We like to talk about "the inspiration of Scripture". We claim that the Bible is "inspired by God" and this, to us, makes it special. This, then, is more "Christianese" because lots of people use the term "inspired" without meaning at all what we mean. So ... what do we mean?
The English word is rooted in the concept of breath. That is, its root word means "to breath into". Indeed, at dictionary.reference.com, the 6th definition of the word is "the drawing of air into the lungs." We typically use it, of course, in a more metaphorical sense. That is, if "inspiration" means "to draw in air" and "draw in air" is to live, then "inspiration" is that which causes activity, action, vitality. The various dictionaries I looked at couldn't avoid the concept of "supernatural or divine influence". The idea is to go beyond the mundane to something higher.
This, of course, is often the understanding that people port in with them when we say, "Scripture is inspired by God." This, of course, is not the meaning of the term in this case. For us, the concept comes from 2 Tim 3:16 which begins with "All Scripture is inspired by God ..." The term in Greek is theopneustos, where theo references God and pneustos references breath. The literal translation (check just about any literal translation) is, then, "God-breathed" Paul's claim is not simply that the Scriptures were inspired writings, but that they were quite literally breathed by God into their authors.
This is meant in a few senses. There are, for instance, a large number of direct quotes from God. "And the Lord said" or something like it is quite common. The "Red Letter" Bibles have Jesus's words in red -- direct quotes from God Incarnate. The prophets quoted heavily from God. The author of Hebrews begins with the claim that "God spoke to our fathers by the prophets." Thus, in these large numbers of passages the claim is that they are actually the words of God. But what about the rest? Just inspired writing, right? No. Peter says that "men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God." That's not merely "inspired". It's directed. It's controlled. Beyond that, Peter says that none of these writings "was ever made by an act of human will". Scripture, then, is not a product of human will or human intellect. It is God-breathed, directed and controlled by God Himself. Using their words, their character, their personalities, their culture and circumstances, God breathed His word into their pens and the product we have today is inspired Scripture -- Scripture given directly by God at the hand of a secretary, so to speak.
Sometimes people confuse inspiration with inerrancy. It's an easy mistake to make. Inspiration simply says that God caused, breathed, and controlled the writing of Scripture. Of course, the only logical conclusion is that what God produced through these writers was without error, but that's a different concept, right?
5 comments:
I have a couple of questions that I'd wonder if you consider. No need to post them from me, you can just address them, if you'd like.
Where you say...
Paul's claim is not simply that the Scriptures were inspired writings, but that they were quite literally breathed by God into their authors.
How do you "know" or what makes you think that the biblical author wasn't using "inspired" in the normal sense of the word - that which causes activity, action, vitality? What does it mean to you that God "literally breathed" writings into authors?
Finally, on the whole concept of "christianese," I wonder if you would think it worthy to consider the question: Is it a good thing to have this "christianese" language that uses words in ways that other people don't understand? Do you see any evidence that our biblical predecessors used any such "Other" language?
Just some questions...
Dan, I post your comment because I think the questions are fair and deserve to be addressed. I am addressing the questions (as opposed to presenting an argument with you). (Thus, instead of my usual process of listing who said the question, I'm just listing the question.) That should ease any sort of tensions or debate that might tend to arise.
"How do you 'know' or what makes you think that the biblical author wasn't using 'inspired' in the normal sense of the word - that which causes activity, action, vitality?"
First, we can say with absolute certainty that Paul did not use the term "inspired" in the normal sense of the word ... because Paul did not use the term "inspired". (Sounds like I'm being silly, I know, but bear with me.) "Inspired" is an English translation of the original -- theopneustos. Now, it is conceivable that pneustos could be translated as "inspired", but the term was a joining of two words -- theos and pneustos -- which made it a singular term -- "God" and "breathed". It occurs once and only once in the Scriptures. Second, there is no translator I can find who understands it to mean anything other than "God breathed". It was understood thus when translated under King James and has continued to be translated thus since. (Some modern translations do not use the term "inspired", but "God breathed" precisely because this term cannot be understood as merely "inspired".) It is most literally "breathed out by God". Thus, the term demands something more than "causing activity, action, vitality". Finally, the entire text -- the Scriptures to which this term refers -- are not the product of the human mind. They aren't merely "inspired writings" nor "inspirational writings". They produce things that are not ... human. No human had the capacity to predict with such accuracy what the prophets of Scripture predicted in advance without error. The Scriptures themselves claim to present not merely "inspired" stuff, but the very words of God. Indeed, 1 Peter 1:10-11 tells us that the prophets offered prophecies that they didn't understand. So it goes beyond merely "inspired writings" by the terminology used, by the context, and by the substance of Scripture.
"Is it a good thing to have this 'christianese' language that uses words in ways that other people don't understand?"
I understand the concern of the question. I don't understand the problem. Every arena of which I'm aware has its own language. Every one. Kids speak their own language. The Internet has its own language. I have to speak multiple languages working in electronics (one language) and software (a second language) and dealing with computers (a third language). I'm asked to deal with IT stuff and can't because ... I don't speak the language. I have to interact with bioscientists and have a serious language barrier because they have another language. Every arena of life has its own "short-speak", terms that those within can use to limit the time it takes to communicate. Imagine, for instance, how long it would take to explain the workings of a circuit if I had to explain the functionality of every component on it every time I mentioned it. You see, things like "IC" and "transistor" and "resistor" and "capacitor" (and on and on) are shortened terms of not merely parts but functionality. When I say "transistor" to an electronics person, they understand not merely that it is in the circuit, but some idea of what it does. "Electronicese" makes communication within the group much, much easier. Take that to the realm of theology. Imagine if every time I wished to use the term "Calvinism" I had to explain instead all that is entailed in the term. Instead of a term, it would be five paragraphs (minimum).
The function of these languages is to ease communication within the circle of those who use these languages. Biologists know what terms like "alleles" and "PCR" (polymerase chain reaction) and "lysis" mean and shouldn't have to explain them every time they use them when conversing with fellow biologists. Electronics folks understand "transistors" and "capacitors" and "RC circuits" and shouldn't have to explain them every time they use them in conversing with fellow electronics people. And terms like I'm describing as "christianese" should be perfectly valid and useful within the circle of those who speak the language. In all of these cases, on the other hand, speaking the language to those outside of the circle is questionable at best. I'm explaining the terms to people who believe they speak the same language. That's the aim. (Oh, and, yes our biblical predecessors did indeed do this. As an obvious example, agape meant to Christians something quite a bit more than it did to the original Greek speakers. Paul used "grace" in a sense beyond the standard usage. It is quite common, even among biblical writers.)
Dan,
In response to what you asked Stan below, and to answer your comment over at the other post...you said:
One thing that it means is that Scripture comes literally from God and He used human authors. Thus, when something is clear in Scripture we can call it God's opinion not ours. In your other comment you fell back on the "that's your opinion" wagon again. i.e., I say 1+1=2 and you say "that's your opinion, be humble about it".
God's clear, inspired word is not a matter of one's opinion. When it's clear it's clear. Sorry, to get a little off topic, trying to answer comment from "Positively Dangerous" post.
My last post didn't seem to include the quote I pulled from Dan, which was:
"How do you "know" or what makes you think that the biblical author wasn't using "inspired" in the normal sense of the word - that which causes activity, action, vitality? What does it mean to you that God "literally breathed" writings into authors?"
Sorry...probably looked confusing...
Post a Comment