SCRIPTURE--GOD-BREATHED AND PROFITABLE
EDWARD J. YOUNG
Professor of Old
Testament
In any study of the nature of Biblical
inspiration one naturally turns to 2 Timothy 3: 16. The passage is clear cut and constitutes a
ringing declaration of the Divine authorship of Scripture. Hence it is easy to
understand why this verse is greatly loved by Christians and why they turn to
it when they desire again to be reminded that the Book which brings so much
blessing to them is a gift of God Himself.
If we turn to this passage, however, a
charge may very well be laid against us. It will be said
that we are paying attention to the teaching of Scripture at the expense of its
phenomena or characteristics. "You listen only to the doctrine which
Scripture teaches about itself," so the charge
runs, "but you pay no heed to the facts or the phenomena of Scripture. If
you would begin your study with the phenomena of the Bible you would obtain a
very different picture from that which you receive when you pay attention only
to what the Bible says about itself." This charge is often raised in our
day against those who are concerned to defend the full and complete authority
of Scripture. It is, of course, not a recent charge. It was made even in the days
of Benjamin B. Warfield, and he regarded it necessary even in his day to refute
it.
At first glance, it might appear that
there is some justification for the position that the teaching of the Bible and
its phenomena are to be placed upon a par each with the other, and that the
phenomena of Scripture should be just as regulative of an acceptable doctrine
of Scripture as the express teaching thereof. A little reflection, however,
should make clear how untenable and unjustified such a position really is.
On the airplane I fall into conversation
with the man in the seat next to me. He introduces himself as a Mr. Smith from
As our flight progresses, however, Mr.
Smith speaks further. I learn that he has only lived in
Thus, my study
of the "phenomena," interesting and "objective" as it was,
led to wholly wrong conclusions. And the reason why it led to such wrong
conclusions was that I did not know enough to judge the "phenomena"
correctly. By my study of the "phenomena" I had concluded that Mr.
Smith was not telling the truth, and this was an utterly unjustified procedure
by my study of the "phenomena" I did Mr. Smith a grave injustice.
It may be well to note that certain
assumptions underlie the position that man by a study of the phenomena of
Scripture is capable of passing judgment upon these phenomena and so upon
Scripture itself. And the fundamental assumption, often uncritically adopted,
is that the mind of man, without the assistance of divine revelation, can make
pronouncements as to whether certain parts of the Bible are from God or not.
Even the study of textual questions can only be ultimately fruitful if it be
based upon theistic presuppositions. And a philosophy of error can only have
meaning if it be grounded upon the truth. Man of himself does not know enough assert
that there are errors in Scripture. If we assume that we may set ourselves up
as judges of the Bible, what we are in reality doing is declaring ourselves wiser
than God. Scripture speaks of itself as "God-breathed;" we assert
that we know enough to belie its claim.
And this brings us to the heart of the
matter. The idea that a study of the
phenomena of Scripture as opposed to mere acceptance of the teaching of Scripture
can bring us to a true view of the Bible leads inevitably to the conclusion
that the teaching of the Bible concerning itself is in error and must be
corrected. It produces the conclusion that the Bible is at bottom wrong about
itself, and that we must revise its teaching on this point. This can hardly be regarded
as a satisfactory conclusion, for if Scripture is fundamentally mistaken about
itself, how do we know that it is correct in anything else that it teaches? The
Bible asserts that it is "God-breathed, "
but we have checked up on it and we find that that characterization will not apply.
The Bible has deceived us in telling us about itself, and our study of the
phenomena has compelled us to modify the teaching which the Bible gives us as
to its own nature. Such is the sad conclusion to which one must inevitably come
if he engages in a study of the "phenomena" of the Bible instead of
willingly accepting the Bible's claims concerning itself.
There is of course a proper method of examining
the "phenomena" of Scripture and that is to study them in the light
of Scripture's doctrine of itself. If we do this we shall see that the
so-called phenomena, when properly interpreted, simply support the doctrine of
Scripture about itself. It is this procedure which devout exegetes and
apologists are constantly
SCRIPTURE--GOD BREATHED AND PROFITABLE 5
engaged in. It is a
procedure which leads one to see how the phenomena of the Bible are to be understood
and how they really support the claims of Scripture. We are far from being
opposed to a study of the Scriptural phenomena, but we insist that such study
must build upon a right foundation. To build upon a wrong foundation, as so
many do, can lead only to a rejection of Scripture's doctrine about itself. The
result is a Bible that is untrustworthy as a teacher of doctrine.
The Structure of 2 Timothy 3:16
We make no apology, therefore, for turning
to the teaching of Scripture, and when we know what this teaching is we can in
its light examine the Scriptural phenomena to our heart's content. Our
attention at present, however, is to be limited to one particular passage,
which has often been studied. There is, however, need for a reconsideration of
this passage, for it has recently become the object of strange interpretations.
The King James Version renders 2 Timothy
3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The English Revised Version gives: "Every scripture inspired of God is
also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
which is in righteousness." A footnote, however, suggests the reading as
an alternative, "Every scripture is inspired of God,
and profitable. . ." The American Standard Version is the same as the
English even to the point of giving an identical footnote. The Revised Standard
Version is closer to the King James, "All scripture is inspired by God and
profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness." The New English Bible gives, "Every inspired scripture
has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of
manners and discipline in right living." The New American Standard Bible
renders, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." To this
translation there are three interesting marginal notes appended; 1. "Or possibly,
Every Scripture inspired by God is also. . .;" 2.
"Lit., God-breathed;" 3. "Lit. “training which is in. . ."
Perhaps it will not be out of place to
note a few more translations. Phillips gives, "All scripture is inspired
by God and is useful for teaching the faith and correcting error, for resetting
the direction of a man's life and training him in good living."
Here, indeed, is considerable variety in
translation. At the same time, it is interest-
ing to note that
each of these translations uses the English word "scripture." None of
them
6
GRACE
JOURNAL
renders the word graphe as
"writing," but each is apparently convinced that the apostle
speaking of Scripture.
It will be well then to examine the grammatical structure of the verse somewhat
carefully in order that we may more clearly understand what it is that Paul
asserts concerning the Scripture.
The first question which calls for
attention revolves about the point whether theonpeustos is an attributive
adjective modifying graphe
or whether it is a predicative adjective other words, is Paul saying, "All
Scripture inspired of God is also profitable," or is his meaning,
"All Scripture is inspired of God and is also profitable." Of the
translations given above we may note that the English Revised Version, the
American Standard Version, and the New English Bible take theopneustos as an attributive
adjective, although the two revisions do offer footnotes in which the word is
construed as a predicative. The New English Bible is very free.1
If the word kai be omitted from the text then
it would seem that theopneustos
is to be construed as an attributive; although we might in that case expect it
to precede thenoun. In that case the text might be
translated, "All inspired Scripture is profitable." Luther seems to
have taken it in this sense, "all Scripture inspired by God is." But
is there good textual warrant for thus omitting the conjunction? Kai is lacking in the Syriac2
and in some of the Church Fathers. Nestle does not mention any manuscripts in
which it is missing. Textual evidence then would argue for the presence of kai and there is
no sufficient reason for not retaining it.
Now, it is the presence of this word kai which renders
difficult the construction of
theopneustos as an
attributive, for if theopneustos
is an attributive then kai
must be rendered in English as "also." The whole must then be
translated, "All scripture inspired of God is also profitable, " or conceivably, if kai be given ascensive
sense, "All scripture inspired of God is even profitable." It cannot
be denied that these translations create difficulty for they appear to be
saying something that is practically pointless. Why (to note the ascensive use of kai) should Paul say that all inspired Scripture is
even profitable? Is not the word "even" superfluous? What does it contribute
to the thought? Is not the simple declaration "All Scripture inspired of
God is profitable" for stronger and more effective than the statement
"All Scripture inspired of God is even profitable”?
Suppose, however, we give to the word kai the force of
"also" which is what we really must do if we regard theopneustos as a
predicate. Does not the sentence then become somewhat pointless?3 “Also"
suggests an addition to something just mentioned. If Scripture is "also
profitable," in addition to what else is Scripture profitable? Paul might
conceivably have said "All Scripture inspired of God is holy and also
profitable." This would yield good sense, but merely to assert that
"Scripture is also profitable" is really pointless. For these reasons
we feel compelled to construe theopneustos as a predicative adjective. Paul is then making
two assertions concerning the Scripture. In the first place he declares that
Scripture is theopneustos
and secondly that it is profitable.
The question now arises whether we should
render the introductory words, "every
Scripture" or "all
Scripture."
And in seeking to answer this question we must also ask in what sense the word graphe is to be
understood? Does it refer to individual passages of the Scrip-
SCRIPTURE--GOD BREATHED AND PROFITABLE 7
ture, as when our
Lord says, "Today is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke
Happily, it does not essentially affect
the thought. In either case Paul is asserting the inspiration of the Scripture.
Whether we consider Scripture piece by piece or whether we look at it in its
entirety the Scripture is inspired by God and it is profitable. These two
predicates apply to all that can be denominated "Scripture."
God-Breathed and Profitable Scripture
It is necessary now to consider the two
predicates which Paul attributes to the Scriptures. In the first place we have
the word theopneustos
about which there is much discussion. Since the learned studies of the late
Benjamin B. Warfield, however, there can be little serious question as to the
actual meaning of the word.4 To say that
Scripture is theopneustos
is to assert that it is God-breathed. This, of course, is not universally acknowledged.
The recent lexicon of Bauer, translated into English by Arndt and Gingrich
merely gives the translation, “inspired by God," and shows no evidence of
having used Warfield's work. This is truly disappointing, for it is misleading.
The word "inspiration" has entered
the English language, it would seem, through the French, and ultimately derives
from the Latin. In Latin the infinitive spirare means "to breathe" or "to blow.” From
this basic meaning there are certain connotations, such as, for example, the
usage in Horace, quod spiro,
et placeo, si placeo, tuum est,
where the word seems to mean "to be poetically inspired." In
combination with the preposition "in,” the infinitive means "to
breathe into," and it is precisely this thought which the English word
"inspiration" denotes.
To speak of the inspiration of the Bible
then, is to speak of a book into which something has been breathed or, if we
wish to make the genitive subjective, a book which breathes something into
someone else. Let us examine these two views briefly. If the phrase, the
inspiration of the Bible designates inspiration which the Bible produces in
others, it is tantamount to saying that the Bible is an inspiring book. The
Bible, on this view, in one way or another inspires men. This, of course, is
true, the Bible does inspire men as perhaps nothing else can do or has done.
There is much that can be said about the inspiration which men have received from
the Bible.
Suppose, however, that in the phrase,
"the inspiration of the Bible," the genitive is objective? This would
mean that the Bible is a body of writings into which something had been
8
GRACE
JOURNAL
breathed. Some quality
of divinity, we may suppose, had been breathed by God into these writings which
rendered them distinct from other writings. On this interpretation of the pharse, we are apparently to understand that the Scriptures
are writings produced by men just as other writings are, but that somehow God
breathed into them something which renders them different. These are the alternatives
which appear to be open to us if we render the word theopneustos by
"inspiration."
Which of these alternatives should we
adopt? The answer is that we should adopt
neither, for the word
"inspiration" does not accurately represent Paul's thought. That the
Arndt-Gingrich
lexicon should so cavalierly treat the subject is a disservice to those who may
use the lexicon. There is no point in repeating or in rehearsing the arguments
which
Dr.
Warfield has adduced to support the correct meaning of the word, but we may
confidently assert that the
word means "God-breathed," and this is something quite
different from what is meant
by the English word "inspiration."
Paul is not asserting that Scripture is
inspiring, true as that may be, nor is he declaring that something has been
breathed into Scripture. What he is saying is something quite different; what
Paul is maintaining is that the Scripture itself is God breathed. That which
God breathed forth from His mouth is Scripture. To put the
matter in slightly different terms). Scripture is the Word, which God
has spoken, the product of the Divine breath.
What Paul is declaring is the Divine
origin of Scripture. Some apparently think that there is no need to make such
an assertion at this point, but it is precisely this truth which undergirds the
following truth, namely, that all Scripture is profitable. If the Bible is not divine,
then we cannot be sure that all of it is profitable.
We must, however, examine this thought
of the Divine origin of Scripture more closely.
In Genesis 1:3 God said, "Let there be light,
" and these words originated in the Divine mouth. They were spoken
of God, and it is just this thought which Paul is expressing to Timothy. By way
of illustration we may also note the preface to the Ten Commandments, "And
God spoke all these words saying." Here the commandments are clearly
attributed to God as their author. He spoke them, and it is in this divine
speaking that they found their origin.
Isaiah uses a phrase--indeed it is a
characteristic of his prophecy, which sets forth the same truth, "The
mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." We might go on through the Old Testament,
pointing out how in passage after passage the content of Scripture is
attributed to God's speech.
How different Paul's emphasis is from
much that is stressed today! At the present time there is much stress placed
upon the so-called human side of the Bible. It is being asserted, for example,
that if one is to understand a passage of Scripture, he must know the life
situation in which the events recorded arose. This is to concentrate attention
upon the human side. Little is said today about Scripture as a Divine
revelation, and that little often presents a faulty picture of revelation.
As over against this modern emphasis the
great Apostle turns all his attention to what modern man would minimize, namely,
the divine origin of Scripture. Having once established
SCRIPTURE--GOD BREATHED AND PROFITABLE 9
this point he can go
on, but this point must be established: All Scripture is God-breathed, the product
of the Divine breath, issuing from the mouth of God Himself.
Having ascertained the meaning of Paul's
first predicate, we may proceed to notice the second. All too often discussion
restricts itself to the word theopneustos with the result that the profound truth
expressed by the second predicate is either neglected or minimized. Not only is
the Scripture God-breathed, but it is also ophelimos which may be translated
"profitable, useful, advantageous." The usage of the verb opheleo is well known,
as is also that of the noun opheleia.
When Paul asks (Rom. 3:1) "What is
the use of circumcision?" he simply means, "How can circumcision aid
or benefit you?" And so in this present passage he is speaking of the fact
that the Scripture brings benefit or profit to those who read it. Doubtless the
second predicate stands as a consequence to the first, and it would not be
incorrect to reason, "Inasmuch as Scripture is God-breathed, it is also
profitable.” The usefulness of the Bible, in other words, derives from the fact
that it is the Word of God. Were that not the case, it would be just an ordinary
human book, whose usefulness could well be questioned.
What is now particularly significant to
note is Paul's affirmative that all
Scripture is profitable. The implications of this assertion are often
overlooked or ignored they are of far-reaching significance. The predicate
which Paul employs, like the first predicate, applies to the entirety of
Scripture. There is nothing which can rightly be designated Scripture which is
not also profitable in the respects stated in this verse.
This truth strikes hard at the practical
use which many of us make of the Bible. Our reading and study of Scripture, all
too often, is merely piece-meal. We have favorite passages which we read over
and over again, but large portions of the Scriptures are neglected by us. Although
we may pay lip-service to the teaching of Paul we do not carry it out into
practice.
Far more serious, however, is another
aspect of the question. It is one thing in practice to neglect certain portions
of Scripture. That is bad. Far worse, however, is it when we deliberately
assert that not all of Scripture is profitable. Question has been raised, for
example, with respect to the book of Esther: Why is the book of Esther in the
canon? Did God place it in the canon in order to teach divine providence, or
inasmuch as they find it in the canon, and the question of its canonicity seems
to be somewhat of a dead letter nowadays, do Christians simply assert that
because the book teaches divine providence, it therefore has a right to a place
in the canon? Recently Professor Dewey Beegle has
suggested that both Jeremiah and Ezekiel quite clearly teach the fact of God's
providential care and asks whether it is"—really necessary, therefore, to
contend for the unique inspiration of every word of Esther?"5
This type of objection requires comment
with respect to several points, which we shall consider in a practical, if not
necessarily a logical order. In the first place, there is the question of
canonicity, and this question is not immediately germane to our purpose. That which
determines the canonicity of a book is the fact that it is God-breathed. If a
book is the Word of God, it is ipso facto
canonical. In the course of the collection of the canonical books questions
have naturally arisen concerning some books, and Esther is one of these. But is
not
10
GRACE
JOURNAL
the fact that the debate about
Esther has largely died down an argument in favor of the book’s inclusion in
the canon?"
We are fully aware of the difficulties
involved in the Scriptural doctrine of the canon and have sought to discuss
them elsewhere. But we believe that the church has been right in placing its
approval upon this book and accepting it as a portion of the Old Testament.
Despite the rabbinical discussions concerning this book, there is no sufficient
warrant for not believing that when our Lord placed His approval upon the Old
Testament canon of His day, the book of Esther was included in that canon.
The question of the canon is not the
immediate point involved, however. What is involved is simply whether all
Scripture is profitable or not. It is sometimes assumed that, if all Scripture
is profitable, we should therefore at a glance be able to tell precisely how
this is so. Professor Beegle mentions certain
passages which he calls Trivialities. Among these are listed the
"Shibboleth" incident of Judges 12:5,6; the
case of Ibzan, Judges 12:8-10; and Abdon, Judges
It is well to notice, however, that the
human mind, apart from God's revelation, is in no position to judge as to
whether each particular passage of Scripture is profitable or not. God has declared that all Scripture is
profitable. Shall we believe Him or not? This is the heart of the issue. Who is
to decide whether Scripture in its entirety is for our profit? This is a
question which man alone cannot resolve. Professor Beegle
might restrict his questions to a few passages such as those mentioned above.
There are others, however, who are not as concerned about Christ's work as is
Professor Beegle, and they would not hesitate to
enlarge greatly the list of passages which are to be dismissed as supposedly
non-profitable.
The position of faith is the only
possible position for the man who wishes to be true to his Lord. To deny that
all Scripture is profitable is to deny that God has spoken the truth. We are
not called upon to point out in what respect every passage of the Bible is
profitable for us any more than we are required to give a final interpretation
of every verse of the Bible or a final explanation of every difficulty in
Scripture.
A man might conceivably list every verse
of the Bible which he did not fully understand and then reject it as of little
or no profit. "If we do not understand something," it might argued, "how shall we benefit from it?" If we were
to follow this procedure, it would mean the casting aside of a great deal of
Scripture. Yet few would want to engage in a procedure a such
as this. Why then should we regard as unprofitable or why should we deny
profitability to certain passages of Scripture on the grounds that we do not see
how such passages can be of profit?
There is one point about the Shibboleth
incident that is deserving of notice in this
connection. The Ephraimites had grossly insulted the Gileadites and were severely beaten in battle. The Gileadites then took the fords of the
SCRIPTURE--GOD BREATHED AND PROFITABLE 11
or not. Apparently the Ephraimites were unable to pronounce "sh," and so, when the word “Shibboleth" was set
before them, they pronounced "sibboleth"
instead, thus giving themselves away. The result was that during the war some 42,000
of the Ephraimites fell.
That the Ephraimites
pronotmced "sh"
like "s" is quite interesting, but the incident is instructive also.
It simply is illustrative of the difficulty which the people of God had in
establishing themselves in the land of promise. The great lesson which God's
people at that time had to learn--indeed, the lesson which they need at all
times to learn--is that the promise of salvation is to be received as a gift of
grace and not a reward of merit. To obtain the promise the people of God are
not to employ the wisdom of the world. More specifically, to establish themselves
in the holy land, the people were not to employ the methods and practices of
the world. When Jephthah had appealed to the Ephraimites to fight against the Ammonites, for some reason
they did not heed that appeal. They had no warrant, as far as we can tell, for rising
against the Gileadites, and now their actions rebound
upon them. "They that live by the sword shall die by the sword." The
Shibboleth incident resulted in a great destruction for the Ephraimites.
Ephraim had used worldly wisdom--or at
least she had not relied upon God, and her actions had backfired. She had not
become a blessing to those round about her; she acted
as the people of the covenant should not act. Her reliance was not placed in
the promises of God but in herself. Her defiance and haughtiness toward
Without this episode at the crossing we
should not realize the disgrace that fell at that time upon Ephraim. In the
total picture the incident has its place, and it is a significant place. Like
many other details it goes to fill out the picture and contributes its share
toward making clear that at that time the covenant people had not learned their
need wholly to trust in their God.
This Shibboleth incident contributes to
our understanding of the period and thus plays its part in making clear that
the events recorded in the Old Testament are historical. Here there is further
evidence that we are dealing with historical matters. This is an emphasis sorely
needed at present when men are seeking to retain the content of Christianity
and yet divorce it from its historical roots.
Perhaps we may not be able in every
instance to discern wherein Scripture is profitable. Further study on our part,
however, will clear up many difficulties. May our lives be devoted to the study
of the Scriptures for they in their entirety are God-breathed and they are profitable.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
This translation rests upon the text pasa graphe theopneustos ophelimos, etc. R. V. G.
Tasker:
The Greek New Testament,
2.
We may transliterate: kul ketol daberuho’ ‘etketeb,
mauterona’ (h)w
etc.
3.
Huther seems to suggest that kai
is confirmative. On this view it would be rendered
“indeed” or
something similar. Cf. J. E. Huther: Critical and Exegetical
Handbook of the Epistles of St. Paul, in Meyer’s Commentary.
MDCCCLXXXI, p. 307.3
4.
Benjamin B. Warfield: “God-inspired Scripture” in The Inspiration and Authority of
the Bible,
5.
Dewey M. Beegle: The
Inspiration of Scripture.
6.
Op. cit., p. 88.6
:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium