Biblical Inerrancy and Bible Exposition: A Match Made In Heaven by Daniel L. Akin Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Introduction 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5 reads: But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing 14 from who you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the 15 sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for 16 correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, 17 equipped for every good work. [Therefore, grounded and rooted in this theological conviction about the Bible] I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and 1 the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season 2 and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For 3 the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn 4 away their ears from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, 5 always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. In 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5 Paul weds the issues of the Bible‘s inspiration and Scripture exposition. He addresses how the church should teach, preach, do evangelism and carry out faithful ministry. Drawing a contrast between us and the ―evil people and imposters‖ who deceive and are being deceived (v.13), Paul makes clear his convictions concerning 1) the reality of truth, 2) the Bible‘s divine inspiration, (and as a necessary and logical corollary the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture) and 3) the necessity of biblical exposition. Amazingly, the relationship of inerrancy and biblical exposition is receiving scant attention at this meeting. This, I believe, is a tell-tale sign of a serious problem for the 2 academy and the body of Christ. It is hard to believe this is where we are given the battles many of us have fought over the last 30 plus years. Al Mohler correctly observes, ―Preaching has fallen on hard times. That‘s the impression you would gain by listening to much of what passes for preaching in American pulpits. Something is clearly missing—and that missing element is the deep passion for biblical exposition that always characterizes the great preachers of an era. Today, the church is still blessed by outstanding expositors, but they are too few. Many preachers lack adequate models and mentors, and they find themselves hungry for a homiletical model who can both inspire and instruct.‖ (Charles Haddon Spurgeon – A Passion for Preaching, Part One 9-20-04. Weblog) My goal in this paper is to argue for a necessary relationship between inerrancy and exposition. I will begin by drawing from portions of the 2 Chicago Statements on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics. I will then conclude with necessary entailments of this synergistic relationship. I believe nothing less than the life of the church is at stake. I. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Exposition The Chicago Statement on Bible Inerrancy was drafted Oct. 26-28, 1978. In ―A Short Statement‖ that proceeds the 19 ―Articles of Affirmation and Denial‖ the issue of truth is addressed, and its relationship to the doctrine of the Christian God is established: ―God who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself…Holy Scripture is God‘s witness to Himself.‖ Article IV is also important at this point. It reads: ―We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God‘s work of Inspiration.‖ 3 Rooted and grounded in nearly 2000 years of Christian history and tradition, these statements have several implications for the issue of truth in the context of evangelical confession and biblical exposition. I note 5: 1) God exists. 2) God is singular and a God of truth. 3) God is a talking God, He speaks. 4) The Bible is the unique, specific and crucial place where this talking God speaks. God has not left Himself without a witness, a witness that is reliable and true because the ultimate source of this witness is God Himself, the God of truth. 5) Humans, as image-bearers of God, are fitted to receive this communication of truth by the speaking God. Can fallen, finite humanity know perfectly what this infinite God has said? No. Can humans know truly and genuinely what the infinite God has said? Yes. The nature of God as a truth-revealer and the nature of man as a truth-receiver would indicate that this is so. What the Bible says the God of truth says. What the God of truth says humanity can receive, hear, understand, and obey. That which connects God and humanity is His Word faithfully and truly expounded by His equipped and prepared workmen who rightly divide his Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). II. True Truth and Its Relation to Biblical Inerrancy When I was a student at SWBTS in the early 1980‘s, I took OT Introduction from a doctoral student. It soon became evident that he was not committed to the full inerrancy of Scripture and that he had been significantly influenced, in a negative fashion, by historical critical methods. After debating inspiration issues on several 4 occasions early in the semester, he decided to set aside one specific class for the purpose of discussing the issues of biblical inspiration and inerrancy. In that class he noted that many persons argue deductively for inerrancy, and that they do so in the following manner: MP) God is a God of truth. mp) The Bible is God‘s Word. -Therefore- Conclusion) The Bible is true (e.g. inerrant and infallible) Surprisingly, he did not attempt to analyze or refute the argument but simply moved on to address portions of Scripture (problem texts) that he believed were problematic for the doctrine of inerrancy. This trend continues today as we all know, althought nothing new has been forthcoming. He did not examine the Bible‘s own witness to itself, especially the testimony of Jesus (Matthew 5:17-18; John 10:35; 17:17), Paul (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and Peter (2 Peter 1:20-21). He equated classic inerrancy with ―mechanical dictation‖ (or what some have called ―absolute inerrancy‖). He then moved to argue for what certain scholars have called ―limited inerrancy or functional inerrancy,‖ that is the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and practice, but it may contain errors of fact, particularly in the areas of science or history. However, Scripture did secure truthful teaching about belief and behavior. The Bible is faithful to bring people to salvation and growth in grace. The Bible accomplishes its PURPOSE without fail. It is faithfully true, but we go too far to say it is factually true. 5 My professor did not offer as an option the view represented in the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, what some have called ―Critical or Natural Inerrancy.‖ This view, as summarized by David Dockery:  Makes cautious use of critical methodologies such as source, form, redaction, genre and literary criticism. And, I might add, it rejoices in the great gains made in textual criticism.  Affirms the truth of everything in the Bible to the degree of precision intended by the authors.  Often recognizes biblical references to scientific matters as phenomenal (how they appeared to the writer).  Does not seek to harmonize every detail of Scripture because it recognizes that the author wrote for different purposes. Going to the Chicago Statement itself we find the following reasoning for this position. From the Short Statement we read: 1) Holy Scripture, being God‘s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches; it is to be believed, as God‘s instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God‘s command, in all that it requires; as God‘s pledge, in all that it promise. 2) The Holy Spirit, Scripture‘s Divine Author, both authenticates it to us by his inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning. 3) Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God‘s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God‘s saving grace in individual lives. 4) The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible‘s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church. Then in the Articles of Affirmation and Denial, the Short Statement is carefully fleshed out. The theological vision, clarity and precision is a piece of healthy doctrinal reflection worthy of our most careful consideration. Note the following 9 articles in the context of this paper: 6 Article III ―We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.‖ Article VI ―We affirm that the whole Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.‖ Article IX ―We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God‘s Word.‖ Article XI ―We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.‖ Article XII ―We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.‖ 7 Article XIII ―We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational description of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, and topical arrangement of materials, variant selections of material in parallel accounts or the use of free citations.‖ Article XV ―We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration. We deny that Jesus‘ teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.‖  (The Christological connection to inerrancy and its importance should not be overlooked, underestimated or misrepresented!) Article XVI ―We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church‘s faith throughout its history. We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.‖ Article XVII ―We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God‘s written Word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.‖ In November 1982 ―A Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics‖ was formulated and added by the ICBI. A number of these statements are particularly important in relation to Biblical Exposition. The framers understood that, ―while we recognize that belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is basic to maintaining its authority, the values of the commitment 8 are only as real as one‘s understanding of the meaning of Scripture.‖ Important for our purposes are the following 9 statements of affirmation and denial. Article VI ―We affirm that the Bible expresses God‘s truth in propositional statements, and we declare that Biblical truth is both objective and absolute. We further affirm that a statement is true if it represents matters as they actually are, but is an error if it misrepresents the facts. We deny that, while Scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation, Biblical truth should be defined in terms of this function. We further deny that error should be defined as that which willfully deceives.‖ Article VII ―We affirm that the meaning expressed in each Biblical text is single, definite and fixed. We deny that the recognition of this single meaning eliminates the variety of its application.‖ Article X ―We affirm that Scripture communicates God‘s truth to us verbally through a wide variety of literary forms. We deny that any of the limits of human language render Scripture inadequate to convey God‘s message.‖ Article XIV “We affirm that the Biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact. We deny that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the Biblical writers and by the traditions they incorporated.‖ Article XV ―We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. 9 We deny the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.‖ Article XVII ―We affirm the unity, harmony and consistency of Scripture and declare that it is its own best interpreter. We deny that Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that one passage corrects or militates against another. We deny that later writers of Scripture misinterpreted earlier passages of Scripture when quoting from or referring to them.‖ Article XVIII ―We affirm that the Bible‘s own interpretation of itself is always correct, never deviating from, but rather elucidating, the single meaning of the inspired text. The single meaning of a prophet‘s words includes, but is not restricted to, the understanding of those words by the prophet and necessarily involves the intention of God evidenced in the fulfillment of those words. We deny that the writers of Scripture always understood the full implications of their own words.‖ Article XX ―We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, Biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations. We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.‖ Article XXV ―We affirm that the only type of preaching which sufficiently conveys the divine revelation and its proper application to life is that which faithfully expounds the text of Scripture as the Word of God. We deny that the preacher has any message from God apart from the text of Scripture.‖ 10 We see clearly that the doctrine of inerrancy is related to the issue of truth on the one hand, and the issues of hermeneutics and homiletics on the other. Further, an expositional model for biblical proclamation is the natural and necessary companion to a view of scripture that affirms its plenary, verbal inspiration resulting in an infallible and inerrant Bible. John MacArthur is correct, ―The only logical response to inerrant Scripture…is to preach it expositionally. By expositionally, I mean preaching in such a way that the meaning of the Bible passage is presented entirely and exactly as it was intended by God‖ (Rediscovering Expository Preaching, 35). It is indeed a match made in heaven. III. Biblical Exposition In Engaging Exposition, I provide my own definition of exposition. It developed over time out of my personal conviction concerning the Bible‘s infallibility and inerrancy. It is, to be honest, more of a description than a definition. It reads: ―Expository preaching is text driven preaching that honors the truth of Scripture as it was given by the Holy Spirit. Its goal is to discover the God- inspired meaning through historical-grammatical-theological investigation and interpretation. By means of engaging and compelling proclamation, it explains, illustrates and applies the meaning of the biblical text in submission to and in the power of the Holy Spirit, preaching Christ for a verdict of changed lives.‖ From this description of exposition, 5 important and essential components of expository preaching can be highlighted. My list is not close to being exhaustive, and I will be all too brief. Hopefully, I will make clear the complementary nature of biblical inerrancy and biblical exposition.