THE MEANING AND EXTENT OF INSPIRATION IN II TIMOTHY 3 :16

by

Frank L. Griffith

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1

Statement of the Problem 4Importance of the Study 5The Doctrine of Inspiration is Vitally Important 5Biblical Testimony is Vital to the Doctrine of Inspiration 9II Timothy 3:16 Is Vital to the Biblical Testimony of Inspiration 13

The Procedure of the Study 15The Limitations of the Study 15

2. INTRODUCTION TO 11 TIMOTHY 3:16 17The Historical Background 17The Purpose of the Letter 24The Arrangement of the Letter 25The Importance of 11 Timothy 3:16 27

3. THE MEANING OF INSPIRATION 29A Lexical Study of qeovpneusto" 31Primary Etymological Considerations 31Usage Outside of 11 Timothy 3:16 32Pre-Christian usage 33Christian usage 35

An Etymological Study of qeovpneusto" 37Passive or Active? 39Importance of the issue 39

2

The case for the active meaning 41The case for the passive meaning 43

Process or Product? 47Conclusion 50

4. THE EXTENT OF INSPIRATION 52A Lexical Study of Grafhv 54The Meaning of Pa'sa Grafhv 58Pa'sa: Distributive or Collective? 58The limitations of grafhv in 11 Timothy 3:1664

The Declaration of Inspiration 74The Case for the Attributive 76New Testament parallels 76Attributive fits the context 77

The Case for the Predicative 80The construction demands the predicative force

80The context favors the predicative force 81

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 84BIBLIOGRAPHY 89

3

Chapter 1GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

In A.D. 68 the Roman Senate declared Nero a public enemy and ordered his arrest. Upon asking what his punishment would be he was told that “the condemned man is stripped, is fastened to a post by a fork passing through his neck, and is then beaten to death.”1 Terrified, he attempted to stab himself; after testing the point of the poniard he mourned, “Qualis artifex pereo!” (“what an artist dies in me!”).2 To the end, what this “uninhibited satyr really wanted was to be a great artist. Having every power, he longed also for every accomplishment.”3 Most telling are words spoken in the face of death.

What a contrast this is to the final words of Nero’s most famous prisoner, the Apostle Paul, as he faced death just months before.

Second Timothy has appropriately been called Paul’s “swan song.” In it we have the final, moving wordsof that mighty warrior of the cross as he faces death unafraid. It is the dying appeal of the Apostle to his young associate, exhorting him to steadfastness in the ministry in the face of appalling difficulties. It is rich in personal details and gives us a fitting closing picture of the dauntless messenger of Christ, tender and sympathetic, heroic and grand to the very end.”4

H.C.G. Moule said he found it difficult to read Second Timothy “without finding something like a mist gathering in

1 Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, Vol. 11 of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), pp. 283-84.2 Durant, p. 284.3 Durant, p. 278.4 D. Edmond Hiebert, An Introduction to the Pauline Epistles (Chicago: Moody, 1969), p. 351.

4

the eyes.”5 As the great apostle instructs his son Timothy concerning the necessity of suffering hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ he bares his heart and soul in his endeavor to prepare Timothy for the difficult times that will come. This brief letter reveals what was vitally important to the apostle.

In the midst of this last will and testament Paul exhorts Timothy to stand against the coming apostasy. In order to do so he must stand steadfast in the truth--in whathe had learned and had “been convinced for certain.”6 To strengthen this exhortation, Paul reminds Timothy of two things: first he is to remember who his teachers have been and secondarily he is to remember that the source of their teaching was the “Holy Scriptures.” It is at this point in his letter that the apostle Paul makes one of the clearest and most precise statements concerning the quality of Scripture found anywhere in the Word of God. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,for correction, for training in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16).

Although II Timothy 3:16 appears at first glance to be a very simple straightforward statement concerning the inspiration of Scripture, a great deal of discussion has

5 H.C.G. Moule, The Second Epistle to Timothy (London: Religious Tract Society, 1905), p. 16.6 Joh. Ed. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. IX, ed.H.A.W. Meyer (Winona Lake: Alpha, 1979), p. 254.

5

been given as to the precise meaning of the initial clause of this verse: pa'sa grafhv qeovpneusto".

Emil Brunner, not agreeing with the obvious impact of these words, considered this verse to be the “beginning of the false identification of the Word and doctrine.”7 Certainly the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration does not depend entirely on the interpretation of II Timothy 3:16, for God has secured this doctrine “in the very fabric and framework of His Word.”8 Yet this verse must be

considered crucial as an internal argument for the inspiration of the Bible . . . However, before one can make a value judgment as to the benefit of II Timothy 3:16 to the doctrine of Scripture, one must have an accurate translation from the original text. Unfortunately this is the very problem of II Timothy 3:16--opinions differ as to its proper translation. Many scattered references have been made about this passage in numerous theological works but few adequately discuss the difficult grammatical, syntactical, and lexicographical problems the passage poses.9

Statement of the ProblemAccording to B.B. Warfield, “wherever five ‘advanced

thinkers’ assemble, at least six theories as to inspiration are likely to be ventilated.”10 When one peruses the many 7 Paul King Jewett, “Emil Brunner’s Doctrine of Scripture, “Inspiration and Interpretation, ed. John F. Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957),p. 225.8 H. Wayne House, “Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16, “Bibliotheca Sacra, CXXXVII (January-March, 1980), 619 House,,p. 5410 Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958), P. 105.

6

commentaries and comments elsewhere concerning the passage in question, he soon becomes convinced that Warfield did notstate the situation any too strongly.

The basic problem of interpretation in II Timothy 3:16 revolves around two major questions: What is the meaning of “inspiration” and what is the extent of this “inspiration”? However, in order to answer these questions several questions which are even more basic must be answered. Guthrie points out two of these underlying problems:

There is a twofold problem in the interpretation of this verse. First, what is

the precise meaning of graphe (scripture)? And second should theopneustos be rendered as a predicate, is given by inspiration of God, or as a qualifying adjective, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable” (RV)?11

There are other important questions: Is pa'sa to be translated “all” or “every” (viewing Scripture as a whole oras individual passages)? Does qeovpneusto" have an active ora passive meaning (was Scripture breathed out by God or doesit breathe out God)? Does this verbal adjective describe a product or a process (is it the process which involved men or is it the finished product which is being characterized)?It is the purpose of this study to provide answers to these and other questions.

Importance of the Study

11 Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol. X1V, ed. R.V.G. Tasker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 163.

7

The importance of this study can be seen in the following three prepositions: (1) The doctrine of inspiration is vitally important. (2) Biblical testimony is vitally important to the doctrine of inspiration. (3) SecondTimothy 3:16 is vitally important to the biblical testimony concerning inspiration.The Doctrine of Inspiration is Vitally Important

Kenneth Kantzer explains the important of this doctrine:

If we define revelation as the divine communication or truth to men, then the meansof revelation will of necessity involve a work of inspiration whereby God conveys to human hearers His wordof truth, propositions about himself and about reality, which He wishes to communicate to men.

In such a situation, of course, further questions will raise themselves. precisely which propositions are divinely revealed and which stem merely from human judgment? How can these divinely revealed propositions bedistinguished from others which are only alleged to be so? How can divinely given propositions be understood, interpreted, and adequately conveyed in human language?

Most contemporary theologians consider such questions unanswerable. They seek, however, to shortcut what appears to them to be a very devious line of thinking. Atthe very beginning they chose a radically different approach to the problems of revelation by defining revelation not as the divine communication of truth but as God’s disclosure of Himself as a person. This different definition of revelation prescribes necessarilya different method of revelation. It is quite obvious that if God cannot, or does not, reveal propositional truth, then the method of revelation will not involve an

8

“inspiration of truth” either to Biblical prophets and apostles or anyone else.12

In 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 Paul states that God has given a divine communication of truth to men and it is in the formof words--propositions about Himself and about reality. For this reason the matter of inspiration is a vital one.

Thus the Bible, as the infallibly inspired revelation of God to sinful man, stands

before us as the light in terms of which all the facts ofthe created universe must be interpreted. All of finite existence, material and redemptive, functions in relationto one all inclusive plan that is in the mind of God. Whatever insight man is to have in this pattern of the activity of God he must attain by looking at all his objects of research in the light of Scripture.13

Inspiration has to do with the quality of this revelation. But this issue of inspiration is one of great controversy today. In 1958 William D. Lyon wrote:

That the matter of verbal inspiration is a current issue is quite evident to one whoscans any of the current periodical literature on Christian matters, so today the question of inspiration increases in significance as the number and vehemence of attacks against it increase. The subject has been in the forefront in some writings for at least one hundred and fifty years.14

12 Kenneth S. Kantzer, “Neoorthodoxy and the Inspiration of Scripture,” Bibliotheca Sacra, CXV1 (January, 1959), 218.13 Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995) p. 124.14 William D. Lyon, “Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures in theLight of Modern Theological Thought, An Evaluation” (unpublished B.D. theseis, Talbot Theological Seminary, 1958), p. 33.

9

The controversy goes on. John Koenig begins his 1979 thesis:

Headlines over the past year in the religion section ofone of our nation’s leadingmetropolitan newspapers are an indication of the timeliness and importance of a definitive statement of the extent of inerrancy demanded by inspiration.15

The number and vehemence of attacks against the biblical doctrine of inspiration continue today. Why? It is because inspiration involves the question of authority. JohnWalvoord points out the bond between inspiration and authority.

Another vital issue is whether the Bible is actually the inspired Word of God. Inother words, when the Bible speaks can we accept the words of Scripture as having infallible divine authority.16

In the same article Dr. Walvoord observes that in the present century “more than any previous period of the Christian era there is a rising tide of unbelief and rejection of the authority of Scripture.”17

Why is the question of authority so offensive to some? C. H. Dodd expressed the feelings of those who oppose the idea of an inspired Scripture which is thus a final authority.

15 John D. Koenig, “The Extent of Inerrancy Demanded by Inspiration” (unpublished M.A. thesis, Talbot Theological Seminary, 1979), p. 1.16 John F. Walvoord, “Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra, CXV1 (January, 1959), p. 4.17 Walvoord, p. 3.

10

The whole conception of an infallible external authority in any field of thought isopen to criticism on the ground that it is difficult to state it without introducing two ultimate standards of truth. If his own observation or reason leads a man to one conclusion, while the external authority he recognizes points to another, which is he to trust? If the latter, there would seem to be an end of intellectualadventure and discovery, to say nothing of moral responsibility. The advance of knowledge in modern times has come because thinkers in most fields have refused to allow absolute authority to any existing system of doctrine, and have taken observation and reason as their guides to truth.18

Which authority ought man trust? Shall he trust his ownobservation and reason or the Word of God? The Bible claims that it is a “God-breathed” revelation. The Bible also claims that man’s capacities of reason and observation are imperfect, incapacitated because of sin. Men in their unregenerate state are said to be “darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of theignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart” (Eph. 4:18).

A man in such a state “does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:14). In regard to moral responsibility what is the ultimate authority, personal judgment or the Word of God?

18 C.H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible (London: Nisbet, 1948), p. 14.

11

Not even the moral judgment of so sanctified and chosenan instrument (Acts 9:15)as was Paul offers to the inward man an absolute guarantee to perceive beyond doubt all the will and judgment of God. The apostle testified: “I know nothing against myself, yet am I not hereby justified” (1 Cor. 4:4). So far is the human judgment removed from being a voice of God; so difficult is it to effect a clearing andenlightenment of man’s spiritual understanding.”19

The importance of inspiration cannot be exaggerated. Onthis one issue hangs the questions of authority and epistomology. It is not an exaggeration to say that inspiration is basic to the entire field of theological science.20 Even one’s method of interpreting the Bible depends on his understanding of inspiration. “The preconceived view of Scripture is the foundation for the resultant hermeneutical system and all subsequent doctrine. This is primary and essential.”21 Biblical Testimony is Vital to the Doctrine of Inspiration

The inquiry concerning the exact nature of inspiration of necessity begins with the Bible itself. B.B. Warfield understood this question as foundational.

The really decisive question among Christian scholars (among whom alone, it

19 Erich Sauer, From Eternity to Eternity, trans. G.H. Lang (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 100.20 William G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, I (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1979), 62.21 A.J. Nieuwoudt, “The Relation of Inspiration to Hermeneutics” (unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1961), p. 48.

12

would seem, could a question of inspiration be profitablydiscussed), is thus seen to be, What does an exact and scientific exegesis determine to be the Biblical doctrineof inspiration.22

To some, however, this seems like an unscholarly approach. Is it not circular reasoning to base one’s doctrine of Scripture on what it says about itself? James Garrett calls this approach the “popular view” of the Bible as opposed to the “scholarly view” which he espouses.23 In the same manner Bernard Ramm, in a 1974 article, described two methods for “the establishment of the theological attributes of Scripture.“24 Ramm suggests that the “customary” or “a priori” method is “to read the Scriptures and pick out the texts which refer to inspiration or revelation or the Word of God and from these texts construe one’s theology of Scripture.”25 But he is convinced this method, which was followed by Lee, Warfield and Gaussen, hastoo close a similarity with the Muslim view of the Qu’ran.

Ramm goes on to suggest that the only way to escape “the Muslim view of Scripture”26 is to take the “scholarly”approach. One must “first grasp the character of Scripture

22 Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958), p. 175.23 James L. Garrett, Jr., “Representative Modern Baptist Understanding of Biblical Inspiration,” Review and Expositor, LXX1, No. 2 (Spring, 1974), 189.24 Bernard Ramm, “Scripture as a Theological Concept,” Review and Expositor, LXX1, No. 2 (Spring 1974), p. 149.25 Ramm, p. 149.26 Ramm, p. 150.

13

as it stands before us.”27 The question is not what saith the Scripture. It is what is the phenomenology of Scripture?It is only after answering the latter question and thus coming to a careful accurate description of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation that one is able to formulate an accurate, scholarly doctrine of the Scriptures. One cannot take the testimony of Scripture about itself. He must observe what it is for himself, weigh the evidence, and formulate a doctrine of the Scriptures based on his own observation, reasoning and conclusions.

Ramm also likens the conservative’s view of Scripture to the Mormon’s view of the Book of Mormon based on its own claims. He concludes: “Yet what strict conservative believesthat God so spoke to Nephi, to Moroni? If he rejects these statements here, why does he accept them in Scripture?”28

The results of such an approach to the doctrine of Scripture, and especially inspiration, are quite revealing. Concerning the early chapters of Genesis Dr. Ramm applied his method of interpretation based on a phenomenological approach.

Theology may be written as poetry or novel as space or science fiction as well asthe traditional academic way. For example, creation accounts in the ancient world were uniformly in the form of a poem. What difference it would make in the “Bible and Science” controversy if Genesis one were identified

27 Ramm, p. 150.28 Ramm, p. 154.

14

as the literary genre of poetry and not of descriptive prose!29

But there is validity in appealing to the witness whichthe Bible bears to its own complete trustworthiness. There is no problem in using the Bible to derive doctrines concerning Scripture itself.

As the botanist cannot learn to know the nature of the life of the plant except fromthe plant itself, the theologian also has no other way atcommand, by which to learn to understand the nature of inspiration, except the interrogating of the Scripture itself. This is the approach of one who believes in the Bible as the source book of his faith--however much doubthe may have concerning the exact nature or extent of inspiration. Just as he looks to the Bible to discover the nature of God, the nature of redemption, the nature of Christ, and other vital facts, he should look to the Bible for its statements concerning the nature of Scripture. For it is a trustworthy witness.30

Such an appeal to Scripture is the basis of the

doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. Concerning this doctrine B.B. Warfield wrote:

Whatever minor variations may now and again have entered into the mode ofstatement, this has always been the core of the Church doctrine of inspiration. And along with many other modes of commending and defending it, the primary ground on which it has been held by the Church as the true doctrineis that it is the doctrine of the Biblical writers themselves, and has therefore the whole mass of evidence

29 Ramm, p. 151.30 Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, trans. Hendrik DeVries(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), pp. 429-30.

15

for it which goes to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as doctrinal guides. It is the testimony of the Bible itself to its own origin and character the Oracles of the Most High, that has led the Church to her acceptance of it as such, and to her dependence on it notonly for her doctrine of Scripture, but for the whole body of her doctrinal teaching, which is looked upon by her as divine because drawn from this divinely given fountain of truth.31

II Timothy 3:16 Is Vital to the Biblical Testimony of Inspiration

A.H. Strong said, “Perhaps the best theory of inspiration is to have no theory.”32 Regardless of the truthor lack of it in that statement, the best doctrine of inspiration to have is the biblical doctrine. The importanceof a proper understanding of the initial clause of II Timothy 3:16 lies in the fact that it is indispensable to a complete biblical statement concerning inspiration.

Because the passage so clearly states the fact of the inspiration of Scripture, it has been the target of multifarious attacks. Concerning inspiration in II Timothy 3:16, Lenski writes:

The inspiration of the Scriptures is constantly denies,and thus efforts are made toeliminate from Scripture itself any linguistic claim to its own inspiration. Some follow the bold method: they let Paul say what he pleases, they do not believe what hesays. Others that are not so bold tone down the idea of

31 Warfield, pp. 173-74.32 A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge: Judson, 1963), p. 211.

16

inspiration until nothing but the decorative word is left. They at least do not lik3 to give up the word. Theygenerally, however, speak with contempt of what they denominate “the verbal theory of inspiration.” They propose a “theory” of a different kind, one that allows for more or less error in Holy Writ. 33

William Kelly expressed well the importance of II Timothy 3:16.

No more suited, valuable, and weighty sentence appears here or in any part of theword of God. There are kindred sentiments of exceeding moment, which do ever fit in most appropriately where they occur; but the one before us is clear, full, and impressive in the highest degree. It gives divine character to every part of the Bible. 34

None of the commentators that this writer has consultedhave dealt with all of the lexical, grammatical and syntactical problems involved in a proper understanding of II Timothy 3:16. It is hoped that this detailed study of theinitial clause of II Timothy 3:16 will bring to light and emphasize the meaning and implications of these weighty words. And that as a result this study will be used to speakto the needs of the church today.

The Procedure of the StudyThe aim of this thesis is to discover the exact and

thus the intended meaning of the phrase pa'sa grafhv

33 R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), p. 842.34 William Kelly, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to Timothy (London: F.E. Race, 1913), p. 171.

17

qeovpneusto" in II Timothy 3:16. In order to reach the goal of this paper, the following procedure has been adopted. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the problem. Chapter 2is a background of II Timothy, and the context leading up toII Timothy 3:16 will be examined there also. Then in the third chapter the exact meaning of inspiration as it is set forth in this verse will be investigated. This will involve a lexical and etymological study of the verbal adjective qeovpneusto". The fourth chapter will delve into the extent of inspiration. This study will include both lexical and syntactical considerations so that the extent of pa'sa grafhv can be discovered. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the placement of the copula, the particular use of the adjective and the purpose of the kaiv which follows. Chapter 5 concludes the findings of the entire study.

The Limitations of the StudyAny study such as this has by necessity certain

presuppositions. In order to limit the scope of the study and to deal with the main purpose of the thesis the following presuppositions have been made.

First, the writer accepts the Scriptures, including the66 books of the Old and New Testaments, as absolutely reliable and authoritative in all they state. In other words, the Scripture is accepted as the ultimate witness

18

concerning its own character. Paul is accepted without question as the author of the book of II Timothy.

Second, this study is not meant to be a full expositionof II Timothy 3. The context will be discussed only as is necessary to the interpretation of II Timothy 3:16.

Third, this study is not meant to be a full treatment of the doctrine of inspiration. It is not the aim of this paper to prove the inspiration of Scripture, but to determine the exact meaning and extent of the inspiration described in II Timothy 3:16.

English Bible quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible. 35 Greek quotations from the New Testament are taken from the United Bible Society Greek New Testament. 36

35 New American Standard Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1975).36 The Greek New Testament, ed. Kurt Aland and others (3d ed.; New York:American Bible Society, 1975).

19

Chapter 2INTRODUCTION TO II TIMOTHY 3:16

The particular circumstance in which these words were penned is significant. The situation which confronted Paul, Timothy and the church as a whole certainly accentuate this description of the Scriptures. These are not words formulated by a theologian as he leisurely contemplated the exact nature of the Bible; these are the pleadings of an oldwarrior as he impresses on his young replacement the character and capabilities of his weapon.

The Historical BackgroundThough Shakespeare did not have Paul in mind, his words

capture the setting well:O, but they say the tongues of dying menEnforce attention like deep harmony:Where words are scarce, they are seldom spent in

vain,For they breathe truth that breathe their words in

pain. 1 Paul’s own words in II Timothy make it clear that he is

writing at the very close of his life.For I am already being poured out as a drink offering,

and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there islaid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the

1 David Smith, The Life and Letters of St. Paul (New York: Harper, [n.d.], p. 577.

20

Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day .. . (II Tim. 4:6-8).

The immediate background of these words involves some controversy. Where does the book of II Timothy fit into the life of Paul as it is set forth in the book of Acts. In thisbook Luke gives a narrative of the life of Paul. This account traces the Apostle’s career from his conversion on the road to Damascus in A.D. 34 (Acts 9:3-6) to his arrival at Rome in A.D. 60 (Acts 28:14). His appearance in Rome was as a prisoner and was a result of his appeal to the emperor’s judgment of his case (Acts 25:11). The trial was unexpectedly postponed. The book of Acts ends with Paul’s being detained in Rome under house arrest.

And he stayed two full years in his own rented quarters, and was welcoming allwho came to him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered (Acts 28:30-31).

Thus ended, the book of Acts

furnishes the contemporary background, and against this the Apostle’s correspondence lives and moves and exhibitsa varied and thrilling drama. Ten of his letters have hitherto fallen naturally and fittingly into position; but here is the difficulty which the Pastorals present and which constitutes the main reason why their authenticity has been largely disputed--that they find noplace in the historical framework.2

It is not within the scope of this paper to present a defense of Paul’s authorship of II Timothy or of the 2 Smith, p. 579.

21

Pastoral Epistles as a whole; however, it is necessary to describe briefly the historical setting in which the letter was written.

When the biblical data is taken as genuine and the earliest extrabiblical evidence is carefully weighed, a fairly complete description of the historical background of all three Pastoral Epistles can be constructed.

During Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28) he had expressed his anticipation of being released (Phil. 1:27; Philemon 22). It is evident that Paul is a prisoner ashe writes II Timothy: He mentions his chains (1:16), he is suffering “hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal” (2:9), and he is at Rome (1:17). But it is also evident thatthis was not the same imprisonment as mentioned in Acts 28. The following comparison makes this clear:

During the imprisonment in Acts 28

During the imprisonment in II Timothy

He enjoyed considerable indulgence (v. 30)

He was closely confined and regarded as an evildoer (1:16; 2:9).

He was accessible to all whowished to see him (v. 30).

Onesiphorus could find him only after diligently searching for him, and at personal risk (1:16-17).

He was surrounded by a largecircle of co-

He was almost totally alone and suffering

22

workers and friends (vv. 17-21).

from the loneliness, the boredom and the cold of prison life (4:9-13). Many had deserted him (1:15).

He confidently expected to be released (Phil. 1:25-26; 2:24).

He was looking forward not to release but death (4:6-8).3

It is evident from these comparisons that there were two Roman imprisonments. Eusebius records the most consistent early tradition concerning these imprisonments.

After pleading his cause, he is said to have been sent again upon the ministry of preaching, and after a second visit to the city, that he finished his life in martyrdom. Whilst he was a prisoner,he wrote his second epistle to Timothy, in which he both mentions his first defense and his impending death . . . the martyrdom of the apostle did not take place at that period of his stay at Rome when Luke wrote his history. It is indeed probable, that as Nero was more disposed to mildness in the beginning, that the defense of the apostle’s doctrine would be more easily received; but as he advanced to such criminal excesses as to disregard allright, the apostles also, with others experienced the effects of the measures pursued against them. 4

What took place during the interim between the two Roman imprisonments? A fairly complete picture can be reconstructed. Although the exact order is not sure,

3 D. Edmond Hiebert, An Introduction to the Pauline Epistles (Chicago: Moody, 1969), p. 351.4 Eusebius Pamphilus, Ecclesiastical History, trans. C.F. Cruse (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974), p. 74.

23

according to the witness of the Pastoral Epistles and extrabiblical sources, the following events occurred.

Paul traveled to the island of Crete where he left Titus to complete the task of establishing the churches there (Tit. 1:5). From there he went to Ephesus where he left Timothy as his legate (I Tim. 1:3, 4). It has been suggested that Paul did not actually visit the city of Ephesus at this time but merely left Timothy in passing. 5 Since he had planned to visit Philemon in Colosse, he may have done so at this time (Philemon 22). Paul surely visitedMacedonia (I Tim. 1:3) and one of the cities was no doubt Philippi (Phil. 2:24). From Macedonia he wrote the first letter to Timothy. His letter to Titus probably originated either from Macedonia or Nicopolis. In the letter to Titus Paul told of his intention to spend the winter at Nicopolis (Tit. 3:12). If Titus responded to the Apostle and his expressed desire, he joined him there.

It is at this point that Paul may have fulfilled his intention to evangelize Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28). 6 Clement ofRome wrote a letter to the Corinthians during the last decade of the first century. In this letter he stated that Paul “had played the herald in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown of his faith, having taught the whole world righteousness and passed to the boundary of the West.”

5 Robert L. Thomas, “Pastoral Epistles” (class notes, Talbot TheologicalSeminary, La Mirada, California, 1979).6 John R..W. Scott, Guard the Gospel (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1973), p. 17.

24

7 John Stott points out that even though Clement may have been referring “only to Italy . . . an allusion to Gaul or Spain--even Britain (as some have suggested)--seems more likely.” 8 This expression, “the boundary of the West,” certainly must refer to some point west of Rome since Clement was writing from Rome and Rome was considered the center of the Empire.

Paul’s final movements before his arrest and imprisonment are alluded to in the Pastorals. Paul may have fulfilled his desire to revisit Timothy in Ephesus (I Tim. 3:14, 15). It is certain that he went to Miletus where he left Trophimus because of his sickness (II Tim. 4:20). He mentions the port city of Troas and Carpus with whom he lefthis cloak and some books (II Tim. 4:13). He may have been arrested in Troas which would explain why he had to leave his important personal belongings. At any rate, on his way to Rome he passed through Corinth were Erastus stayed on.

Although the exact circumstances of Paul’s final arrestand imprisonment are not known, the historical situation is very enlightening.

A fire that destroyed two thirds of the city of Rome broke out on the 18th of July, A.D. 64. Although Nero was out of the city when the conflagration began, rumors spread quickly that Nero had ordered the fire. “Tacitus, Suetonius,and Dio Cassius all agree in accusing Nero of starting and

7 Smith, p. 585.8 Stott, p. 17.

25

renewing the fire in order to rebuild Rome. There is no proof of his guilt or innocence.” 9

Neromourned that Rome had grown so haphazardly, instead of being scientifically designedlike Alexandria or Antioch. He dreamed of rebuilding Rome, of being its second founder and renaming it Neropolis. 10

Nero wasted no time in securing a scapegoat on which to place the blame. According to Tacitus, Nero found his scapegoat in

a race of men detested for their evil practices, and commonly called Chrestiani. Thename was derived from Chrestus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, suffered under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea. By that event the sect of which he was the founderreceived a blow which for a time checked the growth of a dangerous superstition; but it revived soon after, and spread with recruited vigor not only in Judea . . . but even in the city of Rome, the common sink into which everything infamous and abominable flows like a torrent from all quarters of the world. Nero proceeded with his usual artifice. He found a set of profligate and abandoned wretches who were induced to confess themselvesguilty; and on the evidence of such men a number of Christians were convicted, not indeed on clear evidence of having set the city on fire, but rather on account of their sullen hatred of the whole human race. They were put to death with exquisite cruelty, and left to be devoured by dogs; others were nailed to crosses; numbers of them were burned alive; many, covered with inflammable

9 Will Curant, Caesar and Christ, Vol. III of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), p. 280.10 Durant, p. 280.

26

matter, were set on fire to serve as torches during the night . . . . At length the brutality of these measures filled every breast with pity. Humanity relented in favorof the Christians. 11

The hardship which Paul describes in II Timothy is consistent with the historic situation. Unlike Acts 28, the persecution of Christians by Nero was now at a fever pitch. According to tradition Paul was condemned to death and beheaded in Rome in the fall of 67 or spring of 68. 12

Just a short time before his last trial and execution the Apostle wrote his final words. He was writing under the shadow of his imminent execution.

The Purpose of the LetterAs is observable from the letter itself, Paul was moved

to write because of the need of Timothy as well as his own longing to see once more his “beloved son” before his death.

Paul’s personal needs were minimal: He wanted his “books, especially the parchments,” he wanted Mark (4:11) and Timothy to come as soon as possible (4:9). Yet in makingthese personal requests his overriding concern in his ministry (4:11). In this final dark hour the great apostle is not ashamed to express his need of the one upon whom he “lavished . . . the affection that he would have given his own son.” 13 But most of all

11 Tactius, XV, 44, cited by Durant, p. 281.12 David Smith, The Life and Letters of St. Paul (New York: Harper, [n.d.], p. 577.13 D. Edmond Hiebert, Personalities Around Paul (Chicago: Moody, 1973), p. 99.

27

Paul was led to write because of his fatherly concern forTimothy in that dark hour.Timothy was being torn with the memory of a dear past, shaken with the realization of a harrowing present, and oppressed with the gloomy prospect of an even darker future.14

In a unique way Timothy was faced with the responsibility of carrying on the work of the great apostle.He had been handed “the deposit,” now he must guard it (1:14), entrust it to faithful men (2:2), and proclaim it ingood times and in bad times (4:2).

Humanly speaking Timothy was the most unlikely candidate for such a task. He lacked the years (1 Tim. 4:12;II Tim. 2:22), he lacked the physical strength (I Tim. 5:23), and he lacked the proper temperament (II Tim. 1:7, 8;2:1, 3; 3:12, 4:5,; I Cor. 16:10, 11). 15

Timothy was such a weak man in such trying times with such a consequential task. Hiebert rightly says, “Humanly speaking, the fury of the Neronian persecutions had left theChurch trembling on the brink of extinction.” 16

Paul writes to give Timothy the only formula for success in his hour of greatest need. The formula is based squarely on his relationship to the Word of God.

The Arrangement of the LetterThe dominant note of II Timothy is clear. Paul

implores:14 D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Timothy (Chicago: Moody, 1958), p. 10.15 Stott, pp. 19-20.16 Hiebert, Second Timothy, p. 10.

28

Timothy, do not be ashamed, but by God’s grace exert yourself to the utmost,being willing to endure your share of hardship in preserving and promoting sound doctrine. 17

As would be expected in such a letter, the “bulk of this epistle (1:6-4:5) is comprised of a series of appeals to Timothy.” 18 There are really no sharp divisions in the letter. Paul gradually shifts his emphasis from one point toanother. When he brings up a new subject he does not abandonthe previous one entirely. “The thoughts overlap like shingles on a roof.”19

The climax of the book is seen in 4:2: “Preach the Word.” The Word as the underlying theme can be seen throughout the letter leading up to this charge.

Note the attributes of this book as they unfold in thisletter: As to its theme, it is the Testimony of the Lord (1:8); as to its content, it is sound (1:13); as to its effectiveness, it is not imprisoned, it is active (2:9); as to its veracity, it is the Word of Truth (2:15); as to its results, it makes one wise unto salvation (3:15); as to its source, it is God-breathed (3:16). Therefore, “preach the Word” (4:2).

17 William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), p. 218.18 Gary Dean Whisenand, “The Significance of GREEK pg 26 in the PastoralEpistles” (unpublished M. Div. thesis, Talbot Theological Seminary, 1977), p. 52.19 Hendricksen, p. 218.

29

Each chapter has a main thrust and provides a convenient way to see the progression of thought.

Chapter 1: In spite of the recent happenings Timothy ischarged to be unashamed of the Testimony of the Lord and he is to guard it.

Chapter 2: In the present situation Timothy is charged to be strong in the service of Christ by rightly handling the Word.

Chapter 3: In light of the future apostasy Timothy is charged to abide in the Word.

Chapter 4: In light of the future rejection of sound doctrine Timothy is charged to preach the Word.

The Importance of II Timothy 3:16The particular words under consideration in this study

appear in the midst of Paul’s appeal to Timothy in regard tothe coming apostasy. The Apostle begins the third chapter bypainting a vivid picture of the heretical teachers who will be involved in the coming apostasy. They are described by the immoral conduct (vv. 2-4), their religious bankruptcy (v. 5),and their zeal to make proselytes (vv. 6-9).

Timothy is now called on to recall his own firsthand knowledge of such men. They are the kind of evil men who 20 years earlier had persecuted Paul in Timothy’s homeland (vv.10-12). This description culminates in verse 13 where Paul marks a distinctive of these impostors: they are moving awayfrom the truth.

30

What must Timothy’s response be? “Do not move away!” Ashe had followed Paul in the past (v. 10), he is now to continue to do so (v. 14). Verse 14 begins with suv dev. Thus Timothy again is contrasted to these evil men. In verse10 the contrast was between the false teachers’ following their own inclination and Timothy’s faithful following of Paul’s doctrine and example.

Now he draws another contrast: they “go on” (though we have seen what apeculiar form their progress assumed), whereas Timothy isto “continue” or abide in what he has learned and believed. 20

It is significant that as Paul faces death and instructs Timothy as to the future, he does not say “innovate,” “do theology,” or “seek new truth.” He instructsTimothy to remain in what has already been given. Paul givestwo reasons why Timothy should remain loyal to what he has become convinced of. First, he has learned it from the Apostle,21 and second, it is consistent with the Old Testament. The form of sound words which Paul gave to Timothy is thus comparable to the “sacred writings” in its authority.

At this point Paul declares two fundamental truths about all Scripture. As to its source, it is “God-breathed”

20 Stott, p. 97.21 Charles J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (2d ed.; 1861; rpt. Minneapolis: James Family, 1978), p. 161.

31

and as to its purpose it is “profitable.” The one describes its relationship to God, the other to men.

Chapter 3THE MEANING OF INSPIRATION

The purpose of this chapter is to discover the meaning of inspiration in II Timothy 3:16. Such a task involves two major problems, the linguistic problem and the theological problem. The linguistic problem involves the English term inspiration. Of this term B.B. Warfield wrote:

This term is not a Biblical term and its etymological implications are not perfectlyaccordant with the Biblical conception of the modes of the Divine operation in giving the Scriptures. 1

The meaning of inspiration in II Timothy 3:16 cannot beunderstood on the basis of the meaning of the English word. Charles F. Baker attempts to build his doctrinal study of inspiration by first giving a definition of the English wordand then fitting this definition into II Timothy 3:16. He concludes that “God breathed into the writers and brought into being His infallible Word.” 2 But does this reflect themeaning of the original Greek words in II Timothy 3:16?

In order to answer this question an understanding of the Greek word qeovpneusto", which is translated by the phrase “inspired of God,” must be the object of this study.

1 Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphis: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958), p. 153.2 Charles F. Baker, A Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Grace, 1972), pp. 37-38.

32

Only then will it be possible to determine the biblical meaning being conveyed.

The second problem is a theological one. No matter how poorly the English word “inspiration” translates the Greek term qeovpneusto", it has become a fixed theological term, fraught with meaning and implications.

The term “inspiration” is too firmly fixed, in both theological and popular usage, as the technical designation of the action of God in giving the Scriptures, to be replaced. 3

Theological writers are not always consistent in their use of the term “inspiration.” At one time it may be used todescribe the Holy Spirit’s work in and through the writers of Scripture (“inspired writers”). 4 At other times it may be used to describe the text itself (“inspired writings”). 5

Since the English term “inspiration is so firmly fixed as a theological term it seems futile to try and replace it with a more exact term.

Meanwhile, however, it may be justly insisted that it shall receive its definition fromthe representations of Scripture, and not be permitted toimpose upon our thought ideas of the origin of Scripture derived from an analysis of its own implications, etymological or historical. 6

A Lexical Study of qeovpneusto"

3 Warfield, p. 154.4 Rene Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, trans. Helen I. Needham (Chicago: Moody, 1971), pp. 45-46.5 Pache, p. 47.6 Warfield, p. 154.

33

Lewis Sperry Chafer recognized the significance of thisterm to the understanding of II Timothy 3:16.

It is doubtful whether any one original New Testament word has been morescrutinized under the searching rays of scholarship than has qeovpneusto". . . which word, whatever its specific meaning may be, comprehends the critical or pivotal idea of . . . II Timothy 3:16. 7

Because of the nature of this word and its sparse usagea lexical study is limited in value. In order to obtain the exact meaning of the term in the context, it must be studiedin the light of certain grammatical as well as lexical considerations.Primary Etymological Considerations

qeovpneusto" is a compound of qeov" and pneusto", a verbal adjective 8 from the verb pnevw (“to breathe or blow”). 9 Thus the basic meaning is “God-breathed” or “God-blown.” Cremer claims that the “formation of the word cannotbe traced to the use of pnevw but only of ejmpnevw (in-breathe) because the simple verb is never used of divine

7 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Tehology, I (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1967), 77.8 The formation of the verbal adjective will be discussed later in this chapter.9 G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s, 1936), p. 205.

34

action.” 10 However, pnevw is used of God’s activity in the LXX (Isa. 40.24; Ps. 147:18). 11

Although some lexicons give “inspired by God” 12 as thedefinition of qeovneusto", it does not really reflect the meaning. Inspire is from the Latin “inspirare; in -- in + spirare--to breathe.” Thus the English word means “to blow or breathe into or upon . . . to infuse by breathing . . . to draw in by breathing; to inhale;--opposed to expire.” 13

The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a “spiring” or “spiration.” What it says of Scripture is, not that it is “breathed into by God’ oris a product of the Divine “inbreathing” into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, “God-breathed,” the product of the creative breath of God. 14

Usage Outside of II Timothy 3:16qeovpneusto" does not occur in either the LXX or in any

other passage in the New Testament. Because of this Richardson says that “the word ‘inspiration’ is hardly a biblical word at all.” 15 The number of times it is used in

10 Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (4th ed.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1962), p. 282.11 Eduard Schweizer, (GREEK p. 32) ed. Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, tr. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1964), VI, 452.12 Abbott-Smith, p. 205.13 Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (Springfield: Merriam, 1917), p. 1118.14 Warfield, p. 133.15 Alan Richardson, A Theological Word Book of the Bible (New York: Macmillan, 1951), p. 114.

35

the New Testament makes it no less an important term, in fact, it emphasizes its importance.

Pre-Christian usage. B. B. Warfield has a very thoroughstudy of the history of qeovpneusto" in which he asks a question concerning this word: “Is it broadly a Greek word, or distinctively a Hellenistic word, or even a purely Christian word?” 16 Could it be that Paul coined the word? The answer to these questions depends on the genuineness of the word in Plutarch, in the Sibylline Oracles and in the “Poem of Admonitions” by Pseudo-Phocylides, a late Alexandrian Jew. There is much uncertainty as to the character of the particular passages in which the word appears in the 5th book of the Sibylline Oracles.

The place of composition is evidently Egypt, as, whatever the immediate contextmay be, the writer gravitates to Egypt; and the authors are Jews or Jewish Christians. The dates of the various fragments of which this collection is composed fall between the first triumvirate and the age of Diocletian.17

There is a great deal of uncertainty concerning the origin of the two passages where qeovpneusto" is found. Bothquite possibly could be Christian in origin. A.T. Robertson assigns them simply to “later” writers. 18

16 Warfield, p. 250.17 J.E.H. Thomson, “Apocalyptic Literature,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), I, 178. 18 A.T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934, p. 168.

36

In the case of the Pseudo-Phocylidian poem there is farless doubt. Because of its relation to the Christian “Teaching of the Apostles” it is probably entirely Christian. 19

As to the use of qeovpneusto" by Plutarch in his tract “The Opinions of Philosophers,” there is a great deal of dispute over the genuineness of the reading. Warfield’s conclusion is that

perhaps if we cannot call it a purely Christian term nor yet, with Dr. Cremer, an exclusively Hellenistic one, we may venture to think of it, provisionally at least, as belonging to Alexandrian Greek. Whether we should also say to late Alexandrian usage will possibly depend on the degree of likelihood weascribe to its representation in the text of the (Pseudo?-) Plutarch an actual usage of Herophilus. 20

If the quote by Plutarch was the actual words of Herophilus, then the word would be carried back to the thirdcentury B.C. A.T. Robertson describes all the appearances ofthe word outside of II Timothy as “later Greek.” 21

Much of the later usage of the term is greatly tainted by Philo’s doctrine of Scripture and is therefore not usefulin determining Paul’s exact meaning. 22

19 Warfield, p. 251.20 Warfield, p. 263.21 Robertson, p. 168. 22 Warfield, p. 264.

37

The three usages already mentioned are the only ones which may possibly be entirely outside the sphere of influence of its use in II Timothy 3:16.

In Plutarch the word is used to describe God-given dreams. 23 In the fifth book of Sibyllines it is part of a description of the city of Cyme that had been stripped of its former glory which had included “theopneustic streams.” These were streams that were thus especially excellent and desirable because they were “God-given.”24

The other usage in the same book was a part of the lament over the Temple at Jerusalem where the Father-God wasworshipped. He is described as “the Father-God of all theopneustic things,” 25 thus emphasizing the creative powerof God.

In Pseudo-Phocylides the highest wisdom is described as“theopneustic wisdom”--God-given wisdom. Again the word is used to describe the product of divine activity. 26

Christian usage. In the “Testament of Abraham,” writtenby a second century Jewish-Christian, the anointing of the body of Abraham by Michael the Archangel is described. The substance which was used is described as “theopneustic ointments and herbs.” 27

23 Warfield, p. 264.24 Warfield, pp. 265-66.25 Warfield, p. 266.26 Warfield, p. 267.27 Warfield, p. 268.

38

Warfield also cites the words of Nonnus, a Christian poet in the fourth and fifth century. He composed a metricalparaphrase of John’s Gospel and in it described Christ’s sandal as theopneustic, not because of what it did, but because of what it was after being touched by the feet of Jesus. 28

qeovpneusto" does not seem to occur in the earliest patristic literature. From the time of Clement of Alexandriaon, the term becomes “one of the most common technical designations of Scripture.”29

Warfield summarizes the extrabiblical usages: If, then, we are to make an induction from the use of

the word, we shall find it bearing a uniformly passive significance, rooted in the idea of the creative breath of God.30

The meaning of the term then is “God-breathed.”

That is to say, all Scripture is the product of the creative breath of God! No stronger term could have been chosen to assert the divine authorship of Scripture. The “breath of God’ in the Bibleis a symbol of His almighty creative word. So we are toldthe heavens were made “by the breath of His mouth. He spake and it was done!” Into the first man, God “breathedthe breath of life . . . and man became a living soul!” To say, therefore, that Scripture is “God-breathed” is to

28 Warfield, pp. 268-69.29 Warfield, p. 272.30 Warfield, p. 275.

39

place the Scriptures in the same category as the universeand the spirit of man. All three are “God-breathed,” the direct product of Almighty God.31

Whatever is qeovpneusto" owes its origin and contents to the divine breath, the creative power of God.

An Etymological Study of qeovpneusto" qeovpneusto" belongs to a special class of adjectives

called verbal adjectives. “There are about 150 of them in the New Testament, and the formation seems to be still living, so that it can be made from new verbs.”32

These verbal adjectives are formed by the addition of the suffix -to". According to Goodwin and Gulick the -to" is added to the first or second aorist passive stem.33 But Robertson emphasizes that they are made from verb stems, notfrom tense stems.34 These adjectives are

historically identical with the Latin perfect participle passive in -tus (-sus) and ourEnglish -d participle. . . . The form can usually be deduced empirically by putting -tos for the -so of the future.35

31 Alva J. McClain, “The Inpiration of the Bible,” Winona Echos (August,1932), p. 205.32 James H. Moulton and Wilbert F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, II (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1920), 224.33 William Watson Goodwin and Charles Gulick, Greek Grammar (Waltham, MA: Blaisdell, 1958), p. 147, cited by H. Wayne House, “Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16.” Bibloitheca Sacra, CXXXVII (January-March, 1980), 58.34 A.T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research) (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), p. 1095.35 Moulton, p. 188.

40

In the most general sense these are participles since they partake of both verbal and adjectival qualities. However, the term participle is reserved for those verbal adjectives which do have voice and tense.36 Moulton agrees that the -to" form in Greek has never come into the verb system. “As to the absence of tense, we may note that both in Greek and English this adjective is wholly independent oftime and of ‘Aktionsart.’”37 But the verbal in -to" does go“back to the original Indo-Germanic time and had a sort of perfect passive idea.”38

James H. Moulton points out that these verbal adjectives in -to" are recessively accented when compounded.39 He states in another place that the accent is affected by whether the word denotes possibility or has a passive meaning. But he adds that the passive idea can easily pass over into possibility and thus there are many exceptions to this rule of accenting.40

Metzger describes this special class of adjective as having one of two meanings. “These either (a) have the meaning of a perfect passive participle or (b) express possibility.”41 He gives examples of each and then 36 J.H. Bennetch, “2 Timothy 3:16a: A Greek Study,” Bibliotheca Sacra, CVI (1949), 187.37 James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, I (3d ed.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1967), 222.38 Robertson, p. 1095.39 Moulton, II, 224.40 Moulton, II, 371.41 Bruce M. Metzger, Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Grek (Princeton: Metzger, 1969), p. 44.

41

concludes: “in general the passive sense is more common. Some have either signification . . .” 42

Moule points out that in the case of compound adjectives there can be a variety of relationships between the component parts. He gives several examples of which there are those where the noun is governed by the verb, those where there is a loose connection, and those where theverbal is governed by the noun. But in the case of the verbal adjective the adjective is governed by the noun. Therefore qeodivdokto" is not “teaching God’ but “God-taught,” that is, taught by God. 43 qeovpneusto", being a verbal adjective, is in the third group. The noun governs the verbal; God produces the action described by the verbal.Passive or Active?

According to A.T. Robertson the verbal adjective in to"can have one of two verbal ideas

either that of completion, as ajgaphtov" or of possibility or capability, as paqhtov" . . .with the forms in -to" therefore two points have to be watched; first if they are verbals at all, and then, if they are active, middle or passive. 44

Therefore, even though they are usually passive, there is a possibility of an active meaning with a verbal adjective in -to". 45

42 Metzger, p. 44.43 C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom Book of the New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1968), p. 97.44 Robertson, p. 372.45 A.T. Robertson and W. Hershey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek

42

Importance of the issue. Why argue over such a small question as active or passive? What is at stake? Warfield cites a translation of II Timothy 3:16 by Dr. Henry Preserved Smith who held that the verbal adjective had an active meaning in II Timothy 3:16. “Every writing breathing the Spirit of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” 46

As is readily seen, according to Smith’s rendering, theverse is not declaring that every Scripture was breathed outby God, but only that some parts of the Scripture, the Word of God in Scripture, “breathe the Spirit of God.” This issueinvolves the question as to whether the Bible is the Word ofGod or merely contains the Word of God. Regarding this issueLewis Sperry Chafer wrote:

The question at issue is one as to whether the term God-breathed is to be taken in the passive form, which implies only that as to its source all Scripture is the breath of God--its distinctive characteristic being the fact that it originates in and proceeds from God, or whether it is to be taken in its active form, which would imply that the Scripture is permeated and pregnant with the breath of God--its distinctive characteristic being the fact that it has received by impartation or inspiration the breath of God. 47

Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), p. 157.46 Benjamin B. Warfield, Limited Inspiration (Philadelphia: Presbyterianand Reformed, [n.d.]), p. 12.47 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, I (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1967), 79-80.

43

“Breathing-God” or “God-breathed” is the issue involved.

If it is a passive form, the word is emphasizing that Scripture’s source is the breath of God, that is it originates in and comes from God. If the word has an active meaning, the emphasis is that the Scripture is filled with the breath of God, that is, it is inspiring. 48

The case for the active meaning. This issue has been one of much discussion since H. Cremer added a revision to his definition of qovpneusto" in the third edition (1883) ofhis Biblico-Theological Lexicon on New Testament Greek. Prior to that edition the only definition carried was, “prompted by God, divinely inspired.” 49 In the subsequent editions a revised definition was added: “. . . gifted with God’s Spirit, breathing the Divine Spirit (but not - inspired by God).” 50 More than a full page of explanation is given for the revised definition.

Cremer admits that this active meaning is a “transference of the passive into the active meaning.” 51 Hetherefore confesses that this verbal adjective was originally passive in meaning. He argues for this change based on its usage in II Timothy 3:16. In his view it must

48 H. Wayne House, “Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16,” BibliothecaSacra, CXXXVII (January-March, 1980), 57.49 Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (4th ed.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1962), p. 282.50 Cremer, p. 730.51 Cremer, p. 731.

44

have the sense of “breathing the Divine Spirit” in referenceto grafhv.

How does he prove his case? First, he lists 14 pagan terms involved in heathen prophecy and mysteries, though admitting that the biblical term is different than the paganterms in that it does not involve an ecstatic state. However, as Lenski points out, “nothing is said about the multitude of compounds with qeov" (several pages in Liddell & Scott), in particular about the verbals compounded with -to" (a long array of these).” 52

Secondly he lists several places where the passive meaning is allowed. Finally,

on the authority of a poet of Panoplis in upper Egypt around A.D. 400 who composed a metrical paraphrase of John’s Gospel Theopneustos is made active. And why? Simply upon the analogy of two verbals compounded not with Theos but with some adverbs, so that both adjectives belong to an entirely different class of pnevw formations.53

His final step in proving his case is insisting that the passive does not fit the word grafhv. To this insistenceLenski replies. “If breathing can be applied actively to ‘Scripture’ it most certainly can be applied also passively.The passive idea is found throughout the Scriptures.” 54

52 R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), p. 843.53 Bennetch, p. 189.54 Lenski, p. 845.

45

It is important to note that Cremer’s conclusion is subjective. He fully recognizes that qovpneusto" was originally passive in meaning. All words having a -pneusto" ending in compound form originally had the passive sense--the active sense is always a derived one.55

Karl Barth attempted to have it both ways.According to Barth the word theopneustos has a passive

and an active meaning, and both are retained here. Scripture is given and filled andruled by the Spirit of God and it is actively outbreathing and spreading abroad and making known the Spirit of God.56

In essence Lock does the same when he says that the term means “‘inspired by God’ . . . but perhaps also ‘with its breath given by God’ so ‘conveying inspiration.’”57

It is true that compounds in -pneusto" may “have both an original passive sense and a derived active sense, but not at the same time in a particular context.” 58 It must beeither “God-breathed” or “breathing-God,” but certainly not both.

The case for the passive meaning. Can it be proven thatqeovpneusto" must have a passive meaning in II Timothy 3:16?Some believe the passive force can be established by the

55 Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958), p. 280.56 Klaas Runia, Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 131.57 Walter Lock, The Pastoral Epistles, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1973), p. 110.58 House, p. 57.

46

accent being on the antepenult.59 However, the fact is that “voice is no matter of accent; in such compounds we have to consider the accent naturally shifts to the antepenult.”60

Why is the passive voice not indicated by the form itself?

The ambiguity due to the absence of voice in the verbalin -to" wasinherited from the original Indo-germanic time. It becomes, therefore, a lexical, not a syntactical problem to decide in a given instance whether the verbal is “active” or “passive” in signification. In itself it is neither.61

The fact is then that verbal adjectives in -to" have astheir original force the passive meaning. But they may either have the original meaning of a perfect passive participle or the derived active sense which expresses possibility. The passive sense is more common and some have either significance but never both in any given context.62

In his larger grammar, Robertson included a complete study of verbal adjectives ending in -to". The conclusion ofhis study is that even though the word is neither passive oractive in and of itself, the great majority of words with the -to" ending have a passive meaning. He gives several examples such as graptov" (written), kruptov" (hidden) and 59 Bennetch, pp. 189-90.60 Bennetch, p. 190.61 A.T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), p. 1096.62 Friedrich W. Blass and A. DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961), p. 44.

47

qeodivdokto" (taught by God).63 So qeovpneusto", being suchan adjective, would most likely be passive.

However, it is more than the -to" ending that causes one to expect the passive meaning. Lenski argues for the passive meaning of qeovpneusto" in II Timothy 3:16 based on his own lexical study.

The proof lies in qeov" and in the verbs that are compounded with qeov" toform verbals. Let the student take Liddell and Scott and examine the long list of “god” verbals in to". Why are all these verbals plainly and necessarily passive? Because God alone can be the agent! In this multitude of verbals there appears qeovpneusto", “God-inspired.” We find only two in which God is the object, and even one ofthese is passive: qeodhvlhto", “by which the gods are injured.” The other active” qeosuvstato", “praising God.”These exceptions are not due to the accent, which is still on the antepenult; they are due to the meaning of the two verbs involved. One of these verbs still eaves usa passive verbal and only the lone other an active.64

Warfield conducted the same kind of study. He examined 86 compounds beginning with qeov" and having the -to" suffix. His conclusion was that

if analogy is to count for anything, its whole weight is thrown thus in favor of theinterpretation which sees in qeovpneusto", quite simply, the sense of “God-breathed,” i.e., produced by God’s creative breath.65

63 Robertson, p. 1095.64 Lenski, p. 842.65 Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 283.

48

Seventy-five of the 86 have the sense, “a result produced by God.”66

When all these facts are listed, it presents an overwhelming argument for the passive meaning of qeovpneusto" in II Timothy 3:16.

1. In compound verbal adjectives the adjective is governedby the noun.67 2. Verbal adjectives in -to" normally have a passive sense.68 3. The “passive sense is certainly implied as its originalone, and a certain

presumption is thus raised for the originality of the passive . . . .”69 4. A lexical study of verbal adjectives in -to" shows the great majority have the

passive meaning.70 5. A lexical study of verbal adjectives in -to" compoundedwith qeov" over-

whelmingly supports the passive meaning.71 6. A study of the context of II Timothy 3:16 argues for the passive meaning. Timothy

is to remain in the things he has learned because of their source.72

66 Warfield, p. 281.67 C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom Book of the New Tstament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1968), p. 97.68 Robertson and Davis, p. 157.69 Warfield, p. 281.70 Robertson, p. 1095.71 Warfield, pp. 281-83.72 See pp. 27-28.

49

Based on the grammatical, morphological and lexical data, qeovpneusto" should be translated with the passive meaning, “God-breathed.”

Too often the fact of the passive meaning is admitted, but its implications are not recognized. An example of this is observed in Ellicott’s comments on II Timothy 3:16. Afterstating that qeovpneusto" is a passive verbal denoting “inspired by God,” he goes on to say that the expression “does not exclude verbal errors, or possibly such trifling historical inaccuracies as man’s spirit, even in its most exalted state, may not be wholly exempt from.”73 In direct contradiction to what he has said concerning the passive verbal, he says that qeovpneusto" assures us “that these writings, as we have them, are individually pervaded by God’s Spirit.”74 Process or Product?

A question which is related to the one just discussed is” Does qeovpneusto" describe a process or a product?

One of the most important points is the question, Is the process which involvesmen called inspiration or is the resultant state of the scripture called inspiration?75

73 Charles J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (2d ed.; 1861; rpt. Minneapolis: James Family, 1978), p. 164.74 Ellicott, p. 164.75 H. LaVerne Schafer, “Bibliology” (class notes San Francisco Baptist Theological Seminary, San Francisco, California, 1971).

50

The fact that “inspiration” has taken on a theological meaning which is wider in scope than qeovpneusto" compounds the problem. After giving a biblical definition of qeovpneusto", Robert Saucy adds:

The term Inspiration has come to be applied to the entire issue of the nature andextent of divine influence on the human authors so that the whole Bible can also be understood as produced by God.76

So theologically inspiration has come to be used of theprocess as well as the finished product. There is no doubt that God was involved in such a process (II Pet. 1:20-21). The question here is does qeovpneusto" describe this process?

Evangelical writers often use the word “inspiration” torefer to the process involving the authors of Scripture. In his 1961 thesis on inspiration D.E. Taylor said that inspiration “relates to that controlling influence which Godexerted over the human author, by whom the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) were written.”77 Even Warfield used theterm to describe a process involving the men who wrote:

That operation of God which we call “inspiration,” thatis to say, that operation of

76 Robert Saucy, The Bible Breathed from God, ed. Bruce L. Shelley (Wheaton: Victor, 1978), p. 44.77 D.E. Taylor, “The Doctrine of Inspiration in Contemporary Theology” (unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Tehological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 1961), pp. 3-4.

51

the Spirit of God by which He “bears” men in the process of composing Scripture, so that they write, not of themselves, but “from God.”78

Since qeovpneusto" does have the passive meaning in II Timothy 3:16, it has the meaning of a perfect passive participle.79

The verbal adjective carries the idea of a state of completion. In order to emphasizethe impact of the verbal adjective we can translate “All that has the character of Scripture is in a state of having been God-breathed.”80

Ellicott’s hesitancy in excluding all errors from Scripture was caused by his concern that all error cannot beexcluded from the men who authored the Scripture. But it is the product that is God-breathed--the Scriptures, not the authors.

John Walvoord explained that II Timothy 3:16 does not teach “that God breathed into the authors, but rather that the product, the Holy Scriptures, is that which was breathedout.”81 Inspiration is not related to the process of God moving on the human agents, but is related only to the resultant recorded Word.

So the purpose of inspiration was not to give God’s people a number of infallible men who would soon pass away, but to give His people an infallible book which will never

78 Warfield, p. 161.79 Blass and DeBrunner, p. 61; Metzger, p. 44.80 Schafer, class notes.81 John F. Walvoord, “Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra, CXVI (January, 1959), 6.

52

pass away. Based on the teaching of II Timothy 3:16 verbal inspiration “does not speak of mode, it does not speak of men, it does not speak of superintendence or of elevation, but it does proclaim the result--God’s Word to man. . . .”82

How God was able to use fallible men, how He prepared them, how He produced a perfect product through imperfect instruments is not the subject of II Timothy 3:16. Alva J. McClain stated the issue clearly.

It is also evident that inspiration describes a result rather than a process. How Godcould control a man so that what he wrote would be the very Word of God is an inscrutable mystery, and I ventureto say it will always remain so. But why should such a question concern us? What we need to know is not “How didGod breathe forth the Scriptures?” but “Did He do it?”83

Second Timothy 3:16 answers that question in the affirmative.

ConclusionIt is evident from this study that the English word

inspiration does not adequately render the meaning of qeovpneusto".

The fact that the Spirit of God was involved in the process of giving the Scriptures is certainly a biblical truth (II Pet. 1:19-21; I Cor. 2:12-13). However, II Timothy

82 A.J. Nieuwoudt, “The Relation of Inspiration to Hermeneutics” (unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 1961), p. 8.83 Alva J. McClain, “The Inspiration of the Bible,” Winona Echoes (August, 1932), p. 205.

53

says nothing of this process. It is not an explanation of how the authors were affected by the process.

Nor does qeovpneusto" describe the effects of the Scriptures. Hebrews 4:12-13 describes the Word of God with respect to its effects. To say that the Word of God is inspiring is absolutely true, but this is not the meaning ofqeovpneusto". The animation of the Word is a result of its being qeovpneusto", but this word does not describe the Scripture as “breathing-God.”

qeovpneusto" describes the Scripture with respect to its origin. As to its quality all Scripture is God-breathed;it is God’s product.

The implications of this truth are both extensive and consequential. If Scripture can be said to be God’s product then certainly it must be important, perfect, and authoritative.

Second Timothy 3:16 is therefore a flat affirmation that the Bible in distinction toall other literary works is a product of divine power andintelligent will. The Bible is the “breath of God,” an Old Testament expression translated usually as equivalentto “the Word of God” (cf. Ps. 33:6). It is fair to conclude that the Scriptures claim inspiration, that is, that the writings of the Bible are the product of divine power and therefore carry divine authority.84

It will be the purpose of the following chapter to discover exactly what is said to possess this quality.

Chapter 4

84 Walvoord, p. 6.

54

THE EXTENT OF INSPIRATION

When we add such terms as plenary or inerrant or infallible to Scripture, we may be adding terms the real meaning of which we human beings have no way of knowing. . . I am uneasy when I hear these high qualifiers added to Scripture, because I am uneasy about the recognition of the speaker or writer of the logical and linguistic problems involved.1

Ramm’s uneasiness is caused by his “phenomonological” approach to Scripture.2 It is true that II Timothy 3:16 “does not constitute proof of inspiration until the Bible isestablished as trustworthy. It does, however, prove that theScriptures themselves claim to be inspired.”3 The issue in this chapter is the extent of this claimed inspiration. Exactly what is said to have this quality? Are only certain portions of the Bible said to have this quality? Does this verse claim inspiration for the Old Testament only? What about the New Testament? Based on this verse can such qualifiers as “verbal” and “plenary” be used? In order to answer these questions two major questions concerning II Timothy 3:16 must be answered.

First, what does “all Scripture” mean? This question involves both lexical and syntactical issues. It will first be necessary to do a lexical study of grafhv. However, in order to understand its meaning in this context, the reason

1 Bernard L. Ramm, “Scripture as a Theological Concept,” Review and Expositor, LXXI, No. 2 (Spring, 1974), 158.2 Ramm, pp. 149-54.3 David Miller, “Systematic Tehology” (class notes, Western Baptist College, Salem, Oregon, 1975).

55

for its use without the article must be determined. Finally,the exact meaning of pa'sa with the anarthrous grafh will furnish a proper definition of the phrase pa'sa grafh.

The second question to be answered is concerning the structure of the sentence itself. Since there is no copula, one must be provided. The placement of the copula will greatly affect the meaning of the sentence. This may be illustrated by comparing the translations of the American Standard Version, 1901, with the New American Standard Version. The American Standard Version reads, “Every Scripture inspired of God is also . . . .” The New American Standard Version reads, “All Scripture is inspired of God . . . .” Is Paul implying that although some Scriptures are inspired, some are not?

In order to determine where the copula is to be supplied, it will be necessary to determine the syntactical relationship of qeovpneusto" in the sentence. Is this word to be taken atttributively (“every inspired Scripture”) or predicatively (“every Scripture is inspired . . .”)? The answer to this question will also affect other elements of the sentence.

A Lexical Study of Grafhv The Greek word grafhv is related to the verb gravfw the

common expression for write (Matt. 4:4). Primarily the noun denotes a drawing or painting and then writing (cf. the English transliterations graph and graphic). Several shades of meaning naturally developed, such as “inscription,”

56

“drawing,” and “published work” in a literary sense. The word also came to be used for a written law or statute.4 This inherent implication as to legislative use gave the word a peculiar fitness to be used for the developed conceptof “Scripture” found in the Old Testament.

In the LXX grafhv is used to translate bWtK, btK, bTcM and one time vrdm. But it is the concept of Scripture in theOld Testament which has the greatest effect on the word grafhv in the New Testament, not its use in LXX.

The use of this term in the New Testament was an inheritance, not an invention.The idea of a “canon” of “Sacred Scriptures” (and with the idea the thing) was handed down to Christianity from Judaism. The Jews possessed a body of writings, consisting of “Law, Prophets, and (other) Scripture (Kethubim),” though they were often called, for brevity’ssake, merely “the Law and the Prophets” or simply “The Law” . . . . Whatever stood written in these Scriptures was a word of God, and was therefore referred to indifferently as something which “Scripture says,” or “the All merciful says,” or even simply “He says”; that God is the Speaker in the scriptural word being too fullyunderstood to require explicit expression. . . . The factof importance is that there was nothing left for Christianity to invent here. It merely took over in theirentirety the established usages of the Synagogue, and theNT evinces itself in this matter at least a thoroughly Jewish book.5

4 Gottlob Schrenk, “(GREEK),” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionaryof the New Testament, tr. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), I, 749.5 Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958), pp. 229-30.

57

So although the Greek word grafhv had important and fitting inherent implications as a Greek term (i.e., Greek legislative use), the application made by the New Testament writers was firmly rooted in the Old Testament. As Rene Pache points out, “the authors of the Old Testament speak most explicitly: 3,808 times they claim to be transmitting the very words of God.”6

The New Testament usage of grafhv reflects the Old Testament concept of the Scriptures. The term occurs in the New Testament 51 times.7 In the Authorized Version it is always translated “Scripture(s).” Paul uses the term 14 times.

Cremer points out that the term expressesthe authoritative character of the Scriptures as a whole,which gives them a special andunique position; indeed, they are everywhere termed hJ grafhv in an authoritative sense.8

There is almost universal agreement that the terms in the New Testament always refers to Scripture and is never used in a nontechnical sense of “writing.”

This term occurs in the NT about fifty times; and in every case it bears that technicalsense in which it designates the Scripture by the way of eminence, the Scriptures of the OT. It is true there are

6 Rene Pache, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, trans. Helen I. Needham (Chicago: Moody, 1969), p. 121.7 W.F. Moulton and A.S. Geden, A Concordance to the Greek Testament (5thed. rev. H. K. Moulton; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963), p. 176.8 Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (4th ed.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1962), p. 165.

58

few instances in which passages adduced as graphe are noteasily identified in the OT text; but there is no reason to doubt that OT passages were intended.9

It should be noted that Paul did not use the term lovgo", bivblo" or gravmma in his declaration. The distinction is well described by Warfield.

In a word, biblos (biblion) was the most exact word forthe “book”, graphe(gramma) for the “document” inscribed in the “book,” logos for the “treatise” which the “document” records.10

It is beyond the scope of this thesis to discuss the use of the Scriptures by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Sucha study would reveal that what Paul attributes to the grafhvin II Timothy 3:16 is consistent with the manner in which itwas utilized throughout the new Testament. It may simply be pointed out that Paul constantly appeals to Scripture as an unchallenged authority (Rom. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2, etc.). Second Timothy 3:16 is an affirmation concerning the grafhv which explains this habitual practice; it is because of its supernatural quality. Thus it is not just Elijah Paul appeals to, but it is the Scripture (Rom. 11:2); Elijah passed off the scene, the Scripture abides.

It is necessary to note also that grafhv appears in thesingular and the plural and with the article and without thearticle. The significance of the article will be discussed later in this chapter. According to Stock, “almost all expositors are agreed, for graphe always means a particular 9 Warfield, p. 231.10 Warfield, p. 233.

59

‘scripture,’ and when the whole O.T. is meant the plural graphai, ‘Scriptures,’ is used.”11 A more careful assessmentwould be that the singular can refer either to a particular passage (Mark 12:10; Luke 4:21) or Scripture as a whole (Gal. 3:22, I Pet. 2:6). The plural refers to all the writings or declarations of this character coming under consideration (Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:24).12

The particular thing that is inspired then is grafhv--Scripture. Whatever that includes, it is clear that qeovpneusto" describes grafhv, not the men who wrote, not the age in which they lived, not even the thoughts which Paul had to “combine” with words (I Cor. 2:13). It is the grafhv that is God-breathed and the grafhv is that which is written--words, phrases, sentences, word groups (not just thoughts or ideas), all of the written element of Scripture in which meaning lies. This includes elements such as case, word position, tense, voice, mood, etc. All of these things are said to be God-breathed.

A word like graphe necessarily suggests words or the product of writing, hence a theory--if such a term be necessary in theological discussion--of verbal inspiration. As such a witness by implication, the passage before us harmonizes with all the rest of the Bible when it considers origins.13

11 Eugene Stock, Plain Talks on the Pastoral Epistles (London: Robert Scott, 1914), pp. 116-17.12 Cremer, p. 165.13 J.H. Bennetch, “2 Timothy 3:16a: A Greek Study,” Bibliotheca Sacra, CVI (1949), 192.

60

What specific writings are referred to as grafhv? Everymajor division of the Old Testament Scriptures are referred to as grafhv. In I Timothy 5:18 Paul combines a passage fromDeuteronomy 25:4 and one from Luke 10:7 and says they are words of the grafhv. Therefore, when Paul wrote II Timothy, grafhv had on at least one previous occasion in the New Testament been used to refer to New Testament writings. DoesPaul’s statement concerning grafhv include New Testament writings? This will be investigated in the study of pa'sa and the anarthrous grafhv.

The Meaning of Pa'sa Grafhv Pa'sa : Distributive or Collective?

For years the small adjective pa'" has been a cause forendless debates in the field of soteriology. For some the limit of the atonement hangs on the meaning of this term. Its meaning in II Timothy 3:16 does not concern the atonement, but there is some disagreement as to its meaning.

When the adjective pa'sa is used with an anarthrous noun it has two possibilities: (1) it can be understood in adistributive sense, “each, every,” or (2) it can be understood in a collective sense, “whole, all, entire.” In II Timothy 3:16 the “difference is between Scriptures as a whole and Scripture in any of its parts.”14

14 Ronald A. Ward, Commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Wace: Word, 1974), p. 200.

61

Moulton points out the importance of determining the particular meaning of pa'sa in a given context and then gives three important principles to be observed. First, before an anarthrous noun pa'" usually means “every in the sense of any; not every individual, like e{kasto", but any you please.”15 He singles out the use of pa'" in Matthew 19:3 where Christ was asked His opinion concerning divorce. The question was not “for every cause?” but

for any cause you like to single out among those in the Law, i.e., for any cause at all.Jesus was not being asked for His opinion on the varying merits of each Mosaic ground for divorce, but whether He rejected all grounds.16

In this sense II Timothy 3:16 would be “whatever is Scripture.”

Second, the general rule is not always followed. Anarthrous pa'" can mean “all” under certain circumstances just like the articular use.

Third, there are even cases where pa'" means “any” withthe article (Mark 4:13, “any parables”).

In his book on the idiom of New Testament Greek, Moule refers to II Timothy 3:16 as an exception to the general rule and translates it “the whole of Scripture. . . .”17

15 James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, III (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963), 199.16 Moulton, p. 199.17 C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of the New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1968), p. 94.

62

Robertson gives two reasons for translating pa'" with the anarthrous noun “all” in some cases. Pa'" may be translated “all” when the anarthrous noun is either a propernoun or an abstract substantive. He concludes “there is an element of freedom in the matter.”18

Therefore if pa'sa is translated collectively (all) in II Timothy 3:16, the emphasis is Scripture as a whole. If itis translated partitively (every), then the separate portions are referred to.

Those who argue for the partitive use give the following reasons:

(1) The partitive use is consistent with New Testament usage. “In the great preponderance of cases the constructionpa'" with an anarthrous noun necessitates the translation ‘every.’”19 According to the same writer the occurrences of pa'" with an anarthrous noun listed in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 20 favor the partitive use 3to 1. 21

Those who argue for the collective meaning in II Timothy 3:16 do not deny the general rule; they simply pointthis out as one of the exceptions. Harvey argues that grafhv

18 A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), p. 772.19 Terance P. McGonigal, “Every Scripture is Inspired: An Exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17,” Studia Biblica et Theologica, VIII (April, 1978), 53.20 Bo Reicke, “GREEK, GREEK,” ed. Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, tr. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1964), V, 888. 21 McGonigal, p. 53.

63

is a technical term and therefore does not need the article to be definite.22 When pa'" appears with a proper name or abstract term, the adjective can be translated “the whole” or “all.”23 Therefore, the collective sense is possible if the context demands it.

(2) The partitive use is consistent with the usage of grafhv in the New Testament. Eugene Stock and Alfred Plummerargue that since grafhv usually refers to a particular passage of Scripture the partitive use makes the best sense.24 When the 51 occurrences are investigated few exceptions to this conclusion can be found. The plural is normally used when Scripture is viewed as a whole.

(3) The partitive use fits the context. Some conclude that the context demands this sense.25 Since grafhv “impliesevery individual grafhv alluded to in the term iJerav gravmmata,”26 the partitive “every” fits the context best.

Those who translate the adjective with a collective force do so for the following reasons:

22 Hezekiah Harvey, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publishing Society, 1890), p. 111.23 H. Wayne House, “Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16,” BibliothecaSacra, CXXXVII (January-March, 1980), 56.24 Stock, p. 116; Alfred Plummer, The Pastoral Epistles, The Expositor’sBible, Vol. VI, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (New York: A.C. Armstrong, 1908), p. 392.25 Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. P.Buttolph and A. Yarbro, ed. H. Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), p. 120.26 Charles J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (2d ed.; 1861; rpt. Minneapolis: James Family, 1978), p. 163.

64

(1) There are parallels in the New Testament. Pa'" is used with an anarthrous noun several times where the meaningis clearly collective. This is true in classical usage as well. 27 Ephesians 2:21 is often cited as a case of such a use and a parallel to II Timothy 3:16. Pa'sa oijkodomhv is translated “the whole building.”

Since grafhv is a technical term pa'" could be translated in the collective sense if the totality of Scripture is in view. However, it is not mandatory. Ellicottpoints out that ion Ephesians 2:21 there are “strong reasonsfor a deviation from the correct translation which do not apply to . . . II Timothy 3:16.” 28

In Ephesians 2:21 the church is being viewed as a building and the partitive sense is not admissible. However,in the case of grafhv the partitive use is not inconsistent with its use in the New Testament. Humphreys points out thatall three occurrences of the singular anarthrous grafhv “have the meaning ‘ book or passage of Scripture.’” 29 Therefore, the usage of grafhv and the usage of pa'" in the New Testament argue more for the partitive than the collective meaning.

(2) The context demands the collective meaning. There are several places in the New Testament where the context

27 Plummer, p. 392.28 Ellicott, p. 163.29 A. E. Humphreys, The Epistles to Timothy and Titus (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1907), p. 188.

65

demands the collective meaning of pa'" with the anarthrous noun. Many argue that this is such a case.

“All Scripture” is preferable if the effects listed areto be taken seriously. NoChristian of this period shows signs of appealing to any and every item of the Old Testament. On the contrary, they seem to have been highly selective. “All Scripture” thus accords better with the contemporary Christian realities.30

This is the strongest argument for the collective use of pa'" in this context. It does not seem necessary, however, to demand that “every Scripture” mean that each passage independent of its greater context is profitable forthe reasons listed in verse 16. Certainly in their context, with proper emphasis, the Scripture in every part, in all its separate books and passages, are profitable for the purposes Paul mentions.

Since grafhv is a technical term, pa'sa grafhv could betranslated “all Scripture” or “every Scripture.” However, the collective meaning is a “departure from the regular rules of grammar”31 In order to have the collective meaning,there must be clear indications in the context that such a meaning is necessary. In the present context either meaning makes good sense.

To say that every part of these Sacred Scripture is God-breathed and to say that the

30 J.H. Houlden, The Pastoral Epistles: I and II Timothy, Titus (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976), p. 128.31 Ellicott, p. 163.

66

whole of these Sacred Scriptures is God-breathed, is, forthe main matter, all one.32

The fact that the whole of the grafhv, as it was used here, was not yet completed seems to weigh in favor of the partitive sense.

William G. T. Shedd’s words are appropriate at this point to emphasize the main point of this issue.

The first position to be taken respecting the Bible is,that it is all of it inspired. Theoriginal autograph-volume of inspiration was free from error. This does not mean that every sentence or proposition in Scripture contains a truth. The words of Satan to Eve (Gen. 3:4) were a falsehood. But those wordswere actually spoken, and they are recorded with infallible accuracy. Some of the reasonings and inferences of Job’s friends were false, but they occurredas they are related by the inspired penman.33

The Limitations of grafhv in II Timothy 3:16

The scriptural proof for the inspiration of the New Testament does not rest solely on II Timothy 3:16. Yet this passage certainly states the fact of inspiration with precision. But does this verse claim this quality for the New Testament or only the Old Testament. The answer to this question depends on the exact meaning of grafhv in this context. The fact that this word means Scripture and not writing, is certainly clear from its use in the New

32 Warfield, p. 134.33 William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, I (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1979), 72.

67

Testament. It always refers to the Scriptures.34 However, there is some disagreement as to whether this term is alwayslimited to the Old Testament and if it is so limited in thisverse.

The question then is not whether or not the New Testament is inspired; it is whether or not II Timothy 3:16 is claiming inspiration for the New Testament.

There are able scholars who are persuaded that in the present passage the term Scripture refers exclusively to theOld Testament. This conviction is based on two premises: First, in every other occurrence in the New Testament grafhvalways signifies the Old Testament or some part of it. Second, the word as it is used in II Timothy 3:16 refers back to iJerav gravmmata in verse 15 and is thus limited to the Old Testament. Therefore, it is held that both the New Testament usage and the context of II Timothy 3:16 demands that the term refer only to the Old Testament. It is necessary to investigate the validity of these two argumentsin order to determine whether the word is so limited in thiscontext.

(1) The usage of grafhv in the New Testament is convincing to some that the word always must refer to the Old Testament. According to Lange, ”it is not to be doubted a moment that the Apostle is speaking decidedly and exclusively of the grafhv of the Old Covenant, as a well

34 Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, III (Chicago: Moody, 1958), 378.

68

completed whole.”35 The cause for such assurance is the belief that throughout the New Testament, the word “is employed, in fact, almost as a proper name” for the Old Testament.36 Bernard wholeheartedly agrees that the term is “invariably applied to the Old Testament” and consequently believes it is imperative that grafhv in II Timothy 3:16 be understood as the Old Testament.

Two glaring exceptions to this pattern greatly weaken the force of the argument. The first exception appears in IIPeter 3:16 where Peter links the Old Testament to the letters of Paul as the “remaining Scriptures.” The second exception is found in Paul’s first letter to Timothy. In I Timothy 5:18 Paul designates a portion of Luke’s gospel as grafhv. The impact of these statements will be investigated more fully in the following section. However, it is evident that grafhv was used in the New Testament, and specifically by Paul in a previous letter to the same person, to refer tothe New Testament Scripture.

(2) The other premise which would cause some to limit the term to the Old Testament exclusively is the context in which it is found. According to Bennetch “2 Timothy 3:16 hasfollowed a clear allusion to the Old Testament and accordingly must itself refer to the Jewish Scriptures, like

35 J. J. Van Oosterzee, The Two Epistles of Paul to Timothy, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. John Peter Lange (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), p. 10936 Van Oosterzee, p. 109.

69

verse 15.”37 Thus grafhv in II Timothy 3:16 is seen to be directly related to iJerav gravmmata in verse 15. Lock stated that grafhv was used to give a more exact definition of the Scriptures with which Timothy was trained as a child and therefore the term must be limited to the Scriptures which Timothy had from childhood, the Old Testament.38

In response to this argument it must be admitted that the context points to the Old Testament with the expression iJerav gravmmata. But there is certainly a wider reference in the phrase “the things you have learned and become convinced of” (v. 14). In the context this is the subject under discussion. Paul has instructed Timothy to remain in these things in contrast to the “evil men and impostors” who, instead of remaining in the truth, “proceed from bad toworse, deceiving and being deceived” (V. 13). In verse 14b and 15 Paul gives two reasons for his exhortation to remain “in the things you have learned and become convinced of.”

These two reasons are introduced by the causal participle eijdwv", “knowing.” There are two things upon which he can reflect which will cause him to continue in these things he has learned and become convinced of.

First, he knows from whom he has learned these things. There is a textual problem involved with the word tivnwn (“whom”) in verse 14. Some manuscripts read tivno" (C3, D,

37 J. H. Bennetch, “2 Timothy 3:16a: A Greek Study,” Bibliotheca Sacra, CVI (1949), 192.38 Walter Lock, The Pastoral Epistles, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1973), p. 110.

70

E, J, L, K, most mss. Vulgate, Gothic, Coptic, Syriac, Chrysostom and Theodoret). The other reading, tivnwn is wellsupported (a, A, C1, F, G, P, 33, 1912). Alford believed thesingular, tivno", was a correction “to suit spiritual relation of Paul and Timothy.” He thus accepted the plural.39 Ellicott, on the other hand, thought the plural had “somewhat the appearance of an ‘explicato’ by referring apparently to Lois and Eunice, ch. 1.5.”40

The external evidence is in favor of the plural, but not overwhelmingly. It seems more likely that the singular would be changed to the plural to relate to the childhood training in the Old Testament which was already mentioned inthe first chapter. A closer look reveals that the singular makes good sense if Paul is pointing to the two sources of Timothy’s lifelong instruction in the things of God. When the singular is combined with ajpo? brevfou", it points “to the two sources of Timothy’s instruction, St. Paul, who taught him the Gospel, and his relatives who had previously taught him the Old Testament.”41

Regardless of the reading that is accepted, it is clearthat Paul is referring to two sources of instruction. The first includes Paul if it is not an exclusive reference to him, para tivnwn (tivno") e[maqe".

39 Alford, p. 377.40 Ellicott, p. 161.41 Ellicott, p. 161.

71

The second refers to his childhood training in the Old Testament Scriptures, kaiv o{ti ajpo< brevfou" k.t.l. a

Therefore, verse 16 does not relate only to “the sacredwritings” of verse 15, but to both sources of Timothy’s learning. In the context, then, grafhv has a wider referencethan just the Old Testament. Pa'sa grafhv is being used as

a comprehensive expression . . . including the two sources of Timothy’s knowledge just mentioned, namely “what you have learned” (sc. from me) and “the sacred writings.”42

Hendricksen determined that grafhv here “means everything which, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the Church, is recognized by the Church as canonical, that is, authoritative.”43 Since the New Testament was not yet completed at the time this letter was penned, how could Paul be referring to the New Testament?

There are several substantial reasons for understandingpa'sa grafhv in II Timothy 3:16 as referring to both the Oldand New Testaments.

(1) The absence of the article indicates the inclusion of the New Testament. Home Kent points out that this must beprimarily a reference to the Old Testament since the New Testament was not yet completed. He goes on to admit that “the qualitative emphasis leaves room for the New Testament

42 John R. W. Stott, Guard the Gospel (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1973), p. 101.43 William Hendricksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), p. 301.

72

to be considered by later Christians as within the scope of this assertion.”44

In his Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Chamberlain discussed the use of the article and the significance of its absence.

A qualitative force is often expressed by the absence of the article: ejn toi'" profhvtai" pg. 70) (Heb. 1:1), “in the prophets,” calls attention to a particular group,while ejn uivw/' (Heb. 1:2), “in son,” calls attention tothe rank of the Son as a “spokesman” for God. The ARV in trying to bring out the force of this phrase translates it, “in his Son,” italicizing “his.”45

In all but five of its 51 occurrences in the New Testament grafhv appears with the article. In every one of these five occurrences the quality of Scripture is being emphasized.

In II Timothy 3:16 there was a good reason for leaving out the article. If there were an article, nothing past II Timothy would have been included in this affirmation. The emphasis here is not on identify but quality; it is all thathas the quality of Scripture.

William Kelley, who was not deficient in his understanding of the Greek language, said:

If the article had been inserted, the words which follow would have predicated that

44 Homer Kent, Jr., The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in I and II Timothy and Titus (Chicago: Moody, 1958), p. 290.45 William D. Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 57.

73

which is said of the known existing body of holy writ. The absence of it has the effect of so characterizing every part of the inspired word to come, as well as extant. Is it scripture? Then it is God-inspired and profitable, etc. This is affirmed of every atom.46

(2) The New Testament usage actually supports the inclusion of the New Testament in the statement in II Timothy 3:16. The fact that grafhv is used in the New Testament to refer to New Testament writings cannot be denied. The two such usages are especially significant sinceboth may have been written before II Timothy.47 One was a statement concerning Paul’s letters and the other was in Paul’s previous letter to Timothy. Added to this is the factthat in both occurrences New Testament writings are placed alongside Old Testament writings as equals.

In II Peter 3:16 Paul’s letters are related to the Old Testament Scriptures as equals. Peter referred to the Old Testament as “the rest of the Scriptures.”

In Paul’s previous letter to Timothy he quoted Luke 10:7 along with a passage from Deuteronomy. “It is as if Godmeant to confirm the principle by Paul’s not only quoting Luke, but quoting his Gospel no less than Deuteronomy 25:4 as ‘scripture.’”48

46 William Kelly, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to Timothy (2d ed.; rev. London: F. E. Race, 1913), p. 172.47 “We may accordingly date II Peter in the early part of the year A.D. 65.” D. Edmond Hiebert, An Introduction to the Non-Pauline Epistles (Chicago: Moody, 1969), p. 160; “We would therefore date II Timothy in the early autumn of A.D. 66.” D. Edmond Hiebert, An Introduction to thePauline Epistles (Chicago: Moody, 1969), p. 355.48 Kelly, p. 175.

74

It seems inconceivable that in the subsequent letter Paul would not have the New Testament writings in mind when he used the term grafhv.

Who shall say that, in the declaration of the later epistle that “all” or “every:Scripture is God-breathed Paul did not have Luke, and, along with Luke, whatever other new books he classed withthe old under the name Scripture, in the back of his mind, along with those old books which Timothy had had inhis hands from infancy.49

(3) The context of II Timothy 3:16 also supports the incorporation of the New Testament in the term grafhv. As has already been mentioned, in the context pa'sa grafhv includes both sources of Timothy’s knowledge. First, it included the Apostolic teaching--”the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses” (2:2). Second, it included “the sacred writings” (3:15). Therefore “pa'sa grafhv in 16 is used in contrast to iJera< gravmmata of 15 to show the additional value of apostolic Scripture.”50 So although pa'sa grafhv includes iJera gravmmata, it is a broader term which would include the apostolic teaching that was a part of the growing aggregate of New Testament writings.

(4) Paul’s concept of his writings also favors the inclusion of New Testament writings in the term. It may be objected that Paul nowhere refers to his own epistles as

49 Benjamin B. Warfield, the Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958), pp. 163-64.50 H. Wayne House, “Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16,”

75

grafhv. Although Paul never uses the term in reference to his epistles, he certainly treats them as grafhv.

Like the Old Testament Scriptures his own letters were to be read publicly in the churches (Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27).

Paul claims that his words have the authority of Christ(II Cor. 2:17; 13:3, Gal. 4:14). His message is “the word ofGod” (I Thess. 2:13).

His message was made up of specific words taught by theSpirit (I Cor. 2:13). This is certainly consistent with the product as it is described in II Timothy 3:16.51

Paul was made a minister that he might fill up the Wordof God (plhrw'sai). (Col. 1:25).

Basic to all this was the fact that, as Paul was aware,Jesus Christ had pre-authenticated the gospels (John 14:26) and the epistles (John 16:13). In light of these facts it seems inconceivable that Paul could use such terminology as pa'sa grafhv without having the New Testament writings in mind. As Warfield pointed out

It is no pressure of the witness of the New Testament to the inspiration of theScripture, therefore, to look upon it as covering the entire body of “Scriptures.” The new books which they were themselves adding to this aggregate, as well as the old books which they had received as Scripture from the fathers. Whatever can lay claim by just right to the appellation of “Scripture,” as employed in its eminent sense by those writers can be the same just right lay

51 Stott, p. 101.

76

claim to the “inspiration” which they ascribe to this “Scripture.”52

The Declaration of InspirationThe most downright claims to infallibility are made by

the apocalyptists, as for example in the New Testament Revelation, a book which some of the wisest thinkers of the early Church wished toexclude from the Canon, and which as a whole is sub-Christian in tone and outlook. The oft-quoted passage 2 Timothy 3:16 is probably to be rendered “Every inspired Scripture is also profitable. . . .53

It is true that some scholars have so translated the opening words of II Timothy 3:16. Based on that rendering some, as C. H. Dodd above, have inferred that not all Scripture is profitable, but only those parts which are inspired.54

Basically three syntactical questions are involved in making a decision concerning the way the statement must be translated. First, is the adjective predicate or attributive? Second, is the kai< consecutive or ascensive? Third, where is the copular to be supplied, before qeovpneusto" or before wjfevlimo"? These questions are interdependent and must be dealt with together.

If the adjective is taken as an attributive, then kaiv will have an ascensive meaning and the copula will be

52 Warfield, p. 165.53 C. H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible (London: Nisbet, 1948), p. 15,n. 1.54 Stott, p. 100.

77

supplied after the adjective. “All God-breathed scripture isalso. . . .”

If the adjective is taken as a predicate, then kaiv will have a consecutive meaning and the copula will come before the verbal adjective. “All Scripture is God-breathed and . . .”

According to Fairbairn “it is now admitted by all competent scholars that either of these translations is grammatically admissible, no valid objection can be urged against either from the construction.”55 Therefore the interpreter is left to make a decision based on the context.

The difference between the two possibilities is quite important as Robertson explains:

The distinction between the attributive and the predicate adjective lies in just this,that the predicate presents an additional statement, is indeed the main point, while the attributive is an incidental description of the substantive about which thestatement is made.56

The issue of whether inspiration or usefulness is the main point of Paul’s declaration concerning Scripture. Was inspiration being declared or only assumed. The problem for the interpreter and translator is to decide whether the first three words are independent of the following phrase ornot; are they coordinate or subordinate expressions?

55 Patrick Fairbairn, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids:Zonderban, 1956), p. 377.56 A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), p. 656.

78

The Case for the AttributiveNew Testament parallels. In his exegetical study of

this passage, Terence McGonigal cited a study by R. M. Spence who examined 21 New Testament passages where the wordorder the same as II Timothy 3:16: (1) pa'", (2) substantive, (3) adjective. The result of the study showed that all these phrases except II Timothy 3:16 were translated into English in the order (1) “all” or “every,” (2) adjective, (3) substantive. Therefore the conclusion of the study was that the attributive use of the adjective in this construction has strong biblical parallels.57

However, this study failed to take into consideration the kaiv which follows the verbal adjective. Neither did it deal with the second adjective wjfevlimo", which is connected to the verbal adjective with the conjunction. Pache argues that the Greek construction in II Timothy 3:16 is the same as in several passages where the translation is also the predicate rendering of the adjective (Rom. 7:12; I Cor. 11:30; II Cor. 10:10; I Tim. 1:15; 2:3; Heb. 4:13).58 The biblical parallel is actually stronger for the predicative use than the attributive.

57 Terence P. McGonigal, “‘Every Scripture is Inspired:’ An Exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17,” Studia Biblica et Theologica, VIII (April, 1978), 56.58 Rene Pache, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, trans. Helen I. Needham (Chicago: Moody, 1969), p. 47).

79

Attributive fits the context. This is, by far, the argument appealed to the most for the attributive use of theverbal adjective in this verse.

The emphasis of the passage doubtless lies, not on the concept of inspiration, but on the usefulness of the inspired scripture. . . . For the question is here to what extent “holy writings” enable a man to have wisdom.59

The argument is that Timothy had been assured of the inspiration of Scripture from his youth. Paul here is pressing upon him the fact that Scripture is profitable, notinspired.60

However, the fact is that the verbal adjective, qeovpneusto", is certainly not just an incidental description of grafhv. It is the main thought in the passage. The very basis of its “profitableness” is its “God-breathedness.” “Scripture’s main attestation is that it is God-breathed, that is it originates in God.”61 By taking qeovpneusto" as an attributive, inspiration takes a back seat and its profit is asserted in an awkward manner.

Because such a translation leaves the kaiv dangling, some who adopt the attributive use of the adjective here simply do not translate the conjunction at all. Others give it the ascensive force and translate it “also.” This is a 59 Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. P.Buttolph and A. Yarbro, ed. H. Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), p. 120.60 John H. Bernard, The Pastoral Epistles, Cambridge Greek Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1922), p. 137.61 House, p. 61

80

legitimate use of kaiv and is found elsewhere in Paul’s writings (Gal. 4:7, “then”; Rom. 8:29, “also”). However, “also is pointless in this verse. Kaiv in the sense of also is superfluous ‘all Scripture, God-breathed, is useful’ would suffice.”62

No doubt the strongest argument in relation to the context is made by Ellicott, Alford,63 and Schweizer.64 Thesemen all conclude that there is a parallelism in the passage between three elements in verse 15 and three elements in verse 16. The theory is that what Paul states in verse 15 ismore specifically detailed in verse 16. The following illustrates this scheme:

Stated in Specifically detailedverse 15: in verse 16:gravmmata ----- grafhviJerav ----- qeovpneusto"tav dunavmenav k.t.l. ----- kaiv wJfevlimo"

k.t.l.Schweizer likes this scheme because it “links” grafhv

with a sense of the holiness of Scripture.”65 However, thereis not a parallel between the two constructions. The structure cannot be changed to make the parallel work.

62 Ellicott, p. 163.63 Alford, p. 379.64 Eduard Schweizer, “(GREEK)” ed. Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, tr. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1964), VI, 454.65 Schweizer, p. 454.

81

The simple reply is that according to the structure of the passage, the kaiv is to be taken consecutivum, presenting what follows as a consequence growing out of what precedes. . . . Every scripture is given by inspiration, and hence is profitable; because it is that, then, as a matter of course, it is also this.66

Although an attributive translation of the adjective ispossible, it certainly causes the verse to be ambiguous. It is not the intention of all who hold the view to imply that some Scriptures are not inspired, but such a translation is more apt to be misunderstood on this point.67 The attributive translation does seem to imply that there is grafhv which is not God-breathed. “Would the Apostle even hint that some Scriptures might not be inspired?”68

E. K. Simpson pointed out that such a translation gave the verse a tautological effect because “‘every God-breathedScripture is useful, etc.’ presents a curious specimen of anticlimax.”69 The declaration of the inspiration of all Scripture is more basic and thus more important than the declaration that all Scripture is profitable. Scripture is profitable because it is inspired; the opposite is not true.The Case for the Predicative

66 Fairbairn, p. 380.67 Homer Kent, Jr., The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in I and II Timothy and Titus (Chicago: Moody, 1958), p. 290.68 Ronald A. Ward, Commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Waco: Word, 1974), p. 200.69 Edmund K. Simpson, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Tyndale, 1954), p. 150.

82

Not only are there substantial objections to the attributive use of the verbal adjective, there are substantial reasons for translating it as a predicate.

The construction demands the predicative force. According to Robertson, the predicate use of qeovpneusto" inII Timothy 3:16 is the “more natural.”70 There are similar constructions elsewhere in Paul’s writings. In I Timothy 4:4there are two adjectives connected by kaiv as in the passageunder discussion. There is no question of the predicative use: pa'n ktivsma qeou' kalovn, kaiv oujdevn ajpovblhton (“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected”). It is clear, therefore, that “there are timeswhen the context dictates that the adjectives must take the predicate position.”71

This sentence structure is by no means uncommon in the writings of the Apostle Paul. In fact, “Paul has a confirmedhabit of dropping the copula, particularly in an opening clause of a sentence (cf. I Tim. 1:8, 15).”72

As the sentence appears, without the copula, it is normal to construe both adjectives in the same way, since they are linked by kaiv. It is also virtually impossible to give wJfevlimo" the attributive sense. If both were made attributive there would be no real predicate. “Every

70 Robertson, p. 627.71 Terence P. McGonigal, “‘Every Scripture is Inspired’: An Exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17,” Studia Biblica et Theologica, VIII (April, 1978), 57.72 Simpson, p. 150.

83

inspired Scripture and useful Scripture. . . .” does not form a complete sentence. If both must be understood in the same way, the only possibility is the predicate. “Clearly, the adjectives are so closely connected that as surely as one is a predicate the other must be also.”73

The context favors the predicative force. The construction itself certainly favors the predicative use, but what of the context? Does a declaration of inspiration belong here? Ellicott,74 Bernard,75 and other think not. Bernard states the position clearly:

But to introduce at this point a direct statement of the Theopneustia of the OldTestament, which is not here questioned, seems quite irrelevant to the context.76

It is clear that Timothy was not questioning the inspiration of Scripture. But it is impossible to say that the inspiration of Scripture, and therefore its authority, was not being challenged. Fairbairn has replied to such an objection:

But are we sufficiently acquainted with all the phases of opinion then afloat, to besure that such was the case? No one can be sure; and besides, Timothy was coming into contact with modes of thought which set light by the very heart and substance

73 A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Matthew-John, Acts-Romans, I Corinthians-Revelation, A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, Vol. III, eds. Robert Jamieson,A. R. Fausset, and David Brown (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), p. 511.74 Ellicott, p. 163.75 Bernard, p. 137.76 Bernard, p. 137.

84

of the Old Testament revelations. . . . Surely, if it wasnot unnecessary or out of place to press on him such simple exhortations as to remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead and that St. Paul was a minister of His truth and an apostle to the Gentiles, it could not be superfluous to impress upon hima sense of the divine character of the Old Testament Scripture.77

The fact is that a declaration of the inspiration of the Scriptures certainly does fit the context. Harvey saw the statement as an integral part of Paul’s design in the passage.

Paul’s evident design is to set before Timothy the great worth of the truths he hadbeen taught from holy Scripture; and nothing could be more germane to this purpose than to remind him (a) that Scripture is in every part divinely inspired, and (b) that it is profitable for the complete equipment of the man of God.78

Since the inspiration of Scripture is basic to the usefulness of Scripture, it seems logical that Paul would make a declaration of the inspiration of Scripture in this context and not merely assume it to be true. This would require the predicative use of the adjective.

The arguments against taking qeovpneusto" as an attributive adjective are substantial and there is no convincing reason to utilize such an awkward approach in order to confirm a parallel between verses 15 and 16. The predicative use of the adjective is grammatically and

77 Fairbairn, p. 379.78 Harvey, p. 110.

85

syntactically sound and fits the context well. Therefore, the clause should be rendered, “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable. . . .”

Chapter 5SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study has been to determine the exact meaning of the phrase in II Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God. . . .”

This phrase lies in the midst of Paul’s warnings concerning the religious swindlers who were soon to assail the church. Since Paul anticipated his own absence in the coming battle, he instructed this young soldier of the crossin the proper strategy for victory. In response to the advancing impostors Timothy was to remain in the apostolic teaching which he had come to embrace. like the sacred writings he had known from childhood, these apostolic teachings were a part of the Scriptures, his arsenal in the good fight.

Paul explains that this weapon was conducive for such aformidable task because of its divine origin. The phrase “All Scripture is inspired by God” is a declaration that allScripture is a product of the creative power of God, and therefore, it is useful for the purposes mentioned.

This study has demonstrated that the inspiration affirmed in II Timothy 3:16 means all that is Scripture, every written element which determines the meaning it is to convey, is a product of the creative breath of God.

86

It was first observed that the English word “inspiration” does not satisfactorily convey the meaning of qeovpneusto". This word has, in fact, taken on theological implications which are wider than the Greek term itself. On the basis of a lexical and grammatical investigation of the term it was determined that it was used to describe, in a most picturesque, way, the thing in question as a product ofthe creative power of God. With the use of this adjective Scripture, as far as its origin is concerned, is put into the same category as the heavens and the earth.

It was discovered that this verbal adjective is passive, not active. It thus describes Scripture in much thesame way as a perfect passive participle: having been breathed out by God.

Although it is true that Scripture is “alive and powerful,” this is not the emphasis of this verbal adjective. It is not a statement concerning the “inspiring” effects of the Word of God. It was further established that inspiration is not a description of how God gave the Scripture, or how He worked in the human authors. There is no concept here of “inspired writers.” Inspiration, therefore, describes the result of a process, not the process itself.

As to the extent of this quality, the evidence is clearthat it is Scripture that is inspired, not the authors nor the times. An investigation of the word grafhv revealed thatit was used in the New Testament exclusively of Scripture.

87

This particular term for the Word of God emphasizes the written element, propositions in words. This includes all the elements involved in conveying meaning such as case, word position, tense, voice and mood.

An investigation of the phrase pa'sa grafhv revealed that any and every portion of Scripture and thus the totality of Scripture was in view.

The fact that Paul had previously used the term “Scripture” as a designation for a portion of the New Testament indicated that he was not limiting this declaration to the Old Testament alone.

The quality of Scripture was emphasized by the anarthrous use of the term, and therefore, all that has the quality of Scripture is included. It was established that inPaul’s mind this certainly was inclusive of his own letters,other authoritative writings already being circulated, and all that was yet to come which could be described as grafhv.

Finally, an investigation of the structure of the entire clause revealed that Paul was not implying that only portions of Scripture were inspired. By using the verbal adjective in a predicative sense, he was not merely assumingthe inspiration, he was declaring that all Scripture as to its quality is God-breathed.

This verse, and the entire New Testament, knows nothingof “Scripture” which is not divinely originated.

88

Based on this study of II Timothy 3:16 such qualifiers as verbal and plenary do reflect the biblical testimony concerning inspiration.

One reason, it may be observed in passing, why many today are willing to embracenew views of inspiration is possibly to be found in the fact that the Scriptural teaching is not well known. . . . If the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration were better known, the newer views would have more difficulty lodging themselves in the modern Church. It will be necessary therefore to examine in more detail what the Bible itself teaches concerning inspiration.1

The testimony of II Timothy 3:16 is that all Scripture,all its parts and every word,

is God-breathed.

This simply believed must necessarily exclude error from holy writ; for who wouldsay that God inspires mistakes, great or small? Those whoso think cannot really believe every Scripture is inspired of God.2

The implications of such a clear statement as II Timothy 3:16 are far-reaching. Certainly such a product mustbe inerrant in its original form. Such Scripture could neverpresent a truth as a falsehood or a falsehood as a truth; itmust always present truth as truth and falsehood as falsehood.

1 Edward J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), p. 39.2 William Kelly, An Exposition of the Two Epistles to Timothy (3d ed.; London: C. A. Hammond, 1948), p. 291.

89

This God-breathed Scripture must of necessity also be infallible. Scripture speaks in the area of things beyond the realm of the finite with utmost accuracy.

“But,” some object, “what about the problems--the contradictions, the inaccuracies.” It is true that all the information necessary to reconcile every seeming contradiction is not available. However, it is not necessaryto wait for every so-called problem to be solved before one can rest his faith in the biblical testimony concerning the Scripture’s inspiration.

Now the doctrine of verbal inspiration rests upon the established testimony of JesusChrist and His accredited apostles. Therefore as Christians we may believe it even before we have solved all its difficulties. This is a principle recognized by all intelligent men. Charles Darwin once wrote a book on “the Fertilization of Orchids by Insects.” The doctrine set forth aroused considerable opposition in that day. One correspondent called Darwin’s attention to a Madagascar orchid possessing a nectary eleven inches longand as slender as a knitting needle. The existence of such an orchid seemed an insuperable obstacle to the doctrine of insect fertilization, and the correspondent felt he had demolished the doctrine but Mr. Darwin was unmoved. Knowing that his doctrine was based upon well established facts, he answered that the existence of suchan orchid was “a conclusive demonstration of the existence of a moth with a tongue eleven inches in length, even though no such moth is known!” And not long afterwards, such a moth was actually found!3

3 Alva J. McClain, “The Inspiration of the Bible,” Winona Echoes (1932),p. 210.

90

For the believer who has come to have confidence in theBible as a faithful witness, II Timothy 3:16 settles the issue.

BIBLIOGRAPHYBibles

The Greek New Testament, ed. Kurt Aland and others.New York: American Bible Society. 918 pp.

New American Standard Bible. Chicago: Moody, 1975. 1181 pp.

Grammars, Lexicons, Concordances,and Dictionaries

Abbott-Smith, G. Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1936. 512 pp.

Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957. 909 pp.

Blass, Friedrick William, and A. DeBrunner. Greek Grammar ofthe New Testament and

Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961. 325 pp.

Burton, Ernest DeWitt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in theNew Testament Greek. 3d ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1965. 215 pp.

Chamberlain, William Douglas. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. 233 pp.

Cremer, Heinrich. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1954. 943 pp.

91

Dana, Harvey Eugene, and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1957. 368 pp.

Douglas, James Dixon, ed. New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962. 1375 pp.

Green, Thomas Sheldon. A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. 216 pp.

Goodwin, William W., and Charles Gulick. Greek Grammar. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell, 1958. 457 pp.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. Greek-English Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966. 2042 pp.

Metzger, Bruce M. Lexical Aids for Students of New TestamentGreek. Princeton: Metzger, 1969. 100 pp.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of the New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1968. 246 pp.

Moulton, James Hope, W. F. Howard, and Nigel Turner. Grammarof the New Testament Greek. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1908-1976.

__________, and George Milligan. the Vocabulary of the GreekTestament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [n.d.]. 705 pp.

Moulton, William Fidian, and A. S. Geden. Concordance to theGreek Testament. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963. 1110 pp.

Reicke, Bo. pa'", a{pa", ed. Gerhard Friedrich. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964, V, 886-96.

92

Richardson, Alan, ed. A Theological Word Book of the Bible. New York: Macmillan, 1951. 290 pp.

Robertson, A. T. Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1934. 1454 pp.

__________, and W. Hershey Davis. A New Short Grammar of theGreek Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977. 454 pp.

Schrenk, Gottlob. grafhv, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964, I, 749-61.

Schweizer, Eduard. pnevw, ejmpnevw, qeovpneusto", ed. Gerhard Friedrich. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. VI, 452-55.

Thomson, J. E. H. “Apocalyptic Literature.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, I, 161-78.

Unger, Merrill F., ed. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Chicago: Moody, 1961. 1192 pp.

Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language. Springfield: G. and C. Merriam, 1917. 2620 pp.

Books

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1958

Baker, Charles F. A Dispensational Theology. Grand Rapids: Grace Bible College, 1971. 688 pp.

Barr, James. The Bible in the Modern World. London: SCM, 1973. 193 pp.

93

Barrett, Charles Kingsley. The Pastoral Epistles. The New Clarendon Bible. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. 151 pp.

Beegle, Dewey M. The Inspiration of Scripture. Philadelphia:Westminster, 1963. 223 pp.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 2d rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941. 784 pp.

Bernard, John. The Pastoral Epistles. Cambridge Greek Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1922. 192 pp.

Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Library of Christian Classics, trans. Ford Lewis Battles,ed. John T. McNeill. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948.

Custer, Steward. Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? Nutley: Craig, 1968. 120 pp.

Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Buttolph and A. Yarbro, ed. H. Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. 175 pp.

Dodd, C. H. The Authority of the Bible. London: Nisbet and Company, 1949. 310 pp.

Dods, Marcus. The Bible Its Origin and Nature. New York: Scribner, 1905. 245 pp.

Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ, Vol. III of The Story of Civilization. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944. 751 pp.

94

Ellicott, Charles J. A Critical sand Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles. 2d ed. 1861; rpt. Minneapolis: James Family, 1978. 263 pp.

Engelder, Theodore Edward William. Scripture Cannot Be Broken. St. Louis: Concordia, 1945. 408 pp.

Eusebius Pamphilus. Ecclesiastical History, trans. C. F. Cruse. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974. 527 pp.

Fairbairn, Patrick. Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956. 451 pp.

Fausset, A. R., and David Brown. Matthew-john, Acts-Romans, I Corinthians-Revelation. A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments,Vol. III, ed. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973. 728 pp.

Gaussen, Francois Samuel Robert Louis. Divine Inspiration ofthe Bible. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971. 382 pp.

Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles in the Mind of Paul. London: Tyndale, 1955. 228 pp.

Harvey, Hezekiah. Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Firstand Second Timothy and Titus and the Epistle to Philemon.Philadelphia: American Publishing Society, 1890. 164 pp.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968. 404 pp.

Hiebert, David Edmond. An Introduction to the Non-Pauline Epistles. Chicago: Moody, 1969. 252 pp.

__________. An Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. Chicago: Moody, 1969. 383 pp.

95

__________. Personalities Around Paul. Chicago: Moody, 1973.270 pp.

__________. Second Timothy. Chicago: Moody, 1958. 128 pp.

Hodge, A. A. Outlines of Theology. Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1878. 678 pp.

Houlden, J. L. The Pastoral Epistles: I and II Timothy, Titus. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976. 168 pp.

Humphreys, A. E. The Epistles To Timothy and Titus. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1907. 271 pp.

Huther, J. E. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament. Winona Lake: Alpha, 1980. 753 pp.

Jewett, Paul King. “Emil Brunner’s Doctrine of Scripture.” Inspiration and Interpretation, ed. John F. Walvoord. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Pp. 210-38.

Kelly, John Norman Davidson. The Pastoral Epistles. Harper’sNew Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. 264 pp.

Kelly, William. An Exposition of the Two Epistles to Timothy. 3d ed. London: C. A. Hammond, 1948. 348 pp.

Kent, Homer Austin, Jr. The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in I and II Timothy and Titus. Chicago: Moody, 1958. 320 pp.

Kuyper, Abraham. Principles of Sacred Theology, trans. Hendrik DeVries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954. 683 pp.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1964. 974 pp.

96

Lock, Walter. The Pastoral Epistles. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1973. 163 pp.

Maier, Gerhard. The End of the Historical-Critical Method, trans. Edwin W. Leverenz and Rudolph F. Norden. St. Louis: Concordia, 1977. 108 pp.

Moule, Handley C. G. The Second Epistle to Timothy. London: Religious Tract Society, 1905. 180 pp.

Orr, James. revelation and Inspiration. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952. 224 pp.

Pache, Rene. Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, trans. Helen I. Needham. Chicago: Moody, 1969. 349 pp.

Pinnock, Clark. Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology. Chicago: Moody, 1971. 256 pp.

Plummer, Alfred. The Pastoral Epistles. The Expositor’s Bible, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll. New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1908. 435 pp.

Preus, Robert. The Inspiration of Scripture. Mankato: Lutheran Synod Book Company, 1955. 216 pp.

Reid, J. K. S. The Authority of Scripture. London: Methuen and Company, Limited, 1957. 286 pp.

Ridderbos, Herman N. Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. J. r. deWitt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. 587 pp.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols.Nashville: Broadman, 1932.

Runia, Klass. Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1962. 225 pp.

97

Sauer, Erich. From Eternity to Eternity, trans. G. H. Lang. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. 207 pp.

Shedd, William G. T. Dogmatic Theology. 3 vols. Minneapolis:Klock and Klock, 1979.

Simpson, Edmund Kidley. The Pastoral Epistles. London: Tyndale, 1954. 172 pp.

Smith, David. The Life and Letters of St. Paul. New York: Harper, [n.d.]. 704 pp.

Stonehouse, Ned B., and Paul Woolley, eds. The Infallible Word: A Symposium. 3d ed.; Philadelphia: Presbyterian andReformed, 1967. 300 pp.

Stott, John R. W. Guard the Gospel: The Message of II Timothy. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1973. 127 pp.

Strong, A. H. Systematic Theology. Valley Forge: Judson, 1963. 1166 pp.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. 347 pp.

Urquhart, John. The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures. London: Marshall Brothers, 1895. 581 pp.

Van Oosterzee, J. J. The Two Epistles of Paul to Timothy. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. John PeterLange. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960. 120 pp.

VanTil, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955. 436 pp.

Vincent, Marvin R. Word Pictures in the New Testament, IV. New York: Scribner, 1914. 624 pp.

98

Vine, William Edwyn. The Epistles to Timothy and Titus: Faith and Conduct. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965. 176 pp.

__________. An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament Words. London: Oliphants, 1963. 351 pp.

Ward, Ronald A. Commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Waco: Word, 1974. 284 pp.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958. 446pp.

__________. Limited Inspiration. Philadelphia; Presbyterian and Reformed, [n.d.]. 54 pp.

White, Newport J. D. The First and Second Epistles to Timothy. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Pp. 55-202.

Woychuk, Nicholas A. Exposition of Second Timothy. Old Tappan: Revell, 1974. 172 pp.

Young, Edward Joseph. Thy Word Is Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. 287 pp.

Periodicals

Bennetch, J. H. “2 Timothy 3:16A: A Greek Study.” Bibliotheca Sacra, CVI (1949), 187-95.

Garrett, James Leo, Jr. “Representative Modern Baptist Understanding of Biblical Inspiration.” Review and Expositor, LXXI (Spring, 1974), 179-95

House, H. Wayne. “Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16.” Bibliotheca Sacra, CXXXVII (January-March, 1980), 54-63.

99

Kantzer, Kenneth S. “Neo-orthodoxy and the Inspiration of Scripture.” Bibliotheca Sacra, CXVI (January, 1959), 15-29.

McClain, Alva J. “The Inspiration of the Bible.” Winona Echoes (1932), pp. 199-208.

McGonigal, Terence P. “‘Every Scripture is Inspired”’ An Exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.” Studia Biblica et Theologica, VIII (April, 1978), 53-63.

Ramm, Bernard L. “Scripture as a Theological Concept.” Review and Expositor , LXXI (Spring, 1974), 149-61.

Roberts, J. W. “Note on the Adjective after PAS in 2 Timothy3:16.” Expository Times, LXXVI (August, 1965), 359.

Taylor, G. Aiken. “Is God as Good as His Word.” PresbyterianJournal, XXI (CT, 1977), 492-95.

Walvoord, John F. “Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra, CXVI (January, 1959), 3-14.

Unpublished Works

Couch, M. O. “The Biblical Philosophy of Infallibility.” Unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1964. 62 pp.

Koenig, John Donald. “The Extent of Inerrancy Demanded by Inspiration.” Unpublished M.A. thesis, Talbot TheologicalSeminary, La Mirada, California, 1979. 62 pp.

Lyon, William DeWitt. “Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures in the Light of Modern Theological Thought, AnEvaluation.” Unpublished B.D. thesis, Talbot Theological Seminary, La Mirada, California, 1958. 125 pp.

100

Miller, David. “Systematic Theology.” Class notes, Western Baptist College, Salem, Oregon, 1975.

Nieuwoudt, A. J. “The Relation of Inspiration to hermeneutics.” Unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1961. 56 pp.

Oakley, D.C. “The Contribution of the Greek Text to the Doctrine of Inspiration.” Unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1955. 52 pp.

Schafer, H. LaVern. “Bibliology.” Unpublished class notes, San Francisco Baptist Theological Seminary, San Francisco, California, 1968.

Taylor, D. E. “The Doctrine of Inspiration in Contemporary Theology.” Unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1961. 37 pp.

Thomas, Robert L. “Pastoral Epistles.” Unpublished class notes, Talbot Theological Seminary, La Mirada, California, 1979.

Ungersma, Aaron John. “The Authority of the Bible in Contemporary Fundamentalism.” Unpublished paper to Pacific Coast Theological Group, 1961.

Whisenand, Gary Dean. “The Significance UGIAINOUEA DIDASKALIA in the Pastoral Epistles.” Unpublished M.Div. thesis, Talbot Theological Seminary, La Mirada, California, 1977.

101