Essay 24

 

SOME CRUCIAL DISTINCTIONS (3)

 

  7. Revelation / Inspiration

 

  These terms are easily confused, and it can be misleading. While 2 Tim. 3:16 assures us that "All Scripture is inspired of God," we are not to suppose that all Scripture is revelation. Inspiration is literally "God-breathed," which is subject to varying interpretations. It at least means "of" or "from" God -- that is, God is in some way behind it. By this definition inspiration might include Shakespeare in literature, Beethoven in music, or Einstein in science. Inspiration means God enables one to do what he could not do alone, even in mysterious ways.

 

  Revelation, on the other hand, is God's disclosure of himself -- his nature, will, purpose. In revelation God speaks -- either directly to a person or through chosen envoys -- and reveals what cannot be known otherwise. When Scripture says, as it often does in the prophets, "The Lord spoke to Jeremiah, saying . . " we obviously have revelation. It is information that comes directly from God -- information that we would otherwise not have.

 

  But the Bible is sometimes what the writer comes up with on his own -- albeit the person is nonetheless "led" or "inspired" of God in the endeavor. Luke is an example of this.  It does not appear that he received his information directly from the Lord in doing his gospel or Acts. He did research work. As he put it in Lk. 1:3: "It seemed good to me also, having had a perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus."

 

  Luke referred to various writers who had "taken in hand to draw up a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us" (v. 1), but these did not satisfy his purpose. He had the information those documents provided, and he had his own experiences to draw from, including his extensive travel and assocation with Paul and other apostles. It is likely that he conducted interviews, such as with Mary the mother of Jesus. He gathered data not unlike a graduate student would do today in writing a thesis.

 

  But we believe Luke was "inspired" in that the Holy Spirit guided him in locating the materials and gathering data. And the Spirit would have protected him from material error, so that the final product would be what God wanted the church to have for its witness of the gospel to the world.

 

  So, Luke and Acts have always been viewed by the church as inspired -- that is, the Holy Spirit was involved in what Luke did, leading him and helping him. But the Spirit apparently did not reveal information to him. Luke rather -- by the leading of the Spirit -- gathered his information from various sources available to him. We may conclude, therefore, that Luke-Acts did not come by revelation, but did come by inspiration. This means that while all revelation is inspired, all inspiration is not revelation.

 

  We also see this distinction in Paul. While the Lord sometimes spoke to him directly and personally (revelation), he often spoke and wrote on his own. The distinction is clear in 1 Cor. 7:10, "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord . . ." and 1 Cor. 7:12, "But to the rest I, not the Lord, say . . ."  Even when Paul spoke on his own he could still say, "I think I also have the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 7:40).  And sometimes he made it clear that what he wrote was by direct revelation, as in Eph. 3:3: "how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)."

 

  I am not suggesting that when we study the Bible that we should seek to ascertain what is by direct revelation from God and what is not, even if inspired. It is all holy Scripture and that is what matters. Nor am I saying that one is more important than the other. It may be that what Paul said out of his own personal experience as an envoy of Christ -- inspired by the Spirit -- is as authoritative and relevant to us as what he received directly from Christ. But it is nonetheless a distinction that we should recognize.

 

  For instance, we mistakenly assume that it is the "inspiration" of the Bible that gives it its uniqueness -- that is, the books that compose its canon  are there because they were deemed "inspired."  This is not the case, for there were numerous early Christian writings that were seen by the church as inspired that were not accepted as canonical or as Scripture -- such as the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the Didache, Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas. As Prof. Stendahl at Harvard once corrected me when I said it was inspiration that determined canonicity: "Inspiration was not enough," he insisted, "A document had to pass the test of apostolicity." The professor was showing me that for a document to be accepted as holy Scripture it had to have a higher standard than just inspiration!

 

  The New Testament books that were slow in being accepted as Scripture (canonical) -- 2 Peter, James, 2 & 3 John, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation -- were not questioned because they were viewed as uninspired, but that the writers might not be close enough to the apostolic tradition. The gospel of Mark, for instance, was never questioned, for even though Mark was not an apostle he was close to the apostles.

 

  This distinction also frees us to recognize inspiration ("God-breathed") as embracing far more than Scripture. As suggested above, not only can we see the likes of Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Einstein as inspired of God, but all areas of human progress. When Louis Pasteur learned to control bacteria and made aseptic surgery possible -- saving millions from deadly infections -- can we not give God credit for "inspiring" him? And who dares to say that the founders of our republic and the authors of our Constitution acted on their own?

 

  You may say, "If Shakespeare was inspired of God, then we can make his writings equal to the Bible." No. Shakespeare was not an apostle, nor was he close to the apostolic tradition. Apostolicity is an essential mark of the Christian faith.

 

8. Unbelief / Disbelief

 

  Hardly any distinction, once appreciated, is more liberating that this one. Translators of the Bible do not always make this distinction clear, but it is nonetheless inherent in Scripture. I venture this thesis: The Bible never condemns an unbeliever, only the disbeliever.

 

  The distinction is vital: an unbeliever is one who has never heard, while a disbeliever is one who has heard and rejected. God does not condemn a blind man for not seeing, nor a deaf person for not hearing. God does not condemn one for not doing what he doesn't know to do.

 

  This is why passages like Mk. 16:16 should be translated: "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who disbelieves shall be condemned."  When Rev. 21:8 names the "unbelieving" among those who are destined for the lake of fire, it should read the "disbelieving." Paul properly asks in Rom. 10:14 "How shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?"

 

  Paul can speak from experience, for while he was an unbeliever -- even an adamant one -- he was never a disbeliever. To put it another way, Paul never rejected Christ -- he only had not yet accepted him, from lack of understanding. As he himself put it: "I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man, but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Tim. 1:13). Not disbelief!

 

  Paul admits to having been ignorant, but it was unwillful ignorance, not willful ignorance -- another important distinction. He was always sincere, even when he was persecuting believers. As he put it: "I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day" (Acts 23:1), and "Indeed, I myself thought that I must do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." (Acts 26:9).

 

  It is noteworthy that Paul says he received mercy because he was always sincere before God and acted out of (unwillful) ignorance. The crucial point is: when he at last received further light he accepted it. This is why we are to preach the gospel to all the world. Those unbelievers who are presently accepting such light as they have will accept the light of the gospel. Those disbelievers who are presently rejecting such light as they have may repent and become believers. It is those who persist to the end in disbelief -- rejecting any and all light -- who will be lost.

 

  This identifies the elect or the saved -- those who accept such light as they have, in whatever form it comes to them. The non-elect or the damned are those who reject -- and persist in their rejection -- such light as they have, in whatever form it comes to them. God rejects only those who reject him!

 

   Isaiah 66:2 informs this point: "But on this one will I look (have mercy): On him who is humble and of a contrite spirit, and who reverences My word." There is no hope in Scripture for those who blatantly ignore God, or who are stubbornly indifferent or willfully ignorant, or who despise and reject his grace, in whatever measure it reaches them.

 

9. Approval / Fellowship

  This has been a tricky one. Through all my years as an editor -- pleading for a restoration of the fellowship of the Spirit among our divided people -- I have had a problem getting our people to see the distinction between accepting a sister or brother as within the fellowship and approving or endorsing what that person may believe and practice. Unless we recognize this distinction there can never be unity. If we have to agree on all the issues to be one in Christ -- approving of each other's position on all points -- then we are doomed to everlasting division.