Verbal Inspiration with Hasel as teacher

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

1 August 2011

Fascinating and exciting were his classes. Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics was one of them. He went through the similar data that all good teachers start with. He mentioned that the Bible consists of a library of 66 books.

When one wants to hear what inspiration is all about one does not go to Emil Brunner and Encounter Theology or Rudolph Bultmann. One start with the Bible and Hasel took us to Hebrews 1:1

God spoke to the fathers in the prophets. There are two ways to look at the preposition in used here in the verse, namely agency or locative of time, sphere and space. The last one will mean that He spoke to them in the prophets books, their scrolls. He spoke to them in the Son because Christ did not say anything without His father telling Him what to say. Hasel said that one can conclude that God speaks and the prophets is the mouthpiece of what God spoke.

On a side-note, not mentioned by Hasel, where are these neo-Orthodox Encounter Theologians like Bultmann and kie, who wants to say that only in the Encounter the Divine speaks but when he walks out of that zone he is left by himself to construct and compose and to fail to understand, remember, and even misconstrue. For them Hasel had another verse lined up.

Hasel took us to 2 Timothy 3:16 saying that the "whole scripture is God-breathed".

Powerful words here. Scripture is God-breathed = theopneustos, not the prophets, said Hasel. It is the scripture that is inspired. This verse cuts totally against Emil Brunner and Rudolph Bultmann's view of inspiration. Together with Hebrews 1:1, said Hasel, we understand God-breathed better if we keep in mind that it reads there that God spoke in the prophets and in the Son to the fathers. The God-breathed process, said Hasel, involves both a process from God to the person as well as from the person to the book. Furthermore, scripture is in the singular so it refers to the complete group of scriptures, all the scrolls together.

One thing is for sure and logically the established fact:

It is both the person and the scroll that is inspired.

Hasel then said that it is here that Catholics and Protestants differ. Catholics says that the Bible is not the product of God as Hebrews 1:1 says, but the product of the church since it is the church who has to decide what is canon and what not. The church is above the Bible. Hasel's analysis of the catholic view here is not a mispresentation of their view since various times under papal watch analysis of vatican documents I also verified this same sentiment of the Catholics authority over the Bible. It was the point that dr. Von Eck wanted to make to Luther in his disputation with him.

         Protestants insisted that the Bible was before the church. When we use the word Protestants here we are referring to the Protestants before 1854 before the time of Thomas Myers. Protestants were also swallowed up by the modern trends of higher-criticism and neo-Orthodoxy of Rudolph Bultmann and the liberal theology of Karl Barth which is the most conservative of the liberals and lately by relecturing trends using the Canonical approach of Brevard Childs with a mixture of higher critical result which is higher critical results in a canonical garment, the same hermeneutics of suspicion in operation here. Adventist are following the traditional Protestant view of inspiration and Bible definition.

Yet, said Hasel, the Bible is "written in the language of men". Who is the author of the Bible? Asked Hasel.

"God is the Author or Editor and Author of the Bible. Men are the writers."

Hasel wanted to make it clear that inspiration has to do with verbatim and thoughts not only thoughts. It is true that some EGW interpreters want to jump on an interpretation horse here and cite 1 Selected Messages 21 as a counter-proof for thought inspiration only. "It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired . . ." says Ellen White. It almost seems as Hasel and Ellen White are polarized here. But, caution is called for. Hear the explanations end-out, both from Hasel and Ellen White.

Hasel said that "God is with the word until the very end. God is the Editor. He takes care of the words".

Hasel felt that "In communication God communicated truths that can be verbalized. God is with His words until the endline of the process so that the end is still the same intent of God".

Before we look at Ellen White's statement we should continue in Hasel's lecture first.

Hasel then investigated the meaning of the word theopneustos. He indicated that the NEB left out theo. It just reads "inspired". The NIV reads that it is "inspired by God". He said that it means literally God-breathed, God-inspired or inspired by God or breathed by God. Hasel pointed out that when in Greek -tos is added to theo- it means passive. Therefore, "being breathed by God" as a passive is a better rendering.

As far as the souce is concern it is from God, by God, and through God. It is thus God's divine authority.

Hasel then investigated that meaning of all in all scripture.

Hasel said there are two possibilities here:

Possibility 1: all

Possibility 2: every.

Every will mean every part of the scripture.

All will mean all scripture.

The word Scripture in all scripture, is never used for a single book. It is a collective word in the New Testament, said Hasel. All is the masculine plural but scripture is the feminine singular. Thus, Paul is saying in Timothy in 58 CE that the Torah, Writings, Prophets, Gospels, Acts, Romans and Galatians and other books of Paul are inspired or God breathed. Revelation and John's books were not yet written. Hasel favored the reading that "every scripture [that is] God inspired". For him it is the Old Testament plus.

The inspiration rule here is:

Every part of the scripture in the Old and parts of the New Testament until Timothy is God-breathed.

Hasel then took us to 2 Peter 1:19-21. This was written before 64 CE.

"For not through the will of man is prophecy interpreted formely [pote] but through the Holy Spirit, men moved. spoke from God."

Hasel indicated that prophecy needs interpretation but not one's own interpretation. He said that the NIV read it as "own interpretation". The above translation is my own, very literally following the Greek. The fact that the will of man is not interpreting prophecy in the revelation means that the "prophet does not interject his own idea into writing". This is contrary to the concept of Rudolph Bultmann and Emil Brunner on Encounter Theology Revelation and Inspiration concepts. Adventism do not endorse these existential ideas.

Hasel continued by saying that "it is not subjective interpretation but it is objective". When it is not singularity it is corporative. Danger is singularity or corporativeness. The safest to interpret scripture, said Hasel, was to let Scripture interpret Scripture. What he was saying here is that some people interpret scripture single-handedly. Others use a consensus method and fool themselves that they have attained the truth. Neither is stable in Hasel's view, they need to let scripture interpret scripture. This was as far as Hasel's lecture went on Inspiration and the next item he talked about was Canon.

What then can we say of Ellen White's statement in 2 Selected Messages 21? It was Manuscript 24 of 1886 written in Europe.

"It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on a man's words and his expressions but on the man himself who under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is embued with thoughts. But the words receive the impression of the individual mind. The divine Mind is diffused. The divine Mind and will is combined with the human mind and will thus the utterances of man are the word of God".

Interpreting Ellen White also one has to say two processes are described here:

a) process of writing

b) process of editorship and canonization

During the process of writing it is thought inspiration. The words are not inspired but the Holy Spirit work on the men. Are the words left outside the domain of the Spirit, according to Ellen White? No, when man writes the cognitive abilities of man is fused with the cognitive abilities, mental lexicon, vocabulary, capacity of the Holy Spirit and enlightened choices are made towards the best in the writing. Men are normally humble, submissive and obedient to the Spirit and loyal as well to prior similar writers. There is a fusion of minds but not an injection of vocabularies, and that is what she is writing against. Only after the fusion is the utterance of man the word of God. It is because the Editor sanctioned the finished product, carefully and there is an interaction of act and will and the words receive an impress of the individual mind nevertheless. Peter had a bad grammar but God does not improve his grammar skills writing his letters. Almost none of the writers of the New Testament wrote in standard Greek. They used a koine mixed with Hebraisms and Aramaisms. But the Holy Spirit was still the Editor to make sure the final product do express what He wanted and intended it to express. There is thus no conflict between Hasel and Ellen White on the view of inspiration here. The problem then with contenders who wish to cling to encounter theologians, is that they miss these two processes in Ellen White and also in the clear logic of the exegesis of the biblical texts mentioned by Hasel.