Grace Journal 6.1 (Winter, 1965) 16-28.
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
THE DOCTRINE OF
REVELATION AND INSPIRATION
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
GILBERT B. WEAVER
Instructor in Bible,
Greek, and Philosophy
INTRODUCTION
In the study of Old Testament theology an
important place belongs to what
the Old Testament teaches about God's
self-revelation. Likewise, it is essential that
we know what the O. T. discloses about its own
inspiration and authority as a revelation
from God. Clearly, these two subjects, revelation
and inspiration belong together, as
revelation pertains to that which God makes known
at a particular time, and inspiration
refers to the divinely controlled process of recording
that revelation, so as to make an
accurate record available to others who were not
present at the time of revealing.
Definitions
For the study of this important subject, then, revelation may be defined as
"God's
witness and communication of Himself to the world for the realization of
the end of creation, and for the re-establishment
of the full communion of man
with God.”1 Inspiration has been defined as
"a supernatural influence of the Holy
Spirit
upon divinely chosen men in consequence of which their writings became
trustworthy and authoritative.”2 While
this latter definition is not the best possible
in light of New
Testament emphasis on verbal inspiration, it is adequate for O. T.
theology purposes, especially if stress is placed
on the terms trustworthy and
supernatural, so that inspiration as
extending to the very words of Scripture is
implied. Indeed, a complete definition of
inspiration is quite lengthy and involved,
as seen by the fact that Gaussen
took an entire chapter to define what the term
theopneustia means.3
The authority of the O. T. is a correlative of inspiration. If the O. T. is a
divinely given revelation to man which is so
controlled in its process of recording
as to be the very Word of God, then it bears the very authority of God
Himself.
If
it is any less than inspired in such a sense, then its authority is diminished,
in
spite of modern attempts to have an authoritative Bible
without verbal inspiration.
Divisions of the Doctrine of Revelation
The doctrine of revelation has two
well-recognized divisions, general
revelation,
and special revelation. The
former is termed “general” in that it is available to
all men (cf. Romans
revelation” because its source is in “nature,”
including man himself who is made
in the image of God. While the
16
THE
DOCTRINE OF REVELATION AND INSPIRATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 17
doctrine of general revelation is grounded in the
teaching of the O.T. (Genesis 1 and 2,
Psalm
19, etc.), it is not germane to the subject of this study.
The latter division of the doctrine of
revelation is called "special" because it
implies an active self-disclosure by God in
contrast to the passive nature of general
revelation, which must be gained by an effort on
the part of man. But "special" also
implies a limitation
or particularization in the recipients of the revelation, in contrast
to the universality of general revelation.
"The Word of the Lord came unto me,"
wrote the prophet. It is the O.T.'s
teaching concerning this supernatural divine
communication which is the subject of
this study of the Doctrine of Revelation
and Inspiration in the Old Testament.
Factors in an Act of Revelation
A helpful analysis of an act of revelation has
been presented by David H.
Freeman.
He writes:
An act of revealing takes place when X (the
revealer - God] reveals S
[something, the content
of the revelation] to Y [the recipient, who by im-
plication is ignorant of that
revealed) for purpose (P) by means of M at a
time and place (T). What is
thus transmitted to Y may then be referred to
as the revelation of X to
Y.
The expression "the special revelation of
God" can then be used to refer to
all such acts of revealing that satisfy the
conditions X, S, Y, P, M, and T,”
where "X refers to God,
S refers to what is made known, Y to those per- .
sons to whom S is made known,
P, for the purpose X has in making S known
to Y, and M stands for the
means used by X to make S known to Y, and T
stands for the time and place
where X made S known to Y by means of M
for purpose P. 4
Related Disciplines
Using the above analysis, the companion
disciplines to Biblical Theology may
be related to the factors in an act of revelation.
1) The study of the content of revelation (S),
organized as a function of time (T)
is the study of Biblical
Theology itself.
2) When the content of revelation (S) is
organized logically the result is
systematic theology.
3) The study of the Revealor
(X), God Himself, through the revealed subject
matter (S) is Theology Proper.
4) The study of the recipients of revelation (Y)
is Biblical Anthropology.
18
GRACE
JOURNAL
5) The study of the purpose (P) which God had in
disclosing Himself is
Soteriology, as redemption and
revelation are inseparable after Genesis 3.
6) Finally, the study of God's method (M) of
making Himself known to
man is the unique sphere
for a study of the doctrine of revelation in the
O.T. A brief survey of the
method used is presented in part two of this
study, followed by a
consideration of the basis of the claim of the O. T.
to inspiration.
General Content of Special Revelation
While the study of the total content of O. T.
revelation obviously cannot be
included in this
paper, the general content of any revelation may be set forth as
either a revelation of God's person (as in theophanies), of His acts (miracles and
providence), or a revelation of God's thoughts or words. The latter includes the
ivine explanation of the
meaning of His personal appearances and acts, without
which they would be subject to mis-interpretation
by finite sinful man. Indeed, as
Thomson
holds, without the explanatory word the event would not constitute a
revelation.5 Edward J. Young writes
concerning this point:
From the events themselves, it would not have
been possible for the
ites to learn much about the
workings of God. The events of the Exodus
were revelatory of God's
power, but such revelation cannot properly be un-
derstood unless it also be
accompanied by a revelation in words. . . . The
Israelites realized that God was delivering them
because God told them that
it was so. Without a
special communication from God to man, man cannot
properly recognize or interpret
the workings of God in history.6
Young
has previously cited G. Ernest Wright (God
Who Acts), who holds that Biblical
theology ". . . is a theology of recital or
proclamation of the acts of God, together
with the inferences drawn there from.”7
But Wright ignores the fact that the meaning
of the acts is divinely given in Scripture, and
not left to mere human inferences.
The three forms of revelation are grouped
together in Exodus 3. God's person
appears in the Angel of Jehovah in the midst of
the bush. God's acts are revealed in
the unconsumed burning bush and in the changing of
the rod into a serpent, etc.
God's
words of explanation are given to Moses: "You are on holy ground, " etc.
REVELATION
The writer to the Hebrews tells us that God
spoke in time past in "many
ways.” These ways or methods of revelation are the
subject for consideration
at this point.
The history of revelation has been divided in
various ways for consideration
of the method of revelation. Probably at the
extremes are Oehler and J. Barton
Payne.
Oehler sees only two divisions, the Mosaic and
Prophetic, while Payne
divides the same history into ten divisions.8
Because of the position to be set
forth in the later discussion of inspiration, this writer
uses the three divisions of
Heinisch, Pre-Mosaic, Mosaic, and Prophetic.9
THE
DOCTRINE OF REVELATION AND INSPIRATI0N IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 19
The consideration of the available material
concerning this study leads one
away from any attempt to be exhaustive. There is a
vast amount of scriptural
material to be subsumed in such a study, as well
as a considerable number of
studies of the doctrine in the literature available.
The Pre-Mosaic Period
1.
The Primal Period - the Creation to the Flood
The revelation in the primal period, as Payne
observes, is mainly on a
person to person basis.10 God speaks
directly and almost casually to man as
need arises. The O.T. opens with God speaking. The
voice of God (bat qol,
the daughter of a voice, as the rabbis later called
it) addresses matter --"Let
there be " It is addressed to Himself in inter-
trinitary communion, "Let us
make " It is addressed to man: "Be fruitful, " etc.
during the period before the fall God appears to man
in the garden by a theophany each
day in the cool of the evening (Gen. 3:8).
"Before the fall, " writes Vos,
there was such an abiding
presence of God with man in paradise. After the
fall a certain remnant of
this continued, though not in the old gracious
form. The throne with the
cherubim still stood in the east of the garden of
God. God still walked with
Enoch. With the flood all this is changed. God
has as it were, withdrawn
this sacramental revelation-presence into heav-
en.
Not to be overlooked are New Testament
references to prophetic
ministries in this period: Abel is included by
Christ among the prophets who
were slain for their testimonies (Luke
declares that Enoch prophesied of the coming of
Christ in judgment (Jude 14).
2.
The Patriarchal Period
In this period revelation is less casual than in
the preceding one,12 but
may be characterized as more fleeting and ephemeral
in its forms of manifestation.13
Revelation
comes to Abraham and his descendants by theophany
(Gen. 12 ff.), the
Angel
of Jehovah (Gen. 22:11, 12, etc.), dreams (Gen. 37:5), and by mighty acts,
as the destruction of
revealed to Abram by the priestly blessing of
Melchizedek. The principal names
by which God makes Himself known in the
patriarchal period are El-Shaddai,
"God
Almighty," and El-Elyon, "The Most-High
God” (El is a shortened form
of Elohim). The name
Jehovah is known, but its full significance is to be made
known later in the exodus period.14
The Mosaic Period
Geerhardus Vos
characterizes the revelations of the Mosaic period as
more permanent manifestations than in the previous
period.15 Surrounded by
the symbols of propitiation ac-
20
GRACE
JOURNAL
complished, God dwells in the
midst of His people in a specially prepared tabernacle, the
outward manifestations of His presence being the
cloud and pillar of fire, the latter
seemingly identified with the "Shekhina" in Exodus 40:34. Besides these, revelation
came through these channels:
1) The Angel of Jehovah (Ex. 3:2). Note the
problem of identifying this person,
whether God Himself in His
Pre-incarnate Son, or an ordinary created angel.16
2) The Name of God (Ex.
appellations used in referring to
deity, God's Name is said on one occasion
to be in the Angel which
leads
that which is with them to
lead them.
3) A similar expression is the face or presence
of God, which is promised to
be with His people.
4) In Numbers 11:17-29 the Spirit of Jehovah
comes upon certain leaders of
5) With Prophetism
thus introduced to
the locus classicus on the institution.
Miriam and Aaron challenge the
centrality of Moses as a prophet,
saying, "Hath God not also spoken by us?"
(12:2). In response God sets forth Moses as
the prophet par excellence of
the O. T. and distinguishes
His method of revelation to him from that to an
ordinary prophet. Moses is to
receive revelation by his ordinary senses. To
an inferior prophet
revelation comes by a form of super-sensory perception,
as dreams, visions, etc.
6) The great redemptive act of emancipating
of God's power on her
behalf which is to be remembered in all her generations,
as celebrated by the annual
Passover festival (Ex.
revelatory psalms, as the Song of Moses (15:1-18), and of
Miriam (
These are precursors of the inspired songs later
to be gathered into the book of
Psalms.
7) In the Law of Moses itself, besides the
revelatory aspects of the tabernacle,
priesthood and offerings, there is
to be especially noted the use of the Urim
and Thummim
by the High Priest to determine God's will for His people in
the ordinary questions of
day-to-day life. Unusual also is the example of the
original tables of the law,
written by God's own hand.
The Prophetic Period
The remainder of the O. T. after the Books of
Moses, or Torah, is usually
divided up into the "Prophets" (Nebhiim), and the "Writings" (Kethubhim),
although
some scholars, as Laird Harris, argue that this
division is late.17 Harris argues for an
original two-fold division, reflecting the New
Testament designation of the O.T. as
simply "the law and the prophets." Merrill
F. Unger18 and Edward J. Young19 on the
other hand seem to regard the distinction as in use
at the time of canonization, and
hold that the distinction between the two classes of
books may be that the former
had the office
of prophet, while the latter writers had the gift of
THE
DOCTRINE OF REVELATION AND INSPIRATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 21
prophet, but not the prophetic office. Whichever
position is held, the corresponding
idea obtains: both the Prophets and the Writings
were produced by men who had the
prophetic gift. (A consideration of this in more
detail will be presented in the section
on Inspiration.)
1.
The Prophets
The group which the Massoretic
text calls the "Prophets" divides into two
sections, the Former Prophets and the Latter
Prophets.
In the Former Prophets, consisting of the books
of Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
and Kings, there is usually the simple statement of
fact, "The Lord said to Joshua, "
or "The Lord said to Gideon," etc.,
without any explanation of how the revelation
came. In Joshua 5:13-15 God reveals Himself as
"The Captain of Jehovah's Army,"
and in Judges 2:1, etc., the "Angel of
Jehovah" manifests Himself.
In Samuel, the last judge, comes the rise of the
prophets. It was he who
founded the "schools of the prophets."
Early men who fulfilled this function along
with Samuel were Nathan and Gad. Later men were the
miracle-working Elijah and
Elisha, called upon to
counteract the rising Baalism.
The usual classification of these prophets as
"non-writing" is not valid in any
absolute sense in light of I Chronicles 29:29
which states that Samuel, Nathan, and
Gad
wrote histories which included the acts of David the King.
The Latter Prophets is composed of two groups,
the Major Prophets, as
Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, so named because of their comparatively large books,
and the Minor Prophets, often dubbed "the
Twelve, “Hosea to Malachi. The words
of Amos would express the conviction of these
prophets, both major and minor,
when he wrote of his calling: "The lion hath roared;
who will not fear: The Lord
Jehovah
hath spoken; who can but prophesy?" (3:8).
The institution of prophetism
forms the basis of a study vast in itself. Note
may be made of it in all the standard O. T.
theologies, and in particular in Edward
J.
Young's My Servants Prophets, and
James G. S. S. Thomson's The Old
Testament View of
Revelation.
2.
The Writings
The “Writings" or Kethubhim
consist of our "Poetical Books," plus the
remainder of the historical books, Lamentations,
and Daniel. These books seem
to have been written by men who, while apparently
not usually considered by their
contemporaries as prophets - in the sense
that men like Nathan, Elijah, or Jeremiah
were so considered - yet had a divinely bestowed
gift of prophecy. David exclaimed,
"The
Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was upon
my tongue” (2 Sam.
23:
2). The Psalms thus produced by the Holy Spirit through David were recognized
as such by
class include Solomon, also a ruler, but a recipient
of revelation; Daniel, a statesman
in the court of
will be presented in the next section.
22
GRACE
JOURNAL
Historically speaking, the institution of prophetism ceased with the passing
of Malachi. But it was during the period of
continuing prophetic activity that all of
the books of the O. T. were produced, including the
"Writings," unless we are to
believe the destructive, unbelieving theories of
the modern higher critics, who
operate on the presupposition that the Bible is
a wholly natural book, and that
there can be no such thing as miracle or prophecy.
INSPIRATION
The inspiration of the O. T. is an intriguing
aspect of O. T. theology,
inasmuch as there is no chapter and verse in the
O. T. that says even the
equivalent of, "The O. T. is inspired!” Wherein,
then, lies the foundation
of its implied claim to be an accurate, God-given
record of His self-revelation?
For Christian theology today the obvious answer
is that it is established
by the New Testament, - in fact, by Jesus Christ
Himself, who declared that
"Scripture
cannot be broken” (John
explanation of the origin of the O. T. the Scriptures
are God-breathed, Paul
tells us (2 Tim.
Peter,
so that no word of prophecy originated within any prophet himself (2 Pet.
1:20,
21). But even before these things were spoken by Christ and the Apostles,
wherein lay the claim to inspiration of the O.
T.?
The Basis of O.T. Inspiration
The inspiration and thus the authority of the O.
T. taken by itself lies in
its own teaching, concerning
the institution of prophetism: the prophets spoke
the very words of God, hence, when they wrote down
the message, that written
record was the inspired, authoritative Word of God.
That the prophets claimed to convey the words of
God is taught
overwhelmingly. "Thus saith the Lord" occurs over 3500 times in the O. T.20
Jeremiah
alone declares almost 100 times, “The word of the Lord came unto me.”
Some of the prophets, as Jeremiah and Isaiah,
tell of their being commanded
to commit the word of the Lord to writing (Jer. 36, Isa. 30). Thomson notes
the
advance: "The proclaimed word is now
presented under the form of the written
word.”21 Even Moses was commanded on one
occasion to write "in the book"
(ASV
margin - Ex.
Prophetistic Structure of O.T. Inspiration
The O.T. reveals a prophetistic
structure, in the sense that it is entirely the work of
prophets, beginning with Moses.
1.
Genesis
Moses, the pre-eminent prophet of his own day,
was led by God to write
Genesis
as historical and preliminary to the record of God's dealings with
from
THE
DOCTRINE OF REVELATION AND INSPIRATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 23
Indeed,
the record of Exodus to Deuteronomy and even Joshua would be unintelligible
without the book of Genesis. Contrary to the
radical critics who date the book of origins
much later and consider it to be a patchwork of
conflicting records, the whole foundation
of the exodus from
flood, confusion of tongues, and the promises to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the
isolation of the
twelve sons of Jacob in
2.
Exodus to Deuteronomy
The inspired historian of his own day, Moses the
prophet, wrote Exodus
through Deuteronomy as God communed with him
directly, "face to face"
(Deut.
18, Num. 12). He wrote "in the book" both the events which happened
and their divinely given meaning. Thus Moses
directly authenticates the first five
books as inspired.
3.
Joshua to Malachi
The rest of the O. T. after the Mosaic books may
be affirmed to have
been produced by prophets. While this affirmation is
subject to some dispute,
it is held by many conservative O.T. scholars to
be the key to the canonicity
of the O.T. books.
In the study of canonicity a chief problem is
that of the threefold division
of the O. T. books. In brief, what is the determining
principle which placed the
non-pentateuchal books in either the
"Prophets" or the "Writings?" Unger discusses
three critical theories: that the division represents
three degrees of inspiration, that
it is due to different stages or time periods of
canonization, or that it is based on
differences of material content: He concludes that
"the threefold division is due
to the official position and status of the writers
and not to degrees of inspiration,
differences of content or chronology.”22
Unger holds that the "Writings" ". . . are
thus grouped because the writers had the prophetic
gift, but not the prophetic
office (e.g., David, Solomon, Daniel and Ezra)
[italics his].”23
Edward J. Young takes somewhat the same
position. He holds that
the books which belong to
this third division of the canon were written by
men inspired of God who
nevertheless did not occupy the office of prophet.
Some of the authors, however, such as David and
Daniel, did possess the
prophetic gift although not
occupying the official status of prophet.24
Concerning the "Former Prophets,
"Joshua through Samuel, which are
actually historical books, Young writes,
When men of the status of prophets wrote an
interpretive history of
it may readily be
understood why such a history would be accepted by the
Israelitish church [sic.] as the Word of God. For in their interpretation of
history, these authors often
profess to speak as in the Name of God. These
writings, therefore, are
historical in character and profess to trace the
hand of God in
24
GRACE JOURNAL
It is R. Laird Harris who develops most fully
this prophetic basis of
canonicity and inspiration. Central to his
development is his insistence that proper
attention be given to canonicity in discussing
inspiration: “To show what is inspired
is as vital as to know the nature of inspiration.”26
After showing that Moses
produced the first five books, Harris emphasizes the
on-going prophetic function
in
evidently wrote a chain of histories from Genesis
to Nehemiah and the writings
of these prophets were accepted, one by one,
through the centuries until, when
the spirit of prophecy departed from
Josephus
to this effect: "It is true our history hath been written since Artaxerxes
very particularly but hath not been esteemed of the
like authority with the former
by our forefathers, because there: hath not been
an exact succession of prophets
since that time.”29 Harris cites further
evidence from I Maccabees, The Dead Sea
Manual of Discipline, and the Talmud.
It must be noted that Harris has argued for a
twofold division of the canon,
holding that the division of the O. T. into the
Law, Prophets, and Writings is late,
and that it is simply “the Law and the
Prophets" in the period of canonization down
to New Testament times.
On page 170 and following Harris takes up
objections to this position, the
main one being that
"one cannot prove that all the Old Testament books were of
prophetic authorship.” He sets forth his
disagreement with Edward J. Young, who,
with Green (and Unger) suggests a distinction
between prophetic office and prophetic
gift. Harris challenges this distinction by noting
that the New Testament writers
regularly refer to the O. T. other than the
Pentateuch as simply "the Prophets.” Of
a dozen examples in the New Testament, half are
in the words of Christ Himself,
who groups in the same category as
"prophets" Ezra, Samuel, Job, Isaiah and
Daniel.
"Daniel and David," writes Harris, "are specifically called
prophets in the
New
Testament without a suggestion of any distinction between 'gift' and 'office'
(Matt. 24:15; Acts
of the prophets" refers to the O. T. as a
whole. The criticism is also challenged on
the basis of the
A second stage in Harris' argument is that most
of the books probably
were actually written by prophets. David is twice
called a Man of God in
Nehemiah
12 (also in 2 Chron.
out, is probably never used in the O. T. except as
a synonym for prophet.32
Since
God told Moses He would speak to prophets by a dream or vision, or
through seeing the similitude of the Lord (Num.
12:8), Joshua, Solomon, Daniel
and others would fit this description of a prophet,
even by the evidence which has
come down to us. And since this "practical and
reasonable test of canonicity. . .
could have been applied by all the generations of the
Jews," we may assume that
even Judges, Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Esther and Job were not admitted
until such a test was applied in their day.33
By way of comparison, it may be seen that these
men differ on whether
there were originally two or three divisions of the
Hebrew canon, and to what
extent books now classified as "Writings"
may be ascertained to have been written
by "prophets,” and whether there were official
and non-official prophets. On the
other hand, they agree that the O.T. is essentially the
production of men who had
the prophetic gift, and were inspired to record the
very Word of God. This latter
concept, as we have stated, is the essence of O.
T. inspiration.
THE
DOCTRINE OF REVELATION AND INSPIRATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 25
Several things may be noted at this point.
First, the fact that the Septuagint
does not have the threefold division observed by the
Massoretic text may be strong
evidence that the distinction was not made at the
time the books were recognized
as canonical. Archer warns against making
deductions concerning the canonization
of the books based on the divisions of the Massoretic text, since this division "is
obviously not pre-Christian in its origin.”34
Thus one might argue that the Massoretes
merely organized the books into divisions based on the
authors whom they
recognized as being "official" prophets,
and classified all they could not so recognize
(with the exception of some such as Lamentations which was
used for liturgical
purposes and was therefore classed with the Megilloth, even
though Jeremiah, an
official prophet, was known to be its author) as
being "Writings." Thus Unger's
argument makes too much of the late opinion of Massoretes in determining the
early process of canonization.35 There are, however, references in the
pre-Christian
Apocrypha
which might be used to argue that besides the books of Moses and the
prophets there were "other books of our
Fathers."36
Another point is that it does seem to this
writer that a case might be built
for distinguishing between men like Daniel and
David, who had a prophetic gift
and were so used by God, while their main function
lay in another realm, and
men like Nathan and Isaiah, whom we can think of in
no other official way but
as a prophet to their nation. Whether this
distinction can be shown to have been
consciously employed in the minds of the Hebrew
people from the time of
Samuel
to Malachi is another question.
A last point in this connection is that the
words of Christ in Luke 24:44
do not necessarily demand a threefold division of
the O.T. canon. Even Unger,
who otherwise holds a threefold division, suggests
the possibility "that Jesus
used the terminology in special reference to the
Psalms only, as containing
notable