Theory of Verbal Inspiration

Over the years a number of Seventh-day Adventists, including some of our ministers and Bible teachers, have held the verbal view of inspiration, despite counsels of Ellen White to the contrary.IRWHW 51.8

This view is a rather mechanical one, since it perceives the prophet’s role as simply that of a stenographer who takes down the boss’s dictation word for word. In this model the stenographer is not at liberty to change anything that has been given by the dictator: no synonyms may ever be employed; no failing to dot an i or to cross a t is permitted.IRWHW 51.9

This view seems to suggest that God, or the angel, puts a heavenly hand over the hand of the prophet and guides it—literally—so that every word, every syllable comes directly from God. The prophet, in this view, is not at liberty to change anything or to state the message in his own words. This mechanical view is strictly, stringently literalistic, with infallibility residing at the point of the written word.IRWHW 51.10

This limited view of inspiration provides no opportunity for translation into other languages, and has other even more serious limitations and dangers. ^{71The author acknowledges indebtedness to Dr. Earle Hilgert, who taught a course in “Introduction to New Testament” at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, January 1959, in which much of the material in this section of the article was presented.}IRWHW 51.11

The strict verbalist has a problem with Matthew 27:9, 10. Here Matthew does something that every teacher and preacher has done innumerable times. Matthew is probably thinking of one name, but out of his pen mistakenly comes another name. As he applies a Messianic prophecy to Christ—the prediction that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver—he attributes the prophecy to Jeremiah. However, in all the book of Jeremiah, there is not one reference to this prophecy. The alert reader will recognize that Matthew actually meant to attribute this prophecy to Zechariah (chap. 11:12, 13).IRWHW 51.12

The person who believes in plenary (thought) inspiration has no problem with this slip of the pen. But the verbalist finds a serious problem here. Did God make this mistake in dictating Matthew’s gospel?IRWHW 51.13

This is not the only problem for the verbalist. God the Father spoke audibly three times during the earthly ministry of His Son. The first time was immediately following Christ’s baptism in the Jordan River. The problem is, exactly what did the heavenly voice say?IRWHW 51.14

According to Matthew (chap. 3:17), the Father spoke in the third person singular: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” But Mark’s account (chap. 1:11) has the Father speaking in the second person singular: “Thou art my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”IRWHW 51.15

Exactly what did the Father say? The “plenarist” does not see the discrepancy between the accounts as being a problem; he believes that it is the thought that is inspired, not the exact words. There is no disagreement between Matthew and Mark as to the essence of what God said.IRWHW 51.16

Another problem for the verbalist is Pilate’s superscription on the signboard he ordered placed on Christ’s cross. What did that signboard say? The four Gospel writers give four slightly different accounts of what the sign stated.IRWHW 51.17

Which one was correct? To the plenarist it makes no difference. But the literal verbalist is in a quandary. And it doesn’t help to recall that the signboard was in three languages (Latin, Greek, and Hebrew), because we have four different accounts, not three!IRWHW 52.1

Matthew and Luke illustrate yet another kind of problem for the strict verbalist in the way they handle the Sermon on the Mount.IRWHW 52.2

No one today has read or heard the actual Sermon on the Mount. Probably Ellen White’s book Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing comes closest to a complete account of a sermon that took virtually all day to preach.IRWHW 52.3

Matthew simply gives an outline of the sermon in chapters 5-7 of his Gospel. But Luke doesn’t even give that much. If all we had was Luke’s Gospel, we’d never even know there was a Sermon on the Mount. For Luke takes the ingredients of the sermon, and plugs in some here and some there as it suits his purpose.IRWHW 52.4

To understand why the material is handled this way, we have to recognize that Matthew was writing to Jews, who liked sermons. So Matthew used a sermon format—indeed, a sermon outline—to display Jesus’ ideas from this incomparable discourse, which by some has been called the charter or constitution of the Christian church.IRWHW 52.5

Luke, however, was writing for Greeks, who couldn’t have cared less about sermons, as such. They, instead, liked to dwell in the realm of ideas. So Luke took the ideas of the Sermon on the Mount and used them evangelistically, some here and some there, as it served his purpose in dealing with his audience.IRWHW 52.6

The plenarist has no problem with this approach because he sees the ideas as being inspired. But the strict verbalist is here in a great deal of trouble. Who is right? Was it a sermon or not? Many questions are raised, but few answers are forthcoming.IRWHW 52.7

Other illustrations could be cited, such as Matthew’s listing of the order of Christ’s miracles in a somewhat different order than Luke’s Gospel. Problems such as these leave the strict verbalist in a real quandary. However, we shall leave him there for now, and proceed to examine the plenary theory of inspiration.IRWHW 52.8