The Bible is the Word of God. That is commonly accepted phrase that expresses belief in inspiration. And by ‘‘inspiration” is meant that God, or the Spirit of God, was at work in the community of Israel and in the early Christian community to produce, through a number of human authors, a series of books that witness to God’s revelation of himself through history. That divine self revelation reached its climax in Jesus Christ (Heb 1, 1-2). The New Testament is the final witness to the revelation from God which focused in Christ.
Just how did inspiration work? Since we are dealing with an action of God in the world of men and women, we can never fully understand or explain what happened; inspiration partakes of the mystery of God himself. There are certain explanations of inspiration, however, that the Church has discarded as being unworthy either of God or of the human author. One of these is the so-called ‘‘divine dictation” theory. According to this idea, God alone is responsible for the content of the Bible. The human authors were merely recording machines, or robots, who wrote down what God, in some unknown way, dictated to them. Or, the human authors were caught up in some mystical trance and reproduced God’s Word without any consciousness of what they were writing.
The theory has been rejected by the Church for two good reasons: because if implies the notion of a God who does not respect the freedom of his creatures, and because it cannot account for the very obvious differences of the biblical writing-differences that can be adequately explained by the different backgrounds, styles, and purposes of the human authors. An example of this freedom of the human author and of his own distinct purpose in writing is found in Luke’s prologue to his gospel (Lk 1, 14).
Another explanation of the process of inspiration which has been rejected by the Church was called the ‘‘negative assistance” theory. According to his theory, the human authors were alone responsible for the writing of the books except when they were in danger of leading the reader into religious error. Then God, in some way, intervened and directed the author to the truth. This theory suggests that the Bible is little more than a religious textbook designed to provide right answer to particular problems. According to this theory, the divine influence is not present in the setting forth of God’s truth, except in a negative way. This theory does not allow for the unique character of the Bible as the Word of God.
The same must be said of the so-called ‘‘subsequent approbation” theory, according to which God approved of the Bible only after it was completed. He thereby made it his own. This theory may, indeed, assure us that the Bible contains the truth about God and his relationship to the world. But how could such a word be ‘‘like fire burning in my heart” (Jer 20, 9)? Or how could we speak of such Scriptures as ‘‘inspired of God” (2 Tim 3, 16)?
While the Church has rejected these theories of inspiration, she has not officially adopted any one explanation as her own. We can, however, point to two elements that must be guarded in an explanation that is given. The first is that God is actively present in a unique manner in the composition of the biblical books. This gift of presence to the communities of Israel and to the early Church is demanded both by those passages which do speak of inspiration in the Bible (e.g., 2 Tim 3, 15-17; 2 Pt 1, 20-21) and by the constant tradition of the Church. The Bible is, in a real sense, the Word of God.
The second element is the freedom of the human authors in making use of their own talents and resources, in cooperation with the Spirit of God, in composing the sacred books. This is demanded both by the many references to the human efforts expended in writing the books (e.g., Jer 36, 17-18; Lk 1, 1-4; Gal 6, 11) and by the statements of the Church. Thus, Pope Benedict XV, in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, wrote that ‘‘the individual authors of these Books worked in full freedom under the divine inspiration, each of them in accordance with his individual nature and character” (II, 1). This conviction was repeated by Pius XII in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (#33) and by the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum, #11). Because of this human element we can rightly say that the Bible is the ‘‘Word of God in the words of men.”
It is because of the first element, the divine activity, that we can only appreciate the fullness of the biblical word when we approach it in faith. It is because of the second element, the human contribution, that we must make use of all possible sciences to understand the meaning intended by the authors.