Critical Analysis
Marshall’s methodology for deriving a theory of biblical inspiration places the Bible’s self-understanding at the forefront of the discussion. He structures his argument by first presenting clear evidence for God’s speech and then proceeds to explore how Jesus and the Apostles understood the Old Testament and their own writings. Marshall’s assessment of the prophetic declarations in Jeremiah 1:1-9 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13 leaves no room for argument. Minimally, certain biblical authors believed that they were speaking the very words of God. However, he recognizes that these statements alone do not certify that the entire text of Scripture is the Word of God. To establish this point, Marshall affirms that God’s voice and Scripture are “virtually indistinguishable in meaning” (23). He also points out that the Old Testament as a whole had absolute authority in the minds of the disciples and the early church, thus if the New Testament documents were certified to be on par with the Old Testament Scriptures, their entire text would be identified as the Word of God.
Finally, Marshall addresses Jesus’ understanding of Scripture. At this juncture, Marshall takes a surprising turn. He argues that in order to use Jesus’ comments about the Old Testament, the New Testament cannot be assumed to be the Word of God, rather it must be approached like any other ancient document. Utilizing a limited set of biblical data that is generally accepted by critical scholars, Marshall argues that though Jesus claimed authority over the Old Testament, He also held it as authoritative and regularly used it as such. In his final assessment, Marshall argues that the Bible does claim to be the Word of God; however, what subsidiary doctrines should stem from that assertion is not clear.
Next Marshall tackles the issue of biblical inspiration by providing an overview of the diverse opinions on the subject. First, he addresses the pros and cons of a dictation theory of inspiration. Though he admits that certain sections of the Bible might be direct dictation (prophetic “God said” statements), Marshall argues that any understanding of Scripture as wholly dictation depersonalizes God and turns humanity into a means to an end. Additionally, Marshall rightly points out that while some verses reflect divine dictation others, like visions and dreams, require the human author’s description. Thus, dictation is not a comprehensive theory.
He also discounts the view that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation rather than being revelation itself. First, Marshall argues that this view demythologizes miraculous portions of the Bible as being religious interpretations of providential events. Second, it frames the Bible as human testimony rather than God’s testimony. Thus, the Bible’s authority is severely diminished, and its message can be more easily relativized. Finally, this view does not do justice to the direct dictation elements in the Bible or to the sections that are explicitly declarations of God’s will, e.g. the Old Testament rules and laws.
The view Marshall settles on attempts to harmonize the Bible as having both a divine author and human authors. He affirms that the Bible was authored by God through the divine interaction of the Holy Spirit with the human author. In terms of the divine interaction, Marshall admits that he is unable to detail exactly how God inspired the books. Instead, he only asserts that the Spirit’s interaction guarantees that the words the human authors wrote are accredited the status of being the Word of God. From the human perspective, Marshall argues that the various authors contributed literary genre, compositional skill, grammar, and compilation to write the Bible, thus it is also a work of literature composed by human activity. His view on inspiration directly dictates his development of inerrancy and infallibility.
Marshall argues that whether the Bible is inerrant or not is dependent on one’s understanding of truth. For example, he points out that the Bible is not purely propositional. It contains commands, relative statements, and paraphrases. Even the statements of Jesus are not His actual words in the sense that they are often written in Greek but were most likely spoken in Aramaic. Additionally, statements may be true or false based on the level of depth or understanding that is applied to them. As an example, he recounts Jesus’ parables which all teach a truth about God or the kingdom but may not be historically true stories. Third, Marshall points out that there are places where the Bible contains records of the lies of men. These statements are false in the sense that they are lies but are true in the sense of historical reliability. Finally, he also argues that to frame the Bible propositionally removes its ability to relate commands that are binding for certain communities. He cites food law differences between Jews and Gentiles as his case in point. With these considerations, Marshall argues for a nuanced understanding of truth which lines up more with the word infallibility than inerrancy.
Building off of his view on infallibility, Marshall holds that the difficulties in the Biblical text cannot be ignored by the true student of the Bible. He argues that the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture pertain to matters of faith, salvation, and the gospel, but do not touch the entire biblical canon. Thus, he affirms the necessary use of scholarly material, commentaries, theological papers and linguistics in order to properly interpret Scripture. However, he does give ample space to explaining how some of the proponents of legitimate tools use them alongside illegitimate presuppositions. Specifically, he counters anti-supernaturalism and anti-intellectualism as both being improper frameworks for interpreting Scripture. In the end, he supports the grammatico-historical study of Scripture that is tempered by Scripture’s own understanding of itself.
Critical Evaluation
Marshall’s book is a well-balanced overview of the subject of biblical inspiration. However, his critiques of other points of view and the support of his own views are not as robust as they could have been. Thus, this book works as a popular or undergraduate level text on the topic or as a teaching aid for a pastor or educator, but not as a scholarly refutation or affirmation of any one point of view. In his defense, Marshall’s use of the Chicago Statement throughout the text serves as a good framework for assessing this topic and he elucidates the often-neglected nuances of the statement to build charity between opposing evangelical camps.
Marshall does hold to an evangelical point of view throughout the book but offers critiques of the fundamentalist understanding of inerrancy. His arguments for infallibility over inerrancy are not persuasive. For example, he argues that the inconsistencies and uncertainties that exist at the levels of application, interpretation, and transmission make small inconsistencies and inaccuracies at the level of the text immaterial. While this may be true from a human practicality perspective, he does not address the implications of a slightly errant text with regard to God’s nature and character. In order for his theory to be fully persuasive, it would be helpful if he examined how his theory of infallibility affected his doctrine of God.
Unlike other authors, Marshall did not attempt to create a theologically integrated model of biblical inspiration. This serves him well as his theory could be accepted by a wide variety of denominations with varying theological backgrounds. Additionally, this keeps Marshall from pressing theological analogies past the breaking point. For instance, though Marshall briefly mentions how the incarnation can serve as a potential analogy to biblical inspiration, he notes that the incarnation is not ontologically comparable to the Bible. Thus, he does an excellent job making sure that people do not take the analogy too far.
Comments