Can I trust my Bible?

How can texts written by ordinary human beings in the context of common human experience be at the same time the eternal and unchanging Word of God?

The following points seek to clarify the nature of inspiration.

Inspiration Is Not Dictation
Except in some specialized cases, inspiration does not mean dictation. God did not whisper into the ears of the biblical authors but rather worked through each author’s own circumstances, thoughts, intentions, and personalities to communicate his divine message.

The exceptions would be in those cases where the author is told to write exactly what he is told (as in some prophetic texts) or where God himself inscribes the text (as in the Decalogue, inscribed on stone tablets “by the finger of God”; Exod. 31:18).

Evidence that inspiration does not mean dictation is the differences among biblical authors in literary styles, including vocabulary choice, sentence structure, level of diction, and choice of genre.

Mark’s Gospel, for example, is written in a rather rough Semitic style, with a great deal of parataxis (parallel sentences linked by “and”), while Luke’s has a more refined Hellenistic literary style.

Inspiration Concerns Contextually Located Utterances
The diversity of authorship goes beyond issues of literary style. The authors wrote from within their own historical and cultural contexts, and their writing reflects the boundaries and limitations of each of those contexts.

The inspiration of Scripture, therefore, relates to its original genre, purpose, and occasion. For example, Isaiah’s message of coming judgment against Israel at the hands of the Assyrians is an inspired and authoritative message from God to the Israelites of the eighth century BC.

Its message must be understood within the language, culture, context, and literary conventions of that day. Furthermore, this message was intended for that audience in a particular situation.

Application to other times and places must be determined carefully through sound principles of hermeneutics. In the same way, Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, for example, were written to a specific group of first-century Christians living in the Greco-Roman city of Corinth and were intended to address their unique problems and concerns.

Paul’s instructions and exhortations must be understood first of all within this social, cultural, and ecclesiastical context before they can be applied to other church contexts. Inspiration does not negate the need for the hard work of interpretation (exegesis) or application (contextualization).

The contextual location also relates to the Bible’s many genres and modes of expression. A poem, for example, is inspired as a poem, and so its truth and authority must be understood within the parameters of its literary form.

Inspiration must take into account the use of figurative language (“the trees of the field will clap their hands”; Isa. 55:12), metaphor and simile (“the Lord is my rock”; 2 Sam. 22:2), phenomenological language (“the sun rose”; Gen. 32:31), irony (“Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” John 1:46), sarcasm (“you are so wise!” 2 Cor. 11:19), approximations (“about eight days later”; Luke 9:28; cf. Mark 9:2: “six days”), and a host of other “nonliteral” literary forms. Narrative must be understood as a story, so that not every statement made is necessarily true.

When the high priest says of Jesus, “He has spoken blasphemy” (Matt. 26:65), this is a false statement given by an unreliable character. The dragons and beasts of apocalyptic literature may be mythical and symbolic images meant to communicate spiritual truth.

Inspiration Does Not Negate the Use of Written and Oral Sources

A third clarification relates to the manner in which inspired Scripture was composed. The authors of Kings and Chronicles, for example, drew from a variety of sources, both canonical and noncanonical (1 Kings 11:41; 14:19, 29; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15; 20:34; 24:27; 26:22). Luke refers to written and oral accounts that preceded him and from which he likely borrowed (Luke 1:1–4).

• Most scholars assume both Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their primary sources (“Markan priority”). 
• The letter of Jude cites or alludes to various intertestamental works, including 1 Enoch (Jude 14) and the Assumption of Moses (Jude 9). 
• Paul occasionally quotes from pagan poets and philosophers, including Menander (1 Cor. 15:33), Epimenides (Titus 1:12–13), and Aratus (Acts 17:28 [Luke quoting Paul]). 

It follows that the inspiration of Scripture does not lie in the sources or traditions behind the text, but in the authors inspired by the Holy Spirit to produce the text. The text represents a faithful and authoritative record of each author’s inspired utterances.

In short, the process of writing Scripture—like Scripture itself—was a dynamic interplay between the human and the divine. The authors’ own experiences, recollections, research, selection, editing, and composition were together guided by the Holy Spirit so that the result was the Word of God.


Verbal and Plenary Inspiration
Two terms often used to describe inspiration are plenary and verbal.

• Plenary means “full” and indicates that all Scripture is inspired and authoritative (2 Tim. 3:16). 
• Verbal means that the words themselves, not just the ideas, are inspired by God. 

Article VI of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (see discussion below) affirms

“that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.” 

While verbal and plenary inspiration is an important doctrine, both terms must be carefully qualified. 

For example, while plenary means that all Scripture is inspired, authoritative, and useful, this does not negate the reality of the progress of revelation or of controlling texts and motifs.

Old Testament affirmations of the efficacy of animal sacrifices must be understood as incomplete and preparatory statements qualified by the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross (Heb. 10:4, 14).

The God who communicated partially and incompletely through the prophets has now revealed himself “in these last days” through his Son (Heb. 1:1–2). There are also controlling or paradigmatic texts. Jesus could subordinate the whole law under two commands: love for God and love for others (Matt. 22:35–40).

The doctrine of “verbal” inspiration must also be qualified. While the (Hebrew and Greek) words of Scripture are indeed inspired, words are symbols that indicate conceptual content. It is the meaning of these words—the message that they convey—that is ultimately inspired by God. And words do not carry meaning in isolation, but in dynamic interplay with other words, phrases, and clauses, and in historical, social, and cultural contexts.

The ultimate goal of Scripture is not to place words on a page, but to communicate a message from one person to another. Any theory of inspiration that does not give priority to communication over verbal form will fall short since it misrepresents the nature and purpose of language.

This has important implications for the task of Bible translation. An English translation of Scripture remains God’s Word even though it changes all the words (from Hebrew/Greek to English) if it accurately reproduces the meaning of the text. “God’s Word” ultimately means the conceptual content that the author intended to communicate through Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic sentences.


Hays J.D.