His Word which the apostles and prophets recorded under inspiration. It is incorrect to say that the old Lutheran dogmaticians almost exclusively emphasized revelation as doctrine. According to Calov, God reveals not only doctrine,6 but also Himself to us; 7 He reveals His Son Christ to us 8 and He reveals the Gospel to us.9 It is very true, however, that the Lutheran teachers of the seventeenth century did not emphasize revelation as deed. It might be added here that the dogmaticians did not regard Scripture only as revelation; to them Scripture was also prophecy. There was no real difference between Scripture and prophecy.1 Properly speaking, inspiration pertains to the holy Scriptures themselves. It may be said, however, that the writers too were inspired by God: they wrote by the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Ghost.2 The designates not only a drive and enlightenment but also an inspiration.3 5. THE DOCTRINE OF PLENARY INSPIRATION Inspiration pertains to all of Scripture; there is nothing in Scripture which is not inspired. This is what Hollaz means when he says,4 ‘The meaning [conceptus] of all things written by the apostles was given them immediately by the Holy Spirit.’ It was in opposition to the Jesuits, Bellarmine, Huntlaeus and Bonfrere, and especially to the Lutheran, George Calixt, that the old dogmaticians insisted so strongly that inspiration pertained to all the contents of Scripture. Although there is complete unanimity of opinion among all the orthodox dogmaticians that everything in Scripture was given by divine inspiration, it was not until after the time of George Calixt that the question was given special consideration. It was also the opinion of the orthodox Lutheran theologians that everything contained in Scripture was divinely revealed by God to the writers. True, not everything in Scripture needed to be revealed to the writers—most of the contents of Scripture were known or at least knowable to the penmen before they wrote—but all the contents of Scripture were actually revealed in the exact manner in which they were recorded.1 If therefore it was taught that some portions of Scripture were not revealed to the writers by God, this amounted eo ipso to a denial of the inspiration of these portions. Such a conclusion is consistent with Calov’s idea that inspiration was the forma of revelation in the case of Scripture and with Quenstedt’s opinion that God revealed the mysteries of His hidden wisdom to the writers through inspiration.2 Even those things which were known by the apostles and prophets before the act of writing were divinely communicated and inspired by God. All the contents of Scripture may be classified as follows: (1) those things which can be known but are not because they happened in a remote place or time (such as the history of the Flood or the destruction of the Sodomites as described by Moses); (2) those things which cannot be known by nature because of their exalted nature (such as the mysteries of our faith), because of their non-existence (such as events in the future), or because of their absence from our senses (such as the emotions of the heart); (3) those things which are knowable naturally (such as the Exodus to Moses and the history of the judges to Samuel). All these things, whether knowable or not, were inspired and dictated by the Holy Spirit.3 It is, of course, true that much of that which the prophets and apostles wrote they already knew from history and experience, and it is true that they wrote much which was communicated to them through their parents and rulers and through the testimony of the Church. Nevertheless, even these matters were furnished them by divine revelation just as those things which were hidden from them and unknown to them.4 The time and circumstances and manner in which these things were to be recorded were inspired, dictated and revealed by God.1 Hollaz says,2 ‘Although the sacred writers were informed concerning certain things of which they wrote before the act of writing, they did not know whether it was God’s will that they put these things into writing, or under what circumstances, in what arrangement and with what words they were to write.’ Even those things in Scripture which were not of a spiritual nature and did not pertain directly to Christian doctrine were inspired by God.3 It was the contention of the Jesuit, Francis Suarez, that those parts of Scripture which did not deal specifically with the mysteries of our faith were not communicated by God’s inspiration. In writing of such matters, Suarez thought, the writers were guided by the Spirit and preserved from any error. This was also the position of Calixt. The orthodox Lutherans took the contrary view. Hollaz speaks for them when he says,4 ‘There are present in the holy Scripture matters pertaining to history, chronology, genealogy, astronomy, physics and politics which are obviously not necessary to know for salvation; and yet they are divinely revealed because the knowledge of them contributes in no small degree to the interpretation of the holy Scripture, as well as to the elucidation of the doctrine of the faith and the demands of the law.’ Even commonplace matters in Scripture are inspired, no matter how unimportant they may seem. There is a great difference in respect to the importance of the various matters recorded in Scripture, but there is no difference in respect to the inspiration of everything recorded in Spripture. If considered in itself according to the wisdom of man a thing may be a minor thing (leviculum), but only if one refuses to take into consideration the wise counsel of God. Much in Scripture may seem of minor importance or of no consequence at all (i.e. the mention of Paul’s cloak being left in Troas) and utterly unworthy of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but such matters are of real importance if viewed as against the whole purpose of God, and in His wise counsel He had good reason for recording them in Scripture (Rom. 15. 4).1 Thus the orthodox party denied not only the conclusion but also the minor premise of Calixt, who felt that it was beneath the dignity of the Holy Spirit to inspire levicula. The very idea of levicula was impious to the old Lutheran dogmaticians. No one could truly worship God in a proper manner and yet regard as meaningless and unworthy of the Spirit that which God Himself had caused to be written in His Word.2 In asserting that everything in Scripture was given by inspiration the dogmaticians are careful to point out that this fact does not rule out what was obviously taught in Scripture, namely, that the amanuenses 3 studied beforehand those things about which they wrote and in many cases gained knowledge from authoritative witnesses (Lk. 1. 3). The study of human sources antedated the act of inspiration which was concomitant with the writing of everything in Scripture, with the result that the choice of things to be recorded and the very order of the words were given by inspiration without the possibility of error or lapse of memory.4 To the argument of various Roman Catholic theologians that the lies, cursings and blasphemies recorded in Scripture were repugnant to the high majesty of the Spirit of God and therefore could not have been dictated by Him, Quenstedt 5 replies that incidents of this sort are recounted in Scripture not to condone such practices but to teach us to avoid them. There is no sin in recording such events. The dogmaticians support their doctrine that all the contents of Scripture are inspired with an appeal to Scripture. According to 2 Tim. 3. 16 it is not enough to say simply that all doctrinal portions of Scripture are inspired; nor will this passage allow that certain sections of Scripture were written only by divine guidance. Such guidance, even though infallible, is a far cry from divine inspiration.1 If the prophets and apostles were not inspired in everything they wrote, then all Scripture is not inspired as this passage states.2 Additional Scriptural evidence for their position is found in 2 Pet. 1. 21. On the basis of this passage Calov 3 argues that the writers of Scripture, inasmuch as they did not write of their own human will but by divine activation, were not merely preserved from all error but were actually incited and inspired to speak and write. Contributively the writers of Scripture were mere hands and penmen of the Holy Spirit and of Christ. As such they could not impose their own thoughts upon Scripture. And this, Calov asserts, was the belief of the writers themselves. Quenstedt’s discussion of this passage is interesting. He says,4 ‘The of the prophets and apostles connotes and implies not only the great mysteries of our faith, or those things which pertain directly to saving faith, as if the holy men of God spoke and wrote only such things by the inspiration and activation of the Holy Spirit while other things, such as historical, ethical and scientific concerns, were added after the urge of the Spirit had ceased by their own free action and instigation; but the AaAia pertains to all things which are contained in Scripture. For the apostle speaks generally when he says, . It is clear from the preceding verses that this indefinite statement denotes a collective concept. This is seen by the fact that the of the holy men of God, V. 21, the , V. 19, the , V. 21, and the , v. 20, mean the same thing, but to this concept the collective is expressly added. Therefore no prophecy came at any time by human will, with the result that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation, nor ought to be, but whatever the prophets and apostles spoke and wrote they spoke and wrote by divine activation. And there is neither hint nor trace of limitations or restrictions of any kind to certain parts of Scripture in this matter of activation.’ Moreover, there is the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit would teach the apostles and bring to their remembrance all things which He said to them (Jn. 14. 26). From this general statement of Christ there is no reason to assume that He is speaking only of certain things which He said to His disciples, especially since He says . Finally, Scripture knows no distinction between certain of its contents which were written by divine inspiration and revelation and other sections which were recorded by divine approval and assistance. All of Scripture is simply called . The position of Calixt and the Jesuits was absurd according to the orthodox dogmaticians. If it is true that those matters which were before known to the writers were not revealed and inspired, we become immediately involved in the impossible task of ascertaining what was previously known to the penmen. Thus the whole theory of Calixt becomes unworkable and meaningless, for who can know precisely what the penmen knew before the act of writing? Undoubtedly they were acquainted with a great proportion of what they would say prior to the time when they took up their pens to write, and certainly they already understood much of the doctrine which they recorded and explained in Scripture. The idea that only those parts of Scripture which pertain to salvation are inspired is equally unworkable and arbitrary. Who can say exactly what in the Bible pertains to doctrine? It is only begging the question when the papists answer by appealing to the Church and Calixt by appealing to tradition. They have still not answered the question.1 But the minor premise of the adversaries cannot stand. There is nothing in Scripture which does not concern doctrine (2 Tim. 3. 16). True, much in Scripture is not directly of a doctrinal nature— we may be entirely ignorant of it and yet be saved—but everything in Scripture is somehow related to Christian doctrine.1 The rejection of the Lutheran doctrine of plenary inspiration, as the doctrine of the orthodox Lutherans of this period might be called, will eventually result, they claim, in an impossible search for what is human and what is divine in Scripture and will lead to uncertainty concerning the authority and reliability of what is recorded in Scripture. If the inspiration of only one verse is denied, then all Scripture is not inspired; the inspiration, authority and infallibility of Scripture all fall.2 6. THE DOCTRINE OF VERBAL INSPIRATION The Lutheran dogmaticians believed in verbal inspiration. This doctrine is confessed and taught in the writings of all of them from first to last, but it is more precisely defined and more tenaciously defended by the later representatives of Lutheran orthodoxy, particularly Calov, Quenstedt, Dannhauer and Hollaz, who devote special sections of their works to the question of whether every word of Scripture was dictated and inspired by God. The denial of the strict doctrine of verbal inspiration as confessed by the orthodox Lutherans, the negation of a suggestio verborum, which, as Calov remarks,3 is usually coupled with a rejection of a suggestio rerum, became more pronounced as the seventeenth century went on, especially in the camps of the Jesuits and Socinians. Even Lutherans like Musaeus and Calixt could not accept the full implication of a suggestio verborum. An increasing number of attacks was levelled against the orthodox Lutheran position, precipitating in turn a more accurate and pointed formulation of the doctrine by the second and third generations of dogmaticians. By verbal inspiration the dogmaticians—actually they never use the term Verbal inspiration’—mean that every word in Scripture was inspired and dictated by God. With the characteristic precision which has made his name a symbol of scholastic Lutheran orthodoxy Quenstedt defines the Lutheran position:1 ‘The Holy Spirit not only inspired in the prophets and apostles the content and sense contained in Scripture, or the meaning of the words, so that they might of their own free will clothe and furnish these thoughts with their own style and words, but the Holy Spirit actually supplied, inspired and dictated the very words and each and every term individually.’ In his colossal Biblia Illustrata Calov 2 says much the same in commenting on 2 Tim. 3. 16: ‘He [Paul] wrote this by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, who inspired in the apostles not only the dogmatical portions but also the historical portions, not only the thoughts but also the words, and He moved them to write even those things which were not known, and He showed them how they were to be written. . There is no word of Scripture, no jot excluded, which does not occur by divine inspiration.’ When Calov says that God showed the amanuenses how the various things were to be written, he means that the words and also the very order of the words in the text are inspired.3 Under his Quenstedt 4 further defines what is meant by verbal inspiration. From the fact that Scripture is inspired both in regard to its formal and to its material principle (quoad formate & quoad materiale) it follows that only the original text and not any of the versions was inspired. Inspiration pertains to each word separately and individually and not simply to the words as they are grouped together and give meaning. It concerns those words which express obvious moral, historical or scientific matters as well as those words which express the great doctrines and mysteries of our faith. Inspiration is not merely a direction of the Holy Spirit whereby the writers were preserved from error in their use of words while being actually inspired in reference only to the contents of these words. Not only the res but also the words together and individually (verba omnia et singula) were given by inspiration. It is therefore impossible that the holy writers would or could have intruded anything into Scripture de suo labore, since all the words were dictated to them. Finally Quenstedt points out that it must be borne in mind that the ‘Holy Spirit wrote and spoke with the prophets and apostles in one and the same action, but in a different sense, he as the first cause and they as the instrumental cause.’ Philippi1 has termed the doctrine of the old dogmaticians ‘Woerterinspiration,’ as if they held to the inspiration of the individual words and syllables and letters of the text even if separated from their meaning and context. Pieper 2 remarks that Philippi’s differentiation between what he calls ‘Wortinspiration’ and ‘Woerterinspiration’ is a senseless distinction and adds that no sensible person ever taught ‘Woerterinspiration,’ least of all the old Lutheran dogmaticians. Pieper is correct. So-called ‘Woerterinspiration’ is definitely not in keeping with the old Lutheran view that the materia of Scripture, considered as such, differs in no way from that of any other book. Nor is it consonant with the idea of a suggestio rerum. The dogmaticians do not and cannot view the words themselves of Scripture apart from their logical order and their inspired sense. ‘Littera sine sensu non est verbum Dei vere et proprie’ 3 It is true that Quenstedt says that not only the order and arrangement of the words were inspired but also the words themselves,4 but he does not mean that the words were inspired even if dissociated from their meaning and context. The dogmaticians make their appeal to Scripture in support of their doctrine of inspiration. This is in accordance with the sola scriptura principle, and the dogmaticians insist that this is the proper way to prove their doctrine. One proves God from God, the sun from the sun, colour from colour, and one must prove the divine origin of Scripture from Scripture itself.5 Their locus classicus is 2 Tim. 3. 16. Calov 1 begins his discussion of this passage with the assertion that it is impossible to speak of the inspiration of Scripture unless we mean the inspiration of words, since Scripture consists of words. Because all Scripture, according to 2 Tim. 3. 16, was given by divine inspiration, each and every word must be inspired. His reasoning proceeds as follows; 2 ‘The whole of Scripture is inspired, according to the apostle’s testimony in 2 Tim. 3. 16, not merely the meaning of Scripture, but the very Scripture itself and whatever pertains to Scripture. Therefore if even one word is found in Scripture which is not inspired, it cannot be said that , all Scripture, is . Not only the forma or content inheres in Scripture, but also the materia, the words, syllables and symbols. In this passage Scripture is viewed in this complex sense, in respect to its material and formal principles, since the reading of Scripture is enjoined upon Timothy, who was obliged to observe both the meaning of Scripture and the individual words with careful scrutiny and with devotion to the Scripture which he as a teacher was bound to explain to others in respect to the meaning and even the inferences of the words.’ These words of Calov’s indicate that he feels that if the words of Scripture are not inspired Scripture itself cannot be said to be inspired in a true sense. The exegetical support which this passage gives the orthodox doctrine is more clearly brought out by Hollaz. He offers three arguments why this passage must be understood to support his position: 3 ‘(1) The apostle does not merely say: every word of God is inspired. If that were the case one could understand the divine Word in a formal sense as the divine meaning. But he says: , all Scripture, which denotes not only the divine meaning but the written words. (2) The apostle does not say: , but , in order that he may show that not only is the content of the sacred Scripture divinely revealed but even the very words were dictated to the penmen by the Holy Ghost. (3) In regard to those Scriptures the apostle tells how Timothy as a boy read them and how when he had been made bishop he was in the habit of reflecting on them diligently and expounding them to his hearers. Now he read and explained holy Scripture not only in terms of its content but also in terms of its written words.’ The second passage used in support of their view of verbal inspiration is 2 Pet. 1. 21. According to this passage the apostles and prophets were immediately activated and moved by the Holy Spirit in their writing and speaking. If Scripture is not of private interpretation it is inspired; and everything, including words, which is contained in Scripture is inspired.1 ‘We may conclude,’ says Calov,2 ‘that whatever in the sacred writings is not of private interpretation has been recorded in Scripture not by the will or eloquence of man but by the divine inspiration of the Spirit. Now nothing, not even the smallest word in the sacred writings, not even one letter, is of private interpretation. Therefore nothing, not even the smallest word or symbol, came by private will or utterance, but everything was divinely inspired.’ This may be said because the amanuenses spoke only as they were moved by the Spirit of God. The in this verse implies words and not thoughts.3 Commenting on this passage, Calov submits that the includes, among other things, a word-for-word dictation to the penmen. He says: 4 ‘The embraces both an inner enlightenment of the mind and communication of what was to be said and written and an external urge of such a nature that the tongue and pen no less than the intellect and mind acted by that impulse, with the result that not only was the forma, or content, suggested but the words also which were placed in their mouth and dictated to their pen by the Holy Spirit were communicated to the individual amanuenses or men of God.’ Many other passages are brought forth in support of their doctrine of verbal inspiration. In 1 Cor. 2. 12, 13, the apostle Paul is saying simply that he is verbally communicating to the Corinthian congregation those mysteries of divine wisdom which were given him by God.1 Matt. 10. 20 is pertinent: if such a promise holds true in the case of the apostles’ preaching, how much more does it apply in the case of their writing those monumental works which were to serve as a means of instructing future generations in the way of salvation.2 The repeated commands directed to the prophets to write the Word of God also substantiate the Lutheran claim. ‘Thus saith the Lord’ is a theme recurring in all the prophets. David says his tongue is the pen of a ready writer (Ps. 45. 1) He means that as a pen he writes nothing but what the author, who is God, wills.3 Scripture is called the Word of God (Rom. 3. 2; Ps. 119. 11) and cannot be called such unless not only the thoughts but also the words were given by inspiration. If the individual words of Scripture are called the oracles of God—everyone grants that the whole of Scripture is the Word of God—then no one can deny that the individual words of Scripture were given by inspiration.4 God promised that His Word would be in the mouths of His prophets.5 This can only mean that God inspired the very words which these men spoke and wrote. God did not govern the mouths and pens of his amanuenses only in respect of a certain amount of eloquence or in respect of the content of what they wrote or spoke; he governed them completely and suggested the very words which they were to speak and write.6 On the basis of Jer. 30. 1 and Jer. 36.2 Calov 1 contends that Jeremiah, inasmuch as he wrote all the words which God spoke to him, did not write his own words, but the words of God. What is true in the case of Jeremiah is equally true with respect to the rest of Scripture, for all Scripture is the Word of God in the same sense. The only alternative to this conclusion is that Scripture is partly the Word of God and partly a human word which was written by the will of the amanuenses themselves. Such an alternative is not consistent with the idea that all Scripture is the Word of God.2 Actually the content of Scripture cannot be separated from its words. The meaning of God’s self-communication to us is inextricably bound to the words of Scripture.3 Content cannot be expressed without words; the very purpose of words is to convey thoughts or content. In the case of something already written meaning cannot be known except from the words which express that meaning.4 Consequently, unless we can say that the words of Scripture are given by God, we cannot say that Scripture is inspired, for Scripture consists of words.5 Letters and words without meaning and content are like a man’s body without a soul.6 Finally, we can never be certain of what the Spirit of God means in Scripture unless we can be sure that the words of Scripture were expressly given by Him.7 Among the Lutherans of the seventeenth century Musaeus taught that the content of Scripture was inspired, but the words were written only by divine direction. It was in opposition to him and the Jesuits that the more orthodox Lutherans strongly insisted that the very words of Scripture were inspired. But there was another reason for their taking their stand on the doctrine of verbal inspiration. Rathmann, the Schwenckfeldians and many of the Anabaptists held that Scripture was only the external Word of God. The internal Word of God was not the content of Scripture but Christ, who brings us to faith and sanctifies us completely apart from the external Word. This means that they denied that the prophetic Word, that is, the written and preached Word, was a means of grace. What concerns us at this point is that it meant also that they distinguished between the words of Scripture and the content of Scripture in such a way as to separate them into two completely different categories. The very idea of inspiration therefore becomes unnecessary and meaningless, since Christ works outside the Word. Scripture is reduced to a dead letter. The dogmaticians therefore, to safeguard the Word as a means of grace and to vindicate the divine origin of Scripture, were obliged to defend at great length the unity of Scripture according to both its formal and its material principle. There is a statement by Quenstedt which clearly expresses the Lutheran view as touching the inseparability of the materia and the forma of Scripture, a statement which may profitably be quoted in our present context. Quenstedt says:1 ‘It is to be granted that there is in the written and spoken Word of God something internal, namely, the divine content and the meaning, and something external, namely, the words, symbols and letters, preaching, hearing, reading etc. Of these the former is called the formal, the latter the material, principle of the Word. And yet for this reason the Word of God is not divided in essence, as a class of things is divided into two different and separable and therefore separate species, namely, into the external and internal Word of God. For everything internal and external goes together to make up one and the same Word of God as a complex whole, so to speak. And that same word is divine and efficacious. Therefore the apostle’s preaching which he also put in writing was in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1 Cor. 2. 4). And that divine Word which is in God from eternity but was in time inspired immediately into the minds of the prophets and apostles and which today is received into the hearts of the believers and brings forth wholesome fruit in men, that divine Word is no different in form from the Word which was preached far and wide by the prophets, Christ and the apostles, and which was later put in writing. And it is no different from the Word which ministers preach today. As touching its essence it is one and the same Word of God, whether viewed in God himself and in the mind of the Holy Spirit, whether in the mind of Peter, in the preaching of Peter, or in a letter of Peter, whether in the mind and voice of those who proclaimed it or in the ears and heart and memory of those who heard it.’ This statement of Quenstedt’s, stressing as it does the unity of the Word of God, indicates how impossible it was for him to think of the content apart from the words of Scripture or to speak of the inspiration of the content apart from the inspiration of the words. The only alternative to verbal inspiration is no inspiration. The Jesuits objected to the verbal inspiration of Scripture on the grounds that it was not necessary for God to reveal to the penmen what they already knew. The amanuenses knew the words which they would write before the act of writing. The words they wrote and their various styles of writing existed before they wrote Scripture. But the Jesuits are confusing revelation and inspiration. Words may be inspired whether they were previously in use or not. All the words in Scripture were not inspired ad sciendum, but only ad scribendum. The inspiration of words in regular usage was necessary because apart from inspiration the writers of Scripture could not infallibly express divine things. If left to themselves to convey an inspired meaning with words of their own choosing, even if God had kept them from all error, their autographic writings would differ in no way from any good version of Scripture.1 7. INSPIRATION AND THE APOGRAPHIC SCRIPTURES Are the apographic Scriptures which we possess today inspired? The opinion of the dogmaticians may be briefly mentioned at this point, although the question belongs in their discussion of the authenticity of Scripture. The question had to be answered by them since the Jesuits claimed that the Scriptures had become corrupt after many years of copying. Huelsemann1 remarks that inspiration may be considered absolute, whether every word is inspired, or relative, whether every word or particular words in our present Scriptures are inspired. The second question, he says, belongs to a discussion of the authenticity of Scripture. Inspiration, then, is properly spoken of only in reference to the original manuscripts. Baier,2 following Musaeus, maintains that the apographa can rightly be called inspired since they possess the same forma, or content, as the autographic Scriptures. All the apographa have been either mediately or immediately copied from the autographa. Hence today, in spite of the many codices extant with their many material variations, the meaning or the inspired sense of the autographa is with us. Hollaz seems to go further.3 He asserts that the very words as well as the content of the autographic texts are today in the apographa. A good copy of an inspired writing is inspired like the original writing. Quenstedt 4 argues along the same line as Hollaz. He says: ‘Our argument runs as follows: every holy Scripture which existed at the time of Paul was (2 Tim. 3. 16) and authentic. Not the autographic (for they had perished long before), but the apographic writings existed at the time of Paul. Therefore the apographic Scripture also is and authentic. God, not the hand of Moses, gave authenticity to the Pentateuch. For although inspiration and divine authority inhered originally in the autographa, these attributes belong to the apographa by virtue of their derivation [radicaliter], since they were faithfully transcribed from them so that not only the sense but also the words were precisely the same.’ Of course, neither Hollaz nor Quenstedt would mean to imply that the very words of the apographa were inspired in every case. There were many manuscripts with variant readings which had to be studied and corrected.5 Quenstedt’s statement above ought not to be taken as if he were speaking in an absolute sense about the apographa of his own day. It is doubtful how far he would wish to push the above argument. I do not believe that he would have insisted on his argument pertaining with equal force to the apographa of his own day. There is certainly no reason to doubt that he, like Hollaz, was aware of the fact of variant readings among the manuscripts then accessible. He would hardly have considered the apographa of his time in the same category as those which Paul and Timothy used. However, his statement indicates that he is not alive to the significance of the fact of variant readings. His argument that a copy of a document—like Hollaz, he uses the analogy of an imperial edict—is as reliable and authoritative and, in the case of Scripture, as inspired as the original, is valid. But he never faces the issue as it existed even in his time, for he fails to take into consideration what will be the case if the copy is not at all times accurate. The dogmaticians of the seventeenth century were scarcely informed and were not especially interested in the subject of textual criticism. There is no reason to think, however, that their comparative indifference towards this subject springs from their doctrine of inspiration. The dogmaticians maintain that we do not need the autographic Scriptures today in order to have an authentic and inspired Word of God. The care of the Jewish copyists and the providence of God have preserved a reliable Bible. Dannhauer 1 says that it is as needless and foolish to suppose that we must have the autographa today as to think that we need the cup from which Christ drank before the eucharist can be rightly celebrated. The dogmaticians do not consider the inspiration of the apographa except occasionally in their discussion of the authenticity of Scripture. This fact perhaps accounts for their rather limited and unsatisfactory presentation of the whole question.