Theology 1: Revelation and Theological Method
Western Reformed Seminary ([Link])
John A. Battle, Th.D.
CHAPTER 5
VERBAL INSPIRATION
Meaning of verbal inspiration
Verbal inspiration means that the process of inspiration applies to the very words used in
the biblical books. It does not mean that God mechanically dictated the words of the Bible, but
that those words express the thoughts that God intended, and, being correctly interpreted, are free
from errors of fact, doctrine, or judgment. The particular words do not need to be the best words
to express the thought, but they must be adequate words to express the thought.
Scripture teaching of verbal inspiration
In many ways the Bible claims this type of inspiration for itself.
OT claim to verbal inspiration
Many of the OT writers testify that the words they spoke (and therefore wrote) were
actually the words of God. We note that the emphasis in these passages is on the words used, not
merely the thoughts:
Exod 4:12, I will help you speak and will teach you what to say (lit. I will be with your
mouth)
Num 22:38; 23:12, 16, Balaams words: I must speak only what God puts in my mouth
2 Sam 23:2, [David speaking] The Spirit of the Lord spoke through me; his word was on
my tongue.
Jer 1:6, 9, [Jeremiah] Ah, Sovereign Lord, I do not know how to speak. . . . [God] Now,
I have put my words in your mouth.
Ezek 3:4, Son of man, go now to the house of Israel and speak my words to them.
5.1
Jesus support for verbal inspiration
Our Savior also testifies to verbal inspiration. In several passages Jesus bases an
argument on the particular wording of the OT:
Matt 5:18, I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter,
not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until
everything is accomplished.
Jesus gives meaning and approval to the very words, even the parts of words, even
the parts of letters, in the OT. Also note his emphatic phrases: I tell you the
truth; by any means
Matt 22:31-32, [Jesus arguing with Sadducees] Have you not read what God said to you
[note: Scripture still speaks as the word of God], I am the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Here the understood present tense of the verbless clause in Exod 3:6 is assumed to
indicate the continued existence and future resurrection of these patriarchs.
Matt 22:43-45, [Jesus arguing with Pharisees] How is it then that David, speaking by the
Spirit [note inspiration here indicated], calls him Lord? For he says, The Lord
said to my Lord . . . If then David calls him Lord, how can he be his son?
Here Jesus bases his whole argument on one word in Ps 110:1, my Lord
(actually, in Hebrew the pronoun is only an added ending to the word Lord).
Pauls support for verbal inspiration
The apostle Paul, who wrote half of the NT books, also testifies to verbal inspiration in
various ways:
1 Cor 2:13, [speaking of his own preaching] This is what we speak, not in words taught
us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths
in spiritual words.
1 Thess 2:13, [again of his own preaching] When you received the word of God, which
you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the
word of God.
5.2
Gal 3:16, The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does
not say and to seeds, meaning many people, but and to your seed, meaning one
person, who is Christ.
Here Paul notes the singular form of the word seed in Gen. 12:7; 13:15; and 24:7;
and he draws a suitable inference from that form. In this case, he depends on the
number of a single noun in the biblical text.
Logic of verbal inspiration
Actually, it would be impossible to have a Bible whose thoughts are inspired and yet
whose words are not inspired. Thoughts are expressed by words, and the words deliver thoughts.
If the words are not inspired, then the thoughts must also be suspect.
Most confusion surrounding this issue is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of
verbal inspiration. God prepared the authors, the circumstances, and all the motivation for the
biblical authors. He did not normally dictate the words at the end of the process. Their freedom
is maintained, yet the result is the word of God.
Verbal inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy
Because the Bible is the word of God, it must convey his truth. God cannot lie, and his
general revelation and his special revelation cannot be false. This proposition in turn implies that
the Bible contains no errors; it is true in its statements. Traditionally the term infallible has
been used to assert this point.
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and
reverent esteem of the holy scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of
the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole,
(which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of mans
salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are
arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet,
notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine
authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with
the Word in our hearts. (WCF 1:5)
The term infallible/infallibility was used throughout the controversies between modernism and
fundamentalism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
When it became clear that, within evangelical circles, the pro-infallibility position was
favored, some who denied that doctrine changed their terminology. They redefined infallibility
5.3
as meaning infallible in leading to correct faith and practicereliable to direct our lives. They
taught that this infallibility did not extend to relatively minor points of history or science. The
position that all the Bibles statements, including those of history and science, are correct was
relabeled as inerrancy.
To illustrate this change, note the changes made by the editors of the New ISBE (1982).
The old ISBE (1930) contains a detailed article by B. B. Warfield, Inspiration. There is no
separate article on Infallibility or on Inerrancy; those ideas a fully discussed in Warfields
article. The New ISBE reprints Warfields article, but adds several others which considerably
modify and change the position Warfield defended. G. W. Bromiley, Inspiration, History of the
Doctrine of criticizes the traditional view of infallibility as rationalistic and not genuinely
biblical and Reformed. J. Daanes article Infallibility defines the term as limited to the basis
of faith, but not as an uncertain grasping at straws of human verification, i.e., historically or
scientifically verifiable or falsifiable. The New ISBE lists Inerrancy as a topic, and refers the
reader to Daanes article Infallibilty. Yet Daane does not define inerrancy formally, but does
criticize the concept strongly.
Objections to verbal inspiration and infallibility or inerrancy
Atheist authors often attack the verbal inspiration of the Bible, using examples. Here are a
couple of examples:
C. Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (1995; evangelistically
atheistic; massive collection of examples, zealously discussed, often superficially)
Dan Baker, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's
Leading Atheists (2008; a whole chapter devoted to many examples, with
explanations and arguments)
Here are some well-known conservative theological books which still deny, to a greater or
lesser degree, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy:
James Orr, Revelation and Inspiration (1910)
G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (1966; ET 1975)
Jack Rogers, ed., Biblical Authority (1977)
I. Howard Marshall, Biblical Inspiration (1982)
5.4
Herman Ridderbos, Studies in Scripture and Its Authority (1987; gives many
examples which, in his view, show the Scriptures contradict themselves in matters of
historical detail, etc.)
On the other hand, many excellent books have defended this doctrine:
L. Gaussen, God Breathed: The Divine Inspiration of the Bible (1841; an old classic,
reprinted)
Archibald A. Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield, Inspiration (1881; famous article that
defined the terms of the debate; reprinted)
Benjamin B. Warfield, Limited Inspiration (1884; article criticizing Henry Preserved
Smiths view; reprinted)
The Infallible Word (1946; Symposium by Faculty of WTS)
B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (assembled from earlier
writings, 1948)
Carl F. H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought
(1958; contains controversial article by E. F. Harrison, The Phenomena of
Scripture)
Stewart Custer, Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? (1968)
R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (2nd ed., 1969)
John Warwick Montgomery, ed., Gods Inerrant Word: An International Symposium
on the Trustworthiness of Scripture (1974)
Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority (1976-83; massive 6 vol. defense of
orthodox position)
Gordon H. Clark, Gods Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics (1982; Christian
philosopher compares contrasting views)
Ronald Youngblood, ed., Evangelicals and Inerrancy (1984; selections from JETS)
Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest, eds., Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological
Response (1984; good articles on history of the conflict)
5.5
Most of these objections will be dealt with more at length in a positive fashion in ensuing
chapters dealing with proper interpretation of the inspired Scriptures. Here they are summarized.
a. Modern Bibles have errors and contradictions.
For common accusations, see C. Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical
Errancy (Prometheus Books, 1995), ch. 4: Contradictions, pp. 71-88.
Many of these can be shown to arise from faulty copying or translating. Inspiration
applies to the autographs, the original writings. Errors of copying or translating do not
negate this doctrine. To prove an error or contradiction, it must first be proved that the
reading is in the original text. Supposed contradictions usually can be shown to be based
on faulty or superficial exegesis.
b. Modern science has disproved the Bible.
This cannot be proved in any particular instance. While modern scientific theories may
contradict the Bible, no proven fact has. The Bible must be interpreted properly; when it
is, there is no contradiction between the Bible and correct science.
c. Different manuscripts make inspiration useless.
Scientific textual criticism is good at showing the probable original text; and variations
are very minor, with no doctrines depending on the outcome. An abundance of textual
material is available for text-critical research.
d. The NT quotes the OT without care or precision.
NT writers do quote the OT with varying degrees of precision, from precise quotes to
paraphrases. There is no error involved in this type of quotation, as long as there is no
claim to verbatim quotation. Careful study of the OT contexts shows that the NT quotes
the OT with great care and profundity, being sensitive to the OT context.
e. The Bible has inexact and non-scientific language.
The Bible makes no claim to be written as a science book, with high precision. It is
written on the popular level, with many interesting and vivid figures of speech and
ordinary expressions. Besides, we ourselves (and even scientists!) use such expressions
in daily conversation.
f. Some passages indicate the author is not inspired.
These passages are misinterpreted.
5.6
Rom 3:5-6, What shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am
using a human argument.) Certainly not!
Here Paul reproduces a human argument, and proceeds to correct it. Inspiration
shows us that this human argument is false.
1 Cor 7:6, I say this as a concession, not as a command. Paul is not discussing his
inspiration as he writes, but rather his relation to the Corinthians as he writes to
them.
1 Cor 7:10, 12, To the married I give this command (not I but the Lord) . . . To the rest I
say this (I, not the Lord)
Here Paul gives two commands, the first one is a repetition of what the Lord Jesus
said while on the earth, that a Christian wife must not separate from her husband
without remaining celibate or being reconciled (cf. Matt 5:32; 19:6). The second
one says that a Christian man or woman must not divorce his or her non-Christian
spouse, because of the sanctifying influence the Christian has on the spouse and
children. This second command is from Paul alone; it was not first spoken by
Jesus. The inspiration is the same for both commands.
Sources for more information about errors
Those who posit errors in the Bible usually offer two types of examples: examples of
contradictions between the Bible and accepted facts, and examples of contradictions between
different passages of the Bible.
The first is the less serious accusation, since our knowledge of the world through the
senses is never certain. Accepted facts really means widely shared opinions. An example of
such opinions being overthrown is the assured results of modern criticism, which declared that
Johns gospel was written near the end of the second century; these assured results were
overturned by the discovery of a small papyrus fragment of John (p52, the Chester Beatty
papyrus), dated before A.D. 130.
The second area, contradictions between two or more Bible portions, can be answered in
various ways. Special courses in the curriculum in NT and OT books will deal with these in
detail.
There are many sources that list some of the more famous (and not so famous) supposed
errors. These lists have been collected and discussed in many books over the years. Here are a
few good sources:
5.7
John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (1874; a tested classic, well
organized and thorough)
B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (collected 1948; excellent
ch. 4, The Real Problem of Inspiration)
Edward J. Young, Thy Word is Truth (1957; esp. ch. 7, Are There Errors in the
Bible?)
Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982; an excellent source,
with good discussions)
Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (1976; ch. 9, Discrepancies in Scripture,
discusses many, with his own sometimes unique solutions)
Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible
Difficulties (1992; large book, goes through in Biblical order)
5.8
