Grace Journal 7.3 (Fall, 1966) 3-12. [1
of 2]
[Copyright © 1966
Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
SCRIPTURE--GOD-BREATHED AND PROFITABLE
EDWARD J. YOUNG
Professor of Old
Testament
In any study of the nature of Biblical
inspiration one naturally turns to
2
Timothy 3: 16. The passage is clear cut
and constitutes a ringing declaration of
the Divine authorship of Scripture. Hence it is
easy to understand why this verse
is greatly loved by Christians and why they turn
to it when they desire again to be
reminded that the Book which brings so much
blessing to them is a gift of God
Himself.
If we turn to this passage, however, a charge
may very well be laid against us.
It
will be said that we are paying attention to the teaching of Scripture at the
expense
of its phenomena or characteristics. "You
listen only to the doctrine which Scripture
teaches about itself," so the charge runs,
"but you pay no heed to the facts or the
phenomena of Scripture. If you would begin your
study with the phenomena of the
Bible
you would obtain a very different picture from that which you receive when
you pay attention only to what the Bible says about
itself." This charge is often raised
in our day against those who are concerned to
defend the full and complete authority
of Scripture. It is, of course, not a recent
charge. It was made even in the days of
Benjamin
B. Warfield, and he regarded it necessary even in his
day to refute it.
At first glance, it might appear that there is
some justification for the position
that the teaching of the Bible and its phenomena are
to be placed upon a par each
with the other, and that the phenomena of Scripture
should be just as regulative of
an acceptable doctrine of Scripture as the express
teaching thereof. A little reflection,
however, should make clear how untenable and
unjustified such a position really is.
On the airplane I fall into conversation with
the man in the seat next to me.
He
introduces himself as a Mr. Smith from
his way to
Normally,
we assume that a person is telling the truth unless there be convincing
reason to the contrary. But, for the sake of the
argument, I am unwilling to accept
Mr. Smith's testimony. For one thing he speaks
with a Southern accent; again I
notice that the last initial on his briefcase is not
S, but B, and finally I happen to
note that he holds an airline ticket between
Smith
and from them conclude that he is not from
way to
dictates that I keep my findings to myself. But I
am quite convinced that a study
of the "phenomena" has given me the
truth about Mr. Smith or whatever his
name is, and I am sure that I have been far more
scientific and scholarly in my
procedure than a poor extreme fundamentalist who
naively accepts Mr. Smith's
words at
3
4
GRACE
JOURNAL
face value. A study of the phenomena has contradicted
the testimony of Mr. Smith.
His
statements about himself are not to be trusted. The "phenomena" have
disproved
them. It is a comfortable feeling to be so up to
date.
As our flight progresses, however, Mr. Smith
speaks further. I learn that
he has only lived in
He
shows me pictures of his birthplace and tells me that he has recently visited
it.
There
was, it seems, a family reunion, and there is Mr. Smith in the midst of it.
There
are photographs of himself, and these bear his name.
The mystery is beginning
to clear. As we talk I learn that he is meeting a
friend in
them plan to make a leisurely business trip from
I
learn that the briefcase belongs not to Mr. Smith but to the friend, and that
Mr.
Smith
is carrying it to
Thus, my study of the "phenomena,"
interesting and "objective" as it was,
led to wholly wrong conclusions. And the reason why
it led to such wrong conclusions
was that I did not know enough to judge the
"phenomena" correctly. By my study of
the "phenomena" I had concluded that Mr.
Smith was not telling the truth, and this
was an utterly unjustified procedure by my study of
the "phenomena" I did Mr. Smith
a grave injustice.
It may be well to note that certain assumptions
underlie the position that
man by a study of the phenomena of Scripture is
capable of passing judgment
upon these phenomena and so upon Scripture itself.
And the fundamental assumption,
often uncritically adopted, is that the mind of man,
without the assistance of divine
revelation, can make pronouncements as to whether
certain parts of the Bible are
from God or not. Even the study of textual questions
can only be ultimately fruitful
if it be based upon theistic presuppositions. And
a philosophy of error can only have
meaning if it be grounded upon the truth. Man of
himself does not know enough
assert that there are errors in Scripture. If we
assume that we may set ourselves
up as judges of the Bible, what we are in reality
doing is declaring ourselves wiser
than God. Scripture speaks of itself as
"God-breathed;" we assert that we know
enough to belie its claim.
And this brings us to the heart of the
matter. The idea that a study of
the phenomena of Scripture as opposed to mere
acceptance of the teaching of
Scripture
can bring us to a true view of the Bible leads inevitably to the conclusion
that the teaching of the Bible concerning itself is
in error and must be corrected. It
produces the conclusion that the Bible is at
bottom wrong about itself, and that we
must revise its teaching on this point. This can
hardly be regarded as a satisfactory
conclusion, for if Scripture is fundamentally
mistaken about itself, how do we know
that it is correct in anything else that it teaches?
The Bible asserts that it is "God-breathed,"
but we have checked up on it and we find that that
characterization will not apply. The
Bible
has deceived us in telling us about itself, and our study of the phenomena has
compelled us to modify the teaching which the
Bible gives us as to its own nature.
Such
is the sad conclusion to which one must inevitably come if he engages in a study
of the "phenomena" of the Bible instead
of willingly accepting the Bible's claims
concerning itself.
There is of course a proper method of examining
the "phenomena" of
Scripture
and that is to study them in the light of Scripture's
doctrine of itself. If we
do this we shall see that the so-called phenomena,
when properly interpreted, simply
support the doctrine of Scripture about itself.
It is this procedure which devout
exegetes and apologists are constantly
SCRIPTURE--GOD BREATHED AND PROFITABLE 5
engaged in. It is a procedure which leads one to
see how the phenomena of the Bible
are to be understood and how they really support
the claims of Scripture. We are far
from being opposed to a study of the Scriptural
phenomena, but we insist that such
study must build upon a right foundation. To build
upon a wrong foundation, as so
many do, can lead only to a rejection of Scripture's doctrine about itself. The result
is a Bible that is untrustworthy as a teacher of
doctrine.
The Structure of 2 Timothy 3:16
We make no apology, therefore, for turning to
the teaching of Scripture,
and when we know what this teaching is we can in
its light examine the Scriptural
phenomena to our heart's content. Our attention at
present, however, is to be limited
to one particular passage, which has often been
studied. There is, however, need for
a reconsideration of this passage, for it has
recently become the object of strange
interpretations.
The King James Version renders 2 Timothy 3:16,
"All scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness." The English
Revised Version gives: "Every scripture
inspired of God is
also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction which is in righteousness." A
footnote, however, suggests the reading
as an alternative, "Every scripture is
inspired of God, and profitable. . ." The American
Standard
Version is the same as the English even to the point of giving an identical
footnote. The Revised Standard Version is closer
to the King James, "All scripture
is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness." The New English
Bible gives, "Every inspired scripture
has its use for teaching the truth and refuting
error, or for reformation of manners
and discipline in right living." The New
American Standard Bible renders, "All
Scripture
is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
for training in righteousness." To this
translation there are three interesting marginal
notes appended; 1. "Or possibly, Every Scripture
inspired by God is also. . .;"
2.
"Lit., God-breathed;" 3. "Lit. “training
which is in. . ."
Perhaps it will not be out of place to note a
few more translations. Phillips
gives, "All scripture is inspired by God and is
useful for teaching the faith and
correcting error, for resetting the direction of a
man's life and training him in good
living."
teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
instruction in right doing." The version
authorized by the Hierarchy of England and
renders: "Everything in the Scripture has
been divinely inspired, and has its uses;
to instruct us, to expose our errors, to correct
our faults, to educate us in holy
living." Goodspeed, in
the American translation, gives, "All Scripture is divinely
inspired, and useful
in teaching, in reproof, in correcting faults, and in training
in uprightness." Lastly, we may note the
rendering of the
Scripture
is inspired of God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness."
Here, indeed, is considerable variety in
translation. At the same time, it is interest-
ing to note that each of
these translations uses the English word "scripture." None of them
6
GRACE
JOURNAL
renders the word graphe as "writing,"
but each is apparently convinced that the apostle
speaking of Scripture. It will be well then to
examine the grammatical structure of the
verse somewhat carefully in order that we may more
clearly understand what it is that
Paul
asserts concerning the Scripture.
The first question which calls for attention
revolves about the point whether
theonpeustos is an attributive
adjective modifying graphe
or whether it is a predicative
adjective other words, is Paul saying, "All
Scripture inspired of God is also profitable,"
or is his meaning, "All Scripture is inspired
of God and is also profitable." Of the
translations given above we may note
that the English Revised Version, the American
Standard
Version, and the New English Bible take theopneustos as
an attributive
adjective, although the two revisions do offer
footnotes in which the word is construed
as a predicative. The New English Bible is very
free.1
If the word kai be omitted from the text then
it would seem that theopneustos
is to be construed as an attributive; although we
might in that case expect it to precede
the noun. In that case the text might be
translated, "All inspired Scripture is profitable."
Luther
seems to have taken it in this sense, "all Scripture inspired by God
is." But is
there good textual warrant for thus omitting the
conjunction? Kai is lacking in the
Syriac2
and in some of the Church Fathers. Nestle does not
mention any manuscripts in which
it is missing. Textual evidence then would argue
for the presence of kai
and there is no
sufficient reason for not retaining it.
Now, it is the presence of this word kai which renders
difficult the construction of
theopneustos as an attributive, for
if theopneustos
is an attributive then kai
must be
rendered in English as "also." The
whole must then be translated, "All scripture inspired
of God is also profitable, " or conceivably,
if kai be
given ascensive sense, "All scripture
inspired of God is even profitable." It
cannot be denied that these translations create
difficulty for they appear to be saying something
that is practically pointless. Why (to
note the ascensive use
of kai) should Paul say that all
inspired Scripture is even profitable?
Is
not the word "even" superfluous? What does it contribute to the
thought? Is not the
simple declaration "All Scripture inspired of God
is profitable" for stronger and more
effective than the statement "All Scripture
inspired of God is even profitable”?
Suppose, however, we give to the word kai the force of
"also" which is what
we really must do if we regard theopneustos as a predicate. Does
not the sentence then
become somewhat pointless?3 “Also" suggests an addition to something
just mentioned.
If
Scripture is "also profitable," in addition to what else is Scripture
profitable? Paul might
conceivably have said "All Scripture inspired
of God is holy and also profitable." This
would yield good sense, but merely to assert that
"Scripture is also profitable" is really
pointless. For these reasons we feel compelled to
construe theopneustos
as a predicative
adjective. Paul is then making two assertions
concerning the Scripture. In the first place
he declares that Scripture is theopneustos and secondly that it
is profitable.
The question now arises whether we should render
the introductory words, "every
Scripture" or "all Scripture." And in seeking to
answer this question we must also ask
in what sense the word graphe is to be understood? Does
it refer to individual passages
of the Scrip-
SCRIPTURE--GOD BREATHED AND PROFITABLE 7
ture, as when our Lord says,
"Today is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke
or does it refer to the entirety of Scripture? The
preceding verse, in which Paul is speaking
of the "holy Scriptures," would seem to
show that he here has in mind all Scripture. Yet
one cannot be dogmatic upon this point. If Paul has
in mind each individual passage of
Scripture
he is then considering the Scripture distributively.
He is then saying in effect
that whatever passage of Scripture one consider,
that Scripture is inspired of God. If,
on the other hand, as is more likely, it is all
Scripture of which he speaks, he is then
declaring that the entirety of Scripture is
inspired of God. The definite article is missing
and this is a factor which would argue in favor of
'every.' At the same time this
consideration is not decisive, for
there are cases where pas is used
without the definite
article and the meaning 'every' is not
acceptable.
Happily, it does not essentially affect the
thought. In either case Paul is asserting
the inspiration of the Scripture. Whether we
consider Scripture piece by piece or whether
we look at it in its entirety the Scripture is
inspired by God and it is profitable. These
two predicates apply to all that can be denominated
"Scripture."
God-Breathed and Profitable Scripture
It is necessary now to consider the two
predicates which Paul attributes to the
Scriptures. In the first place we have the word theopneustos
about which there is much
discussion. Since the learned studies of the late
Benjamin B. Warfield, however, there
can be little serious question as to the actual
meaning of the word.4 To say that Scripture
is theopneustos is to assert that it is God-breathed. This, of
course, is not universally
acknowledged. The recent lexicon of
Bauer, translated into English by Arndt and Gingrich
merely gives the translation, “inspired by God,"
and shows no evidence of having used
Warfield's work. This is truly
disappointing, for it is misleading.
The word "inspiration" has entered the
English language, it would seem, through
the French, and ultimately derives from the Latin.
In Latin the infinitive spirare
means
"to breathe" or "to blow.” From this basic meaning
there are certain connotations, such
as, for example, the usage in Horace, quod spiro, et placeo, si placeo,
tuum est, where
the word seems to mean "to be poetically
inspired." In combination with the preposition
"in,”
the infinitive means "to breathe into," and it is precisely this
thought which the English
word "inspiration" denotes.
To speak of the inspiration of the Bible then,
is to speak of a book into which
something has been breathed or, if we wish to make
the genitive subjective, a book which
breathes something into someone else. Let us
examine these two views briefly. If the phrase,
the inspiration of the Bible designates inspiration
which the Bible produces in others, it is
tantamount to saying that the Bible is an inspiring
book. The Bible, on this view, in one
way or another inspires men. This, of course, is true, the Bible does inspire men as perhaps
nothing else can do or has done. There is much
that can be said about the inspiration which
men have received
from the Bible.
Suppose, however, that in the phrase, "the
inspiration of the Bible," the genitive is
objective? This would mean that the Bible is a
body of writings into which something had
been
8
GRACE
JOURNAL
breathed. Some quality of divinity, we may
suppose, had been breathed by God into these
writings which rendered them distinct from other
writings. On this interpretation of the
phrase, we are apparently to understand that the
Scriptures are writings produced by
men just as other writings are, but that somehow
God breathed into them something
which renders them different. These are the
alternatives which appear to be open to us
if we render the word theopneustos by
"inspiration."
Which of these alternatives should we adopt? The
answer is that we should adopt
neither, for the word "inspiration"
does not accurately represent Paul's thought. That the
Arndt-Gingrich
lexicon should so cavalierly treat the subject is a disservice to those who
may use the lexicon. There is no point in repeating
or in rehearsing the arguments which
Dr.
Warfield has adduced to support the correct meaning of the word, but we may
confidently assert that the word means
"God-breathed," and this is something quite
different from what is meant by the English word
"inspiration."
Paul is not asserting that Scripture is
inspiring, true as that may be, nor is he
declaring that something has been breathed into
Scripture. What he is saying is something
quite different; what Paul is maintaining is that the
Scripture itself is God breathed. That
which God breathed forth from His mouth is Scripture.
To put the matter in slightly
different terms). Scripture is the Word, which God
has spoken, the product of the Divine
breath.
What Paul is declaring is the Divine origin of
Scripture. Some apparently think
that there is no need to make such an assertion at
this point, but it is precisely this truth
which undergirds the
following truth, namely, that all Scripture is profitable. If the Bible
is not divine, then we cannot be sure that all of
it is profitable.
We must, however, examine this thought of the
Divine origin of Scripture more
closely.
In Genesis 1:3 God said, "Let there be light,
" and these words originated in the
Divine mouth. They were spoken of
God, and it is just this thought which Paul is
expressing to Timothy. By way of illustration we
may also note the preface to the Ten
Commandments,
"And God spoke all these words saying." Here the commandments
are clearly attributed to God as their author. He
spoke them, and it is in this divine
speaking that they found their origin.
Isaiah uses a phrase--indeed it is a
characteristic of his prophecy, which sets forth
the same truth, "The mouth of the Lord hath
spoken it." We might go on through the
Old
Testament, pointing out how in passage after passage the content of Scripture
is
attributed to God's speech.
How different Paul's emphasis is from much that
is stressed today! At the present
time there is much stress placed upon the so-called
human side of the Bible. It is being
asserted, for example, that if one is to
understand a passage of Scripture, he must know
the life situation in which the events recorded
arose. This is to concentrate attention upon
the human side. Little is said today about
Scripture as a Divine revelation, and that little
often presents a faulty picture of revelation.
As over against this modern emphasis the great
Apostle turns all his attention to
what modern man would minimize, namely, the divine
origin of Scripture. Having once
established
SCRIPTURE--GOD BREATHED AND PROFITABLE 9
this point he can go on, but this point must be
established: All Scripture is God-breathed,
the product of the Divine breath, issuing from the
mouth of God Himself.
Having ascertained the meaning of Paul's first
predicate, we may proceed to notice
the second. All too often discussion restricts
itself to the word theopneustos
with the result
that the profound truth expressed by the second
predicate is either neglected or minimized.
Not
only is the Scripture God-breathed, but it is also ophelimos which may be translated
"profitable, useful, advantageous." The usage of the
verb opheleo
is well known, as is also
that of the noun opheleia.
When Paul asks (Rom. 3:1) "What is the use
of circumcision?" he simply means,
"How
can circumcision aid or benefit you?" And so in this present passage he is
speaking
of the fact that the Scripture brings benefit or
profit to those who read it. Doubtless the
second predicate stands as a consequence to the first,
and it would not be incorrect to reason,
"Inasmuch
as Scripture is God-breathed, it is also profitable.” The usefulness of the
Bible,
in other words, derives from the fact that it is
the Word of God. Were that not the case, it
would be just an ordinary human book, whose usefulness
could well be questioned.
What is now particularly significant to note is
Paul's affirmative that all Scripture
is
profitable. The implications of this assertion are
often overlooked or ignored they are of
far-reaching significance. The
predicate which Paul employs, like the first predicate, applies
to the entirety of Scripture. There is nothing
which can rightly be designated Scripture which
is not also
profitable in the respects stated in this verse.
This truth strikes hard at the practical use which
many of us make of the Bible. Our
reading and study of Scripture, all too often,
is merely piece-meal. We have favorite passages
which we read over and over again, but large portions
of the Scriptures are neglected by us.
Although
we may pay lip-service to the teaching of Paul we do not carry it out into
practice.
Far more serious, however, is another aspect of
the question. It is one thing in practice
to neglect certain portions of Scripture. That is
bad. Far worse, however, is it when we
deliberately assert that not all of
Scripture is profitable. Question has been raised, for example,
with respect to the book of Esther: Why is the book
of Esther in the canon? Did God place it
in the canon in order to teach divine providence,
or inasmuch as they find it in the canon, and
the question of its canonicity seems to be somewhat
of a dead letter nowadays, do Christians
simply assert that because the book teaches divine
providence, it therefore has a right to a
place in the canon? Recently Professor Dewey Beegle has suggested that both Jeremiah and
Ezekiel
quite clearly teach the fact of God's providential care and asks whether it
is"—really
necessary, therefore, to contend for the unique
inspiration of every word of Esther?"5
This type of objection requires comment with
respect to several points, which we
shall consider in a practical, if not necessarily a
logical order. In the first place, there is the
question of canonicity, and this question is not
immediately germane to our purpose. That
which determines the canonicity of a book is the fact
that it is God-breathed. If a book is the
Word
of God, it is ipso facto canonical.
In the course of the collection of the canonical books
questions have naturally arisen concerning some
books, and Esther is one of these. But is not
10
GRACE
JOURNAL
the fact that the debate about Esther has largely
died down an argument in favor of
the book’s inclusion in the canon?"
We are fully aware of the difficulties involved
in the Scriptural doctrine of the
canon and have sought to discuss them elsewhere. But
we believe that the church has
been right in placing its approval upon this book
and accepting it as a portion of the Old
Testament. Despite the rabbinical discussions
concerning this book, there is no sufficient
warrant for not believing that when our Lord
placed His approval upon the Old
Testament
canon of His day, the book of Esther was included in that canon.
The question of the canon is not the immediate
point involved, however. What
is involved is simply
whether all Scripture is profitable or not. It is sometimes assumed
that, if all Scripture is profitable, we should
therefore at a glance be able to tell precisely
how this is so. Professor Beegle
mentions certain passages which he calls Trivialities.
Among
these are listed the "Shibboleth" incident of Judges 12:5,6; the case of Ibzan,
Judges
12:8-10; and Abdon, Judges
no particular value
for us today? Apparently Professor Beegle would answer this
question in the affirmative, and doubtless others
would agree with him.6
It is well to notice, however, that the human
mind, apart from God's revelation,
is in no position to judge as to whether each
particular passage of Scripture is profitable
or not. God
has declared that all Scripture is profitable. Shall we believe Him or not?
This
is the heart of the issue. Who is to decide whether Scripture in its entirety
is for
our profit? This is a question which man alone cannot
resolve. Professor Beegle might
restrict his questions to a few passages such as
those mentioned above. There are
others, however, who are not as concerned about
Christ's work as is Professor
Beegle, and they would not hesitate to enlarge greatly
the list of passages which
are to be dismissed as supposedly non-profitable.
The position of faith is the only possible
position for the man who wishes
to be true to his Lord. To deny that all Scripture
is profitable is to deny that God
has spoken the truth. We are not called upon to
point out in what respect every
passage of the Bible is profitable for us any
more than we are required to give a
final interpretation of every verse of the Bible or a
final explanation of every
difficulty in Scripture.
A man might conceivably list every verse of the
Bible which he did not
fully understand and then reject it as of little or
no profit. "If we do not understand
something," it might argued, "how shall
we benefit from it?" If we were to follow
this procedure, it would mean the casting aside of a
great deal of Scripture. Yet
few would want to engage in a procedure a such as
this. Why then should we
regard as unprofitable or why should we deny
profitability to certain passages
of Scripture on the grounds that we do not see how
such passages can be of profit?
There is one point about the Shibboleth incident
that is deserving of
notice in this connection. The Ephraimites
had grossly insulted the Gileadites
and were severely beaten in battle. The Gileadites then took the fords of the
to their homes.
Inasmuch as the Gileadites had control of the river
they tested
each man who sought to cross to discover whether he
was an Ephraimite
SCRIPTURE--GOD BREATHED AND PROFITABLE 11
or not. Apparently the Ephraimites
were unable to pronounce "sh," and so, when
the word “Shibboleth" was set before them,
they pronounced "sibboleth" instead,
thus giving themselves away. The result was that
during the war some 42,000 of
the Ephraimites fell.
That the Ephraimites pronotmced "sh" like
"s" is quite interesting, but the
incident is instructive also. It simply is
illustrative of the difficulty which the people
of God had in establishing themselves in the land
of promise. The great lesson which
God's
people at that time had to learn--indeed, the lesson which they need at all
times to learn--is that the promise of salvation is
to be received as a gift of grace
and not a reward of merit. To obtain the promise
the people of God are not to
employ the wisdom of the world. More specifically, to
establish themselves in
the holy land, the people were not to employ the
methods and practices of the
world. When Jephthah had
appealed to the Ephraimites to fight against the
Ammonites,
for some reason they did not heed that appeal. They had no warrant,
as far as we can tell, for rising against the Gileadites, and now their actions rebound
upon them. "They that live by the sword shall
die by the sword." The Shibboleth
incident resulted in a great destruction for the Ephraimites.
Ephraim had used worldly wisdom--or at least she
had not relied upon
God, and her actions had backfired. She had not
become a blessing to those round
about her; she acted as the people of the covenant
should not act. Her reliance
was not placed in the promises of God but in
herself. Her defiance and haughtiness
toward
suffered, and the Shibboleth incident is the mark
of her ignominious defeat.
Without this episode at the crossing we should
not realize the disgrace that
fell at that time upon Ephraim. In the total picture
the incident has its place, and
it is a significant place. Like many other details
it goes to fill out the picture and
contributes its share toward making clear that at
that time the covenant people
had not learned their need wholly to trust in their
God.
This Shibboleth incident contributes to our
understanding of the period
and thus plays its part in making clear that the
events recorded in the Old
Testament are historical. Here there
is further evidence that we are dealing
with historical matters. This is an emphasis sorely
needed at present when
men are seeking to retain the content of
Christianity and yet divorce it from
its historical roots.
Perhaps we may not be able in every instance to
discern wherein
Scripture
is profitable. Further study on our part, however, will clear up many
difficulties. May our lives be
devoted to the study of the Scriptures for they
in their entirety are God-breathed and they are
profitable.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
This translation rests upon the text pasa graphe theopneustos ophelimos, etc. R. V. G.
Tasker:
The Greek New Testament,
2.
We may transliterate: kul ketol daberuho’ ‘etketeb,
mauterona’ (h)w
etc.
3.
Huther seems to suggest that kai
is confirmative. On this view it would be rendered
“indeed” or
something similar. Cf. J. E. Huther: Critical and Exegetical
Handbook of the Epistles of St. Paul, in Meyer’s Commentary.
MDCCCLXXXI, p. 307.3
4.
Benjamin B. Warfield: “God-inspired Scripture” in The Inspiration and Authority of
the Bible,
5.
Dewey M. Beegle: The
Inspiration of Scripture.
6.
Op. cit., p. 88.6
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary