20. If there be at once a divine and a human mind co-operating in the formation of the sacred text, it is not surprising if there often be a double sense in that text, and, with obvious exceptions, never certain that there is not.
Thus Sara had her human and literal meaning in her words, ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son,’ &c.; but we know from St. Paul that those words were inspired by the Holy Ghost to convey a spiritual meaning. Abraham, too, on the Mount, when his son asked him whence was to come the victim for the sacrifice which his father was about to offer, answered ‘God will provide;’ and he showed his own sense of his words afterwards, when he took the ram which was caught in the briers, and offered it as a holocaust. Yet those words were a solemn prophecy.
And is it extravagant to say, that, even in the case of men who have no pretension to be prophets on servants of God, He may by their means give us great maxims and lessons, which the speakers little thought they were delivering? as in the case of the Architriclinus in the marriage feast, who spoke of the bridegroom as having kept the good wine until now;’ words which it was needless for St. John to record, unless they had a mystical meaning.
Such instances raise the question whether the Scripture saints and prophets always understood the higher and divine sense of their words. As to Abraham, this will be answered in the affirmative; but I do not see reason for thinking that Sara was equally favoured. Nor is her case solitary; Caiphas, as high priest, spoke a divine truth by virtue of his office, little thinking of it, when he said that ‘one man must die for the people;’ and St. Peter at Joppa at first did not see beyond a literal sense in his vision, though he knew that there was a higher sense, which in God’s good time would be revealed to him.
And hence there is no difficulty in supposing that the Prophet Osee, though inspired, only knew his own literal sense of the words which he transmitted to posterity, ‘I have called my Son out of Egypt,’ the further prophetic meaning of them being declared by St. Matthew in his gospel. And such a divine sense would be both concurrent with and confirmed by that antecedent belief which prevailed among the Jews in St. Matthew’s time, that their sacred books were in great measure typical, with an evangelical bearing, though as yet they might not know what those books contained in prospect.
21. Nor is it de fide (for that alone with a view to Catholic Biblicists I amconsidering) that inspired men, at the time when they speak from inspiration, should always know that the Divine Spirit is visiting them.
The Psalms are inspired; but, when David, in the outpouring of his deep contrition, disburdened himself before his God in the words of the Miserere, [Psalm 51] could he, possibly, while uttering them, have been directly conscious that every word he uttered was not simply his, but another’s? Did he not think that he was personally asking forgiveness and spiritual help?
Doubt again seems incompatible with a consciousness of being inspired. But Father Patrizi, while reconciling two Evangelists in a passage of their narratives, says, if I understand him rightly (ii. p. 405), that though we admit that there were some things about which inspired writers doubted, this does not imply that inspiration allowed them to state what is doubtful as certain, but only it did not hinder them from stating things with a doubt on their minds about them; but how can the All-knowing Spirit doubt? or how can an inspired man doubt, if he is conscious of his inspiration?
(On the Inspiration of Scripture, 1884)
So Cardinal Newman agrees with the general principle I am defending as likely (“that inspired men, at the time when they speak from inspiration, should always know that the Divine Spirit is visiting them”). But later in the same section 21 he casually assumes that Paul was aware of his own inspiration in 1 Corinthians 2:4 and 7:40. It is not clear if he would equate this with writing Scripture, but it could very well be. That doesn’t harm my point of view at all, since he agreed with my general principle. I am not dogmatic about applying it across the board in all Pauline or other biblical passages, etc.
Paul, in the very same chapter (1 Corinthians 14) repeatedly teaches about prophecy (prophesying). Obviously, if there was any significant amount of prophecy given, only an extremely small portion of it made it into the NT, if at all, because the NT is a pretty small book: about as long as an average-sized novel. So there were tons of oral messages by apostles and prophets and evangelists which would have been inspired, but ultimately non-biblical, just as was the case with our Lord Jesus. The NT refers several times to non-recorded speeches or acts of Jesus (Mk 4:33; 6:34; Lk 24:15-16, 25-27; Jn 20:30; 21:25; Acts 1:2-3). It’s the most elementary common sense.
Prophecy was rather common in NT or apostolic times (Acts 2:18). The Ephesians did it (Acts 19:6), as did the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9), and the Corinthians (aforementioned passages and 1 Cor 11:4-5). There were even prophets (in terms of a calling or office), in addition to folks who prophesied on occasion. Prophets were listed in lists of ministries (1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11), and work with teachers, as in Antioch (Acts 13:1). They both proclaimed and predicted (see, e.g., Agabus: Acts 11:28; 21:10-11). Prophets exhort believers (Acts 15:32) and provide edification (1 Cor 14:3). Prophecy is described as revelation (1 Cor 14:30) and as connected with the Holy Spirit (plausible implication of 1 Thess 5:19-20). Prophets were subject to the norm of NT or apostolic tradition (1 Cor 14:29, 37-38), just as the OT prophets had to be in conformity with the Law of Moses.
I am saying that when Paul refers to his writing being the “Lord’s command” he could mean it in the sense of prophecy or apostolic authority; not necessarily that it was Scripture (i.e., a book of the Bible, later recognized as such and canonized). This particular discussion doesn’t require Protestants to forsake sola Scriptura or biblical inspiration or infallibility. Just because Paul may possibly have not always known that he was writing Holy Scripture has no bearing on the doctrines of inspiration or infallibility. Rather, it has to do with the complicated question of the relationship of the biblical authors to divine inspiration and guidance. Paul knows for sure, though, that his message has authority as the message of an apostle, whether or not it is literally inspired, or inspired Scripture. He knows that simply from the knowledge that he is an apostle.
Many Protestants hold that that the oral preaching (like any tradition) is only legitimate if it is later inscripturated. This teaching is itself not taught in the Bible; therefore it is a mere tradition of men, inconsistent with sola Scriptura, and yet another evidence of the hopeless incoherence and inconsistency of that rule of faith.
1 Corinthians 7:12 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
This is, of course, at least as strong of a proof that there are times when he himself does indeed not think he is writing inspired Scripture (cf. 1 Cor 7:25), when in fact he is (since we all regard this verse as inspired, along with the rest of 1 Corinthians and all of Paul’s NT letters). What more does anyone need to prove that Paul wasn’t aware at all times that his writing was inspired, besides his saying “I say, not the Lord” (1 Cor 7:12) and “I have no command of the Lord” (7:25)?
*****
Meta Description: Biblical arguments for the idea that the Bible writers did not always know they were writing inspired Scripture, and revelation.
Meta Keywords: 46 books, 73 books, Apocrypha, apocryphal books, biblical canon, canon of Scripture, canonicity, deuterocanon, deuterocanonical books, Old Testament, septuagint, The Bible
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In