Journal: Bibliotheca SacraVolume: BSAC 137:545 (Jan 1980)Article: Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16Author: H. Wayne House

Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16 H. Wayne House

[H. Wayne House, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Greek, LeTourneau College,Longview, Texas]

To the evangelical community the doctrine of Scripture is one of the most important truths, sincetransgression at this point leaves all other doctrines in the nebulous sea of uncertainty. In order todemonstrate the accuracy of this position many evangelicals turn to various passages of Gods Word whichaver this precious truth. One of these passages is 2 Timothy 3:16. This text is considered crucial as aninternal argument for the inspiration of the Bible.1 However, before one can make a value judgment as tothe benefit of 2 Timothy 3:16 to the doctrine of Scripture, one must have an accurate translation from theoriginal text. Unfortunately this is the very problem of 2 Timothy 3:16opinions differ as to its propertranslation. Many scattered references have been made about this passage in numerous theological worksbut few adequately discuss the difficult grammatical, syntactical, and lexicographical problems the passageposes. This writers intention is to discuss the most probable translation and to note the implications of thattranslation for the doctrine of inspiration.Second Timothy 3:16 reads in the Authorized Version, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and isprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Whether this is anabsolutely accurate rendition of the Greek is a point of disagreement.

The Translation of The first point that needs to be examined is whether should be translated all or every. The NewAmerican Standard

BSac 137:545 (Jan 80) p. 55Bible, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People (Williams), The New Testament inModern English (Phillips), The New Testament in the Language of Today (Beck), and the Revised StandardVersion follow the Authorized Version in its translation of the word as all. The American Revised Version aswell as The New English Bible translate it every.Bernard is quite persuaded that this word should be rendered every. The absence of the article assuresus that we must render every Scripture and not (with the Authorized Version) all Scripture; the thought isnot of the Old Testament regarded as an organic whole, but of every individual Scripture therein.2Referring to Bernards statement, Guthrie, who leaves room for question, states the following:

Bernard decides emphatically for every on the basis of the absence of the article, butSimpson points out analogous cases where pas is used in a semi-technical phrase and wherethe meaning every is ruled out, e.g. Acts 2:36 where all the house of Israel is clearlydemanded (see also Eph 2:21; 3:15; Col 4:12). Yet it may well be in all these exceptions thepas draws attention to the partitive aspect of the expression, and, if that is so, the presentphrase may mean Scripture as viewed in each separate part of it.3

In concurrence with the observation of Guthrie, when used with an anarthrous noun is translatedevery in order to call attention to the individual members of the class denoted by the noun.4 However,when the noun accompanying is a proper noun or collective term,5 the adjective may be translated the

whole or all.6 In agreement with the foregoing, Moule says that the translation every inspired Scripture ismost unlikely, and he suggests that the proper meaning is that the whole of Scripture is inspired.7Although the American Revised Version and The New English Bible translated every in 2 Timothy3:16, they did not always translate it that way. In Matthew 3:15; Acts 2:36; 7:22 they translate it all. Anexamination of in its more than fifty occurrences in the Greek New Testament reveals that it wasconsidered a technical term or proper noun.8 Thus when it occurred with it did not need the article andtherefore was translated all or the whole.9 Hendriksen summarizes this point well.

It is not true that the absence of the article compels us to adopt the translation of the A.R.V,every scripture. The word Scripture can be definite even without the article (I Peter 2:6; IIPeter 1:20). Similarly = means all Israel (Rom 11:26). But

BSac 137:545 (Jan 80) p. 56even if the rendering every scripture be accepted, the resultant meaning would not differgreatly, for if every scripture is inspired, all scripture must be inspired also.10

Thus it is concluded that when is used with a technical noun it is better to render it all rather thanevery.

The Significance of The Greek word used for Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 is . In extra-biblical Greek it simply meant awriting or letter.11 Usually this word is articular, but even when it is anarthrous the meaning is notchanged.12 It is never used anarthrously in the New Testament for a single book, though this occurselsewhere in Hellenistic Judaism.13 In the New Testament it exclusively means Scripture,14 as anexamination of its occurrences in the New Testament reveals.15The rendering writing or passage for is thus inappropriate and inaccurate. If weretranslated writing and if is a predicate adjective, then the phrase could be rendered Allwriting is God-breathed. This of course would be disastrous to the doctrine of inspiration. However, if is an attributive adjective, then could be translated writing and the phrase would berendered All God-breathed writing.I f means Scripture, to what Scripture does it refer? Lock says, Wohlenberg would include anyChristian writing which had become so recognized by this timebut this is scarcely consistent with [verse]15, defining more exactly the in which Timothy had been trained from childhood.16Beegle concurs with Lock on this point. The word scripture (Greek, graphe) seems to refer back to theprevious sentence in vs. 1415 .17It may be that in 2 Timothy 3:16 extends beyond the under which Timothy was reared. It isagreed that for Paul, the former meant at least the Old Testament. Cook states that in this context the wordscripture probably refers to the Old Testament plus that portion of the New Testament which had been putinto writing at this point.18Hendriksen proceeds a step further to allow to mean everything that was Scripture then, as well asthat which would later be written. In other words it means everything which, through the testimony of theHoly Spirit in the church, is

BSac 137:545 (Jan 80) p. 57recognized by the church as canonical, that is, authoritative.19 In summation may refer to the Wordof God accepted by the Apostle Paul, and probably by the church, at the time of the writing of 2 Timothy andalso that which was expected to come later under the inspiration of God.

The Meaning and Position of

Two problems pertaining to this word call for discussion: the translation of the word, and its function inrelationship to the word .

The Meaning of The problem posed in the translation of this word is whether it is a passive verbal form or an active verbalform. If it is a passive form, the word is emphasizing that Scriptures source is the breath of God, that is, itoriginates in and comes from God. If the word has an active meaning, the emphasis is that the Scripture isfilled with the breath of God, that is, it is inspiring.Cremer at one time believed that is a passive form, but in later editions of his lexicon heargued that it is active.

A transference of meaning to inspired by God , given by God , can hardly be explained orvindicated; this meaning might, without straining the context, suit Ps.-Phocyl. 121, but certainlyis inadmissible as an epithet of . The signification, spirit-filled , breathing the Spirit ofGod, is in keeping with [the context].20

Cremer recognizes that was originally passive in meaning. He simply says that the sense isGod-filled rather than God-breathed which, he argues, readily passed into the active sense of God-breathing after the analogy of such words as or , which from ill-or well-breathed came to mean breathing forth good or ill.21Barth allows this Greek word to have a passive meaning but believes that it also has an active meaning:Scripture is given and filled and ruled by the Spirit of God and it is actively outbreathing and spreadingabroad and making known the Spirit of God.22 However, one must realize that all words having a- ending in compound form originally had the passive sense and that the active sense always is aderived one.23 Such a compound may have both an original passive sense and a derived active sense, butnot at the same time in a particular context as Barth is suggesting.

BSac 137:545 (Jan 80) p. 58Some evangelicals have either not understood the meaning of this compound word or they have beencareless in their definitions. For example, Moore states that inspiration in the sense of Scripture literallymeans God-breathed. The writers of the Holy Writ were thus breathed upon and in by the Spirit of God.24What Moore has missed is that 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say the writers were inspired but that Scripture isinspired (Godbreathed or spirated).This word is defined by the lexicon as inspired by God.25 The word is a compound of and .Cremer states that the word cannot be traced to but only to since, as he says, the simpleverb is never used of divine activity.26 However, this is disproved in the Septuagint where examples contraryto his view may be found (see, e.g., Ps 147:18 and Isa 4:24).27Words that are compounded with - are called verbal adjectives and are formed from verb stems.In the broadest sense, they are participles, since they partake of both verbal and adjectival qualities andtheir basic idea is passive.28 To understand how was formed, one must observe that verbaladjectives have the ending - added to the verb stem of the first or second aorist passive.29 Then - isjoined to -, which is the first aorist stem of .30 Since has an epsilon as a short final vowel,a sigma is united to the aorist passive stem, forming .31 Then - is added to the first aorist passivestem and compounded with . Very definitely this word is passive in its original sense. Other words withthe same ending are primarily passive in meaning (though a few nonpassive meanings may be found inlexicons). Liddell and Scott give several examples of verbal adjectives with the passive sense.32 There isthen no morphological or lexicographical reason why the Greek word in 2 Timothy 3:16 should not betranslated with the passive God-breathed, especially in view of the context.

MarcusHighlight

The Position of The most difficult problem in 2 Timothy 3:16 is whether this word is in the attributive position or the predicateposition. Either one is grammatically permissible, so the decision ultimately must be made by determininghow this word relates to its context.In the Greek construction , the word is may be understoodimmediately before thus making it a predicate adjective (with the clause

BSac 137:545 (Jan 80) p. 59translated All Scripture is God-breathed and also profitable), or immediately after thusmaking it an attributive adjective (with the clause translated, All God-breathed Scripture is also profitable).However, a copula or verb is not necessary for an adjective to be classified as a predicate adjective.33Cook says, If the translation were to be all God-breathed Scripture is also profitable, the word order wouldnormally be pasa theopneustos graphe.34 In other words Cook is saying that normallywould be identified as an attributive adjective if it precedes its noun. However, anarthrous adjectives are notso easy to distinguish as to whether they are predicate or attributive adjectives; they may be either. Anarticular attributive adjective occurs before the noun and directly after the article, but this is not always trueconcerning the anarthrous adjective. Although an articular attributive normally precedes the noun, the ruleis that an anarthrous adjectival attributive usually follows its substantive.35 Robertson gives severalexamples of constructions in which the anarthrous adjectives follow the nouns they modify.36In a study of the construction, + noun + adjective, Roberts has convincingly demonstrated that usuallyin this exact sequence the adjective has the attributive sense. In all twenty-one exact parallels to 2 Timothy3:16 the adjective is attributive, except 1 Timothy 4:4 in which there are intervening words between theadjectives and the noun.37 Roberts also lists several examples from the Septuagint translation of thePentateuch (Gen 1:21, 30; Exod 12:6; 18:26; Deut 1:39; 17:1) which have the same order and in which theadjectives are predominantly attributive.In view of Robertss study one might assume that the question of whether the Greek word under discussionis a predicate adjective or an attributive adjective is a closed case. This is not true, however, for in 2 Timothythe noun has a technical meaning, which puts it in a classification different from those examples givenabove. The previous discussion on showed that it has the same force as a noun with an article,allowing the predicate adjective to follow. Thus although a predicate adjective would normally precede thenoun, this is not a necessary requirement. Winer wisely states that one should not insist on any invariablerule in the Greek sentence except that of spontaneity.38Many have condemned the American Revised Version and The New English Bible for translating as an attributive adjective. Several verses that have the same construction

BSac 137:545 (Jan 80) p. 60and yet are still translated predicatively (e.g., Rom 7:12; 1 Cor 11:30; 2 Cor 10:10) are sometimes cited inorder to default the two above translations. An examination of these passages, though, reveals that theywould be awkward in their contexts as attributives. In addition they do not have the same construction asthat found in 2 Timothy 3:16. Thus defaulting the American Revised Version and The New English Bible bycomparing them with texts having a similar construction must at least not be pressed.One of the main objections to the word being translated as a qualifying adjective is that the whichfollows it in the sentence would not be needed. Some have tried to solve this difficulty by not translating .This is done by The New English Bible: All God-breathed Scripture is profitable. But it is just as arbitrary toleave out as it is to translate it here by also. That an inspired composition was also useful, wasintelligible of itself indeed.39

Alford, however, believes the adjunctive or ascensive use of this conjunction is perfectly permissible. Yet hedoes admit that the construction, as in 2 Timothy 3:16, is an awkward one. He cites Luke 1:36; Acts 26:26;Romans 8:29; and Galatians 4:7 as New Testament examples of the ascensive use of the word.40 Theseexamples are acceptable evidence that might be used as an ascensive in 2 Timothy 3:16 without doinginjustice to the construction. Alford believes that to accept it as a connecting word deprives the sentence ofsymmetry. In addition, he says that if it is a connective, the following words must be understood as thepurposed result of the God-breathing as well as the of the Scriptures, which is hardly natural.41However, both views under discussion are acceptable. The main flaw among the two is not the clausewith as a connective of and , but as an ascensive. The is probably inthis context introducing a result clause,42 which can go smoothly with a phrase such as ; thus the sense is All Scripture is God-breathed and all Scripture is profitable.From this discussion one may see that from a grammatical standpoint God-breathed may be consideredas either an attributive adjective or a predicate adjective. Both views have their weak and strong points andneither one is conclusive grammatically. How then is one to know which to choose? Robertson clarifies thedifference between these two kinds of adjectives: The

BSac 137:545 (Jan 80) p. 61distinction between the attributive adjective and the predicate adjective lies in just this, that the predicatepresents an additional statement, is indeed the main point, while the attributive is an incidental description ofthe substantive about which the statement is made.43Is God-breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16 to be considered as incidental and thus attributive? This writer thinksnot! is as much a main point as . Paul had used in verse 16 incontrast to in verse 15 to show the additional value of apostolic Scripture. A reminder ofits divine origin is perfectly appropriate in a passage intended to impress on his disciple its value both asauthenticating the Christian message and as a pastoral instrumental.44 The term is not justan incidental description of ; it is also a focal point of the passage. Paul first shows Scriptures originand then he shows its practicality. Scriptures main attestation is that it is God-breathed, that is, it originatesin God. So the emphasis is that Scripture partakes of the quality of the creative breath of God,45 andScripture is profitable. This results in the (Christian) man being perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all goodworks. If Scripture is not God-breathed, the believer has no equipment for the spiritual battles of life; and ifall Scripture is not God-breathed, the Christian cannot be sure as to which portion of Scripture he may holdas infallible truth.The Authorized Version declares inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16, whereas the American Revised Versionimplies it. One cannot be dogmatic in deciding the correct translation of , butwith all things taken into consideration (syntax, word formation, and context) the balance of the argument isthat 2 Timothy 3:16 should be translated, All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable.1

The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration does not depend entirely on the interpretation of this passage.God has secured this doctrine in the very fabric and framework of His Word. See N. B. Stonehouse and PaulWoolley, eds., The Infallible Word: A Symposium , 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed PublishingCo., 1967); Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian &Reformed Publishing Co., 1970); and Clark Pinnock, Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of ChristianTheology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971).2

J. H. Bernard, The Pastoral Epistles , Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1899), pp. 136-37.

3Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles , Tyndale Bible Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. EerdmansPublishing Co., 1957), pp. 163-64.4

William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other EarlyChristian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 636. There are twenty-one examples of in the construction found in 2 Timothy 3:16, i.e., + the noun + the adjective. Examples includeMatthew 7:17 (every good tree); Matthew 12:36 (every idle word); and Ephesians 1:3 (every spiritualblessing). The other examples are Acts 23:1; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Ephesians 4:29; Colossians 1:10; 2Thessalonians 2:17; 2 Timothy 2:21; 4:18; Titus 1:16; 2:10; 3:1; Hebrews 4:12; James 1:17; 3:16; andRevelation 8:7; 18:2, 12; 21:19 (J. W. Roberts, Note on the Adjective after in 2 Timothy 3:16, Expository Times 76 [August 1965]: 359). While all these examples translate by every, none has anoun with the technical meaning as seen in as mentioned in the main discussion above.5

Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishing House, 1962), p. 491.6

Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 637.7

C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968),p. 95.8

John Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures , vol. 23: Thessalonians-Hebrews (Grand Rapids:Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), p. 109. Referring to 2 Timothy 3:16 Lange writes, Although the article iswanting here, nevertheless, by virtue of the connection, it is not to be doubted a moment that the Apostle isspeaking decidedly and exclusively of the of the Old Covenant, as of a well-completed whole. Inno case can the absence of the article in a word so frequently used as surprise us, since it isemployed, in fact, almost as a proper name (ibid.).9

Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920), p. 296. The usualconstruction would be but the article is not used with if the noun, standing alone, would haveno article.10

William Hendriksen, I -II Timothy , Titus, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1957), p. 301.11

Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1968), pp. 168-69.12

A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In the Light of Historical Research (Nashville:Broadman Press, 1934), p. 791.13

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament , s.v. , by Gottlob Schrenk, 1:754.14

Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 165.15

W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, A Concordance to the Greek Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967),p. 176.16

Walter Lock, The Pastoral Epistles , The International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner &Sons, 1924), p. 110.17

Dewey M. Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), p. 20.18

W. Robert Cook, Systematic Theology in Outline Form (Portland, OR: Western Conservative BaptistSeminary, 1970), p. 36.19

Hendriksen, I -II Timothy , Titus, p. 301. Simon Kistemaker, who kindly read this paper and made helpfulcomments, suggested that Pauls use of in 1 Timothy 5:18, in which he quotes from Deuteronomy25:4 and Luke 10:7, may give evidence that Lukes Gospel was considered canonical by Paul, or on thesame level with the Torah. If Paul is quoting Luke, then that writing was in circulation much earlier thanmany have supposed. For example, F. W. Danker suggested the late 70s or early 80s (Jesus and the NewAge according to St. Luke [St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1972]), and W. G. Kummel suggested A.D.70-90 (Introduction to the New Testament [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975]). Cf. J. A. T.Robinson,Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), for arguments concerning a date inthe 60s. On the other hand it may be that Paul, being in close contact with Luke, was familiar with an Ur-Lukan document.20

Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek , 4th ed., trans. William Urwick(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), p. 731. See Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of theBible, pp. 245-348, for a fuller discussion of and related material.21

Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon , p. 731.22

Cited from Klaas Runia, Karl Barth s Doctrine of Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. EerdmansPubishing Co., 1962), p. 131.23

Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible , p. 280.24

H. L. Moore, Eternal Questions (Cleveland, TN: White Wing Publishing House, 1968), p. 12.25

Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 357.26

Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon , p. 731.27

Cf. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible , pp. 281-87.28

Robertson, A Grammar , pp. 157, 1095.29

William Watson Goodwin and Charles Burton Gulick, Greek Grammar (Waltham, MA: Blaisdell PublishingCo., 1958), p. 147.30

Ibid., p. 153.31

Smyth, Greek Grammar , p. 160.32

Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, comps., A Greek-Engish Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones andRoderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), p. 790-92. Also see Warfield, The Inspiration andAuthority of the Bible, pp. 281-82.33

Robertson, A Grammar , p. 656.34

Cook, Systematic Theology , p. 36.35

F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature ,trans. and ed. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 251.36

Robertson, A Grammar , p. 418.37

Matthew 7:17; 12:36; Acts 23:1; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Ephesians 1:3; 4:29; Colossians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians2:17; 2 Timothy 2:21; 4:18; Titus 1:16; 2:10; 3:1; Hebrews 4:12; James 1:17; 3:16; Revelation 8:7; 17:2;18:2, 12; 21:19 .38

Cited from Robertson, A Grammar , p. 417.39

Lange, Thessalonians-Hebrews, p. 109.40

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament , 4 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1958), 4:397.41

Ibid., p. 396.42

Robertson, A Grammar , pp. 991-94.43

Ibid., p. 656.44

J. N. D. Kelley, Pastoral Epistles , Harpers New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1963),p. 203.45

Cook, Systematic Theology , pp. 36-37.current : : uid:851 (institution)