Dr. James Voelz: The inspiration of Scripture “is not nearly as important as most think for the actual task of textual interpretation”
The main issue is not whether Scripture’s inspiration is confessed in abstract, which is not hard to do, but how relevant the Spirit’s original giving of the words is to how we actually approach and read Scripture today. Is the Bible to be treated with suspicion and a critical eye like any other human book, or does its supernatural origin mean we may not treat God’s Word with disrespect? What the Bible is and who ultimately authored it sets the stage for how the sinner approaches the Holy Word and all Christian doctrine, since it must be derived from the Scriptures to be God’s eternal truth.
Voelz, in recent email correspondence with me, said: “Regarding whether I confess the doctrine of inspiration, the answer, is, of course, ‘Yes.’ That should have been apparent by statements in Addendum 11-A in What Does This Mean?” A meek mention of inspiration is confined to an addendum, quite tellingly. It does not influence Voelz’ attitude toward Scripture. If inspiration—God’s actual activity in giving the words—is not the starting point for how we are to value the Word in front of us, its confession is hollow and has little import.
The word “inspiration” can mean many things; it even has a secular meaning today. So a Christian definition must be clearly defined, or else Scripture will be torn apart and critiqued as merely human writing, which subverts the divine teaching of Christ it reveals. Since the Spirit, Son, and Father are one God, the Spirit’s Word is also Christ’s Word. But moderns frequently pit Christ and the effects of Scripture against what it is. The Bible is one of the few miracles we have the evidence for and get to hold in our hands. Sinners, especially since the Enlightenment, have brutally attacked the Bible and undermined trust in God’s words. This is Satan’s work, who wants us to doubt God’s saving truth. Those who dismiss or minimize the Bible’s origin and universal applicability are rationalists of the Enlightenment mode. The postmodern label does not signify a repentance from the modernist critical attitude; rather, it represents an extension of the rationalist project, now infused with a significant amount of despair and solipsism.
Scripture, that is to say, God and His communication, must be the start of the theological task: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” When we do not trust God, we try to cling to an unreliable human crutch—be it tradition, the personal authority of teachers, or people-pleasing academics.
Voelz wrote in his Principles of Biblical Interpretation for Everyone: “As the Word of God in human words, the sacred Scriptures can be said to be inspired, that is, the result of activity of the Holy Spirit upon the authors of its books.” That passive way of speaking is the opposite of certainty and makes confessing the truth of God’s Word improbable if one is consistent. A real doctrine of inspiration ascribes the words we read directly to the Spirit and demands humble obedience to the Lord who speaks through them still today.
The denial of the divine authorship of Scripture allows focus upon the particular human author, who was a sinner and not omniscient. That limits the scope and intended audience of the divine Word artificially—which Scripture itself does not do. Jesus cites the Old Testament as authoritative and as settling with finality human debates of His day. The crux of the issue is whether God can communicate to us today in His Word more clearly and authoritatively than do present scholars.
The issue is not the “process” or exact mode of inspiration, as Voelz feebly lobs out to make inspiration seem rationally absurd, but simply what is Scripture (beyond the human words we see) that we read and use today and how it should be treated. Voelz warns, “NOTE WELL: To get caught up in issues regarding the process of inspiration is to make the same mistake as do practitioners of the historical-critical method …” That misses the point that the critical attitude toward Scripture is blasphemy if Scripture is the actual Word of God without fault or error—it is to hold one’s own opinion and rational views equal to or above God’s revelation. The idea that we can thread a line between these two currents of the divine and human within God’s Word is hubris to the highest degree. True theology is not an intellectual balancing act; it is submission to the Word. Since “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,” any misreading or poor interpretation of Scripture results from the sinfulness of its readers. Scripture is clear, but we are not.
Voelz, rather than deal with the doctrine of Scripture, tries to pivot to interpretation of particular passages, since the fact of inspiration has no real significance in his reading:
Regarding why the doctrine of inspiration seems to play a less than prominent role in my work: The answer is, because that doctrine is not nearly as important as most think for the actual task of textual interpretation, which is what my hermeneutics writings seek to describe.
The starting point for Voelz is a lousy and misleading christological analogy (taken from describing the divine and human natures of Christ) that Sasse popularized. Besides the fact that it is not accurate for Scripture and, in reverse, endangers the very person of Christ, this poor analogy allows for rationalizing on the nature of Scripture. It is faulty in both directions. First, not all human language was joined to divine language in an eternal union—as Christ’s human and divine natures were. Certain human words, written by men, are completely divine, because the Spirit was their author. We do not root out the human nature in Christ and separate it from the divine, since the person is one. Inspiration is not acceptable academically, since it limits and binds the scholar under divine authority—he cannot play his academic games by treating the Scripture as basically a human chew toy. We must have the Spirit to rightly understand Scripture—the Spirit is essential, though historical setting, context, and Greek are not. Scripture is not for scholars and experts exclusively; it is for Christians to sustain and strengthen them. That is the pastoral task, not the academic one, where biblical studies has become a secular project.
The “human nature” in the human biblical authors was not sinless, as Christ’s human nature is and remains. So “human” is being used in two very different ways. Allowing for “creative tension” (Voelz’ words) between the supposed divine and human natures in Scripture puts the very unity of Christ as one person in danger.
One cannot become ‘Docetist’ on this matter: the Scriptures still are products of human authors writing from a particular perspective at a particular point in time. . . . the divine and human authorships of the books of sacred Scripture always present themselves in creative tension” (What Does This Mean?, 242).
Was there tension between the human and divine in Jesus? No, that would be to posit not one Christ, but conflicting entities in Him that cannot be truly united in one person. So the analogy fails in multiple ways. It is inadequate and can only be loosely applied with the greatest care.
One striking claim that Jeffrey Kloha makes in the infamous leaked paper “Text and Authority: Theological and Hermeneutical Reflections on a Plastic Text” [Nov. 2013, Oberursel] is that the doctrine of inspiration does not guarantee correct interpretation of Scripture. This parallels Voelz’ line of argument as well. Of course, no orthodox Lutheran has claimed that. Plenty of people with a strong doctrine of revelation and inspiration are not even saved (mormons, muslims). But that teaching does influence the attitude and general respect Scripture is to receive. Both Kloha and Voelz make scientific accuracy the test of the truth of inspiration, which Scripture itself does not do. Making inspiration irrelevant in this way is more radical than flatly denying it.
Voelz similarly minimizes inspiration by making interpenetration a wider issue of all language: “Or, how does inspiration help you to decide whether the vocable to be read after ἐγώ in John 7:8 is οὐκ or οὐπω? In all of these cases and thousands more, I submit, inspiration is not any sort of exegetical key.” That is a straw-man argument. No one has claimed that. Interpretation of Scripture is not a logical task, nor a matter of understanding all language. That puts God’s Word in the domain of the sinner and under his lower authority. For example, the two natures of Christ, the creation of the world, or the reality of hell will not answer every exegetical question either—is being a key to every passage really the litmus test we judge a doctrine by? No, we must look to what God is teaching in Scripture, not worship our vain imaginings. That approach is not theology but hollowed-out thinking from those who deny the power of the Scripture and of Christ Himself to speak authoritatively today.
The doctrine of inspiration, because it is revealed in Scripture, supports all other doctrines as the united truth of Christ. To minimize the divine authorship of God’s Word does cast a shadow over all doctrines, which are derived from Scripture. The issue concerns the authority of God, whether He is obeyed in Scripture, and the perceived critical authority of man. These two authorities cannot be reconciled or coordinated. Where man is prideful and unwilling to submit his unholy word to God’s holy Word, the entire Christian faith is jeopardized. The inspiration of Scripture sets the stage for knowing God and His revealed knowledge. Where else can we get the surety of doctrine from? It does not mean wrestling with Scripture, though suffering is still not needed, but the denial of God’s authorship of Scripture erodes confidence in every single doctrine and teaching of Scripture.
Against Voelz’s arrogance, Martin Luther has a contrary message: “Give the Holy Ghost the honor of being wiser than yourself, for you should deal with Scripture that you believe that God Himself is speaking.” “I must bring my own ideas into captivity and assent to the Word even if I do not understand it.” —ed.
Christian News 