The Gift of Prophecy

Biblical Evidence

The biblical evidence in support of the inspired nature of the Bible is abundant and has been studied by other Adventist scholars. ³ Therefore this study will concentrate on some of the key passages and attempt to provide a summary of the evidence. There are two main biblical passages in which the question of the origin and nature of the Bible are explicitly addressed, 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20, 21. They can be used to establish the parameters within which we can proceed to develop our understanding of the origin and nature of the Bible. GOP 84.2

Revelation/Inspiration and 2 Timothy 3:16

Paul writes to Timothy about the evil times in which they live and the need to oppose false teachers. He encourages Timothy to oppose them and to retain the true teaching he received because it comes from the sacred writings inspired by God. ⁴ In 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul is mainly interested in the function of the Bible, its usefulness in the church, and in the experience of the believer. Nevertheless, he grounds its function in the nature of Scripture. He first addresses the object and extent of revelation. The text plainly states that inspiration is directly located in “all scripture.” ⁵ The word “scripture” (Greek, graphē) is consistently used in the New Testament to refer to biblical literature, the Scripture. In other parts of the New Testament, the singular “ scripture” is often used to designate a specific portion of the Old Testament (e.g., Luke 4:21; John 19:37), but there are many cases in which it simply means the Scripture as a whole (e.g., Gal. 3:22; James 4:5). ⁶ In 2 Timothy 3:16 “scripture” designates the Holy Scripture, at least the Old Testament. In 1 Timothy 5:18 it is employed to introduce a quotation from the Old Testament. ⁷ In this last case “scripture” designates the totality of the Scripture from which a particular section is being cited. GOP 85.1

The suggestion that in 2 Timothy 3:16 “scripture” refers to the totality of the Scriptures is not only supported by the fact that this is the way the term is used in the New Testament but also by the use of the word “all.” “All scripture” could mean “every scripture,” that is to say each portion of the Scriptures, or “all/the totality of scripture”; the idea is basically the same. If each individual part of Scripture is inspired, then the totality of it is also inspired. The suggestion that the phrase “every scripture” implies that only some portions of Scripture are inspired is not contextually defensible. ⁸ GOP 85.2

Second, Paul addresses the connection between inspiration and Scripture. The Greek term theopneustos, translated as “is inspired,” is used only here in the New Testament. It is not a verb but a verbal adjective formed by the combination of two Greek words (theos, “God,” and pneo, “breathe”) to which a verbal adjective ending was added (tos). It can be translated in two different ways conveying different meanings: (a) “breathing God,” that is to say, provoking thoughts about God, filled with the breath of God; or (b) “God-breathed,” indicating that Scripture is the result of God’s breath. Most commentators accept the second rendering as the proper one in part because of the particular ending attached to the Greek term (tos indicates a passive meaning). ⁹ GOP 85.3

The relationship between this term and the previous phrase “all scripture” is debated by some scholars. Again, there are two possible ways of rendering the relationship in English: (a) “All scripture inspired by God is . . .” or (b) “All scripture is inspired by God.” The first one could give the idea that some parts of the Scripture are not inspired, while the second states that all of Scripture is inspired by God. Most scholars have correctly concluded that the Greek word order of the text supports the second translation. ¹⁰ More important is the context. It suggests, as already indicated, that the apostle has no interest at all in introducing a distinction between what is inspired by God in the Bible and what is not. ¹¹ Such distinction is foreign to the New Testament, and this verse does not affirm its validity. GOP 86.1

Third, Paul deals with the meaning of inspiration itself. What does the phrase “all scripture is God- breathed” mean? It means that it was “inspired” by God. The English verb “to inspire” comes from the Latin inspirare, “to blow, to breathe into,” and one of its meanings is “to breathe, to blow upon or into.” The passage is saying that Scripture is the result of God’s breath. It was through God’s breath that Adam came into existence (Gen. 2:7) and that the universe was created by God (Ps. 33:6). That same divine creative power was needed to bring Scripture into existence. This means that Scripture is the result of God’s wonderful and unfathomable work. This is extremely important in that it makes the Bible unique in nature and authority. God used humans, but the apostle is telling us that Scripture as such cannot be credited to them but to God. Since all of it found its origin in Him, it is endowed with reliability and trustworthiness. The context of the use of the term theopneustos indicates that it refers to “the sacred nature of the Scriptures, their divine origin, and their power to sanctify believers.” ¹² GOP 86.2

At this point we can draw two conclusions from the passage. First, the text does not define how the God-breathing took place, or the mode of the divine inspiration. It is obviously a metaphorical expression used to convey clearly the message that God was not only directly involved in the origin of Scripture, but that He was its Creator. Second, the text does not make any distinction between revelation and inspiration. Such distinctions are the result of theological discussions motivated by the desire to establish precise differentiations that supposedly will help us to understand how God related to the human instrument. In the Bible revelation and inspiration are parts of one single process. GOP 86.3

Revelation/Inspiration and 2 Peter 1:20, 21

Peter provides a little more information about the meaning of the process of revelation/inspiration than 2 Timothy 3:16. There are several elements to which we should pay particular attention. First, we need to explore the meaning of the phrase “no prophecy of Scripture.” It could give the impression that Peter is specifically referring to the prophetic sections of the Old Testament. It is true that the apostle is discussing the prophetic nature of Scripture, but what he says about its prophetic nature applies to Scripture itself. The context indicates that he is not trying to establish a distinction between prophecy in Scripture and other types of biblical material. In this case the word “scripture” (graphē) clearly refers to the totality of Scripture. GOP 87.1

Second, we need to explore the expression “the prophet’s own interpretation.” The NIV, among others Bible translations, added the noun “prophet”; the Greek reads, “[someone’s] own interpretation” (idias epiluseōs). There are two ways of reading the passage, illustrated in the following translations: NIV—“No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.” NASB—“No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” Everything hinges on the meaning of idias (“[someone’s] own”). ¹³ The second option suggests that the individual as such is not free to interpret the Scriptures. This will be used to support the teaching ministry of the church. ¹⁴ The first option suggests that Scripture is not the result of, or did not originate out of, the prophet’s own interpretation. The “[someone’s] own” is contrasted with the Spirit. Is the contrast between the Spirit and the reader or the Spirit and the original writer? Although the introduction of the prophet in the text seems awkward, it appears to be the best option for several reasons. ¹⁵ GOP 87.2

The term idios was used in Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian statements as a semi technical term to deny the human origin of prophecy. ¹⁶ This would indicate that Peter is discussing the origin of prophecy and not the interpretation of prophecy. Besides, there is no clear instance in which the noun epilusis or the verb epiluein is used to refer to a human interpretation of Scripture. The closest we come to that meaning is in cases in which the terms are used to refer to God’s own interpretation of a revelation He gave the prophet. For instance, in the Greek version both terms are used to refer to the interpretation God gave Joseph about the dreams of the baker and the butler (Gen. 40:8; 41:8, 12). ¹⁷ The emphasis is again on the origin of the prophecy and not on its interpretation by the readers. Finally, in the context of our passage Peter is discussing, not the private interpretation of prophecy, but the question of the authenticity of prophecy. ¹⁸ GOP 87.3

His theme is the origin and reliability of the Christian teaching about grace, holiness and heaven. The same God whom the apostles heard speak at the transfiguration of Jesus spoke also through the prophets. The argument in verses 20-21 is a consistent and indeed necessary conclusion to the preceding paragraph. Thus, we can rely on the apostolic account of the transfiguration because God spoke. And we can rely on Scripture because behind its human authors God spoke. The prophets did not make up what they wrote. They did not arbitrarily unravel it. ¹⁹ GOP 88.1

Third, we need to explore the phrase “human will.” Second Peter 1:21 is structured in antithetic parallelism in order to emphasize the divine origin of prophecy: “Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The negative clause at the beginning of the verse is expressed in very strong language, as indicated by the construction “(ou . . . pote) not . . . ever, never.” ²⁰ What is denied is that prophecy is the result of a human desire; that it is of human origin. The Greek verb translated “had its origin” is pherō, and it means “carry, bring, lead.” ²¹ In this case it indicates that “no prophecy ever issued from human impulse.” ²² GOP 88.2

Fourth, we need to establish the connection between the person and the Spirit. The phrase “from God” indicates that the speaking of the prophets was not self-motivated but that it originated in the divine action (elalēsan apo theou, “they spoke from God”). The emphasis here is on the delivery of the message received from God or the moment when it was passed on to others through the human word. In that process the prophets “were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The verb used here is the same one used in the first part of the verse, pherō. The idea expressed is that of “being moved/driven” by the power of the Spirit and not by human will. GOP 88.3

The two passages we have briefly studied reveal several important ideas related to the topic of revelation and inspiration. First, they both indicate that in the process of revelation/inspiration God and humans are involved. However, it is clearly stated that the human will was not involved in the creation of the message or in its origin. The role of the prophet is carefully qualified. Apart from receiving the message, the prophets simply “spoke (elalēsan), proclaimed, and communicated the explanations, expositions and interpretations that originated in God as author.” ²³ They obviously spoke in the language they knew. Second, we should notice that except by the phrase “carried by the Spirit,” nothing is said in those passages about the way in which the divine and human interaction operated in the revelation/inspiration process. GOP 88.4

It is the task of theology to study Scripture in an attempt to understand its divine-human nature. The passages do not support the view that revelation/inspiration is the means by which God dictates to the prophet what to write. Third, the passages under consideration do not make any distinction between revelation and inspiration. From God’s perspective the reception and the delivery of the message are inseparable. Any radical attempt to separate them goes beyond the biblical evidence and creates a false dichotomy. GOP 89.1

Fifth, the delivery of the message—what is traditionally called “inspiration”—was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who at that moment was moving, carrying the prophet as he or she was passing on to others the revelation received. This suggests that the speaking of the prophets, the words they used in verbal or written form, was under the guidance of God. GOP 89.2

Other Biblical Evidence

It is evident throughout Scripture that God has spoken to humans through other human beings. The prophets spoke on behalf of God, and He identified their words with His: “I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.” (Deut. 18:19, NIV). God used human language as a vehicle of communication. The prophets were His messengers and spoke for Him, as indicated by the use of the phrase “Thus says the Lord.” They were fully aware of the fact that the message they proclaimed came from God: “I, even I, will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say” (Ex. 4:12, NASB). Notice that the personality of the prophet was not neutralized. What we see is the union of the human and the divine: “I will be with your mouth.” God did not overpower the prophets to the point that they were not involved in what was taking place. He was teaching them what they were to say; He was instructing them. And they were commanded to “speak My words to them [to the people]” (Eze. 2:7, NASB). During Jeremiah’s call to the prophetic ministry God said to him, “I have put my words in your mouth” (Jer. 1:9, NIV). He has become God’s instrument for the reception and proclamation of His message. GOP 89.3

Once the message was received, the prophets were commanded by the Lord to deliver it to the people. Very often they were asked to proclaim it in the form of a sermon or a speech: “The word of the Lord came to me: Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem . . .” (Jer. 2:1, NIV). God’s messages required wide distribution, and the prophets were to deliver them to the crowds (Jer. 22:1; 26:2). Sometimes God commanded the prophets to write down the revelation, to deliver it in written form. He said to Moses, “Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered” (Ex. 17:14, NIV). The message had to be preserved for future use. He commanded Jeremiah saying, “Take a scroll and write on it all the words I have spoken to you concerning Israel, Judah and all the other nations from the time I began speaking to you in the reign of Josiah until now” (Jer. 36:2, NIV). The involvement of the Lord with the prophets did not end with the revelation of His message to them. He was with them during the communication process, making sure that the message was properly expressed and delivered. This is illustrated in an experience of Jeremiah. God gave him a vision and then entered into a conversation with the prophet: GOP 89.4

“ ‘What do you see, Jeremiah?’ ‘I see the branch of an almond tree,’ I replied. The Lord said to me, ‘You have seen correctly, for I am watching to see that my word is fulfilled.’ The word of the Lord came to me again: ‘What do you see?’ ‘I see a pot that is boiling,’ I answered. ‘It is tilting toward us from the north.’ The Lord said to me, ‘From the north disaster will be poured out on all who live in the land’ ” (Jer. 1:11-14, NIV). GOP 90.1

Such dialogues indicate that, among other things, even after giving the vision the Lord was interested in making sure that the prophet was able to deliver the message. The verbal description of the revelation given by the prophets had to correspond to the image or the message they received from the Lord. Word and thought were inseparable. God was involved in the revelation/ inspiration process from beginning to end. GOP 90.2