Revelation vs Inspiration

[jwithnell]

Could y'all please help me understand the distinction Charles Hodge makes between inspiration and revelation? (I'm trying to understand his teaching specifically.) The reference, if it helps, is the first volume of the Eerdmanns edition of his Systematic Theology, pages 155-156. Thank you!

 

[RamistThomist]

Inspiration refers to process, maybe. Nature is revelation, but it doesn’t make sense to call it inspired

 

[jwithnell]

The context is special revelation. It seemed a strange distinction and even though the comparison just takes two pages, I couldn't figure it out. The rest of what I've been reading has been pretty straightforward.

 

[RamistThomist]

The context is special revelation. It seemed a strange distinction and even though the comparison just takes two pages, I couldn't figure it out. The rest of what I've been reading has been pretty straightforward.

Inspiration describes the how of revelation

 

[Solparvus]

Good morning. I was just looking at this subject myself last week, except I was reading Shedd. Sounds like Hodge and Shedd are saying similar things, so here goes.

Inspiration is the Spirit preserving man from error in his communication of truth. However, it doesn't matter in what way the inspired person got their knowledge. It could either be something that God supernaturally reveals, or it could be knowledge obtained by very normal means. The end product is going to be infallible.

As an example of inspiration of normal means: Ezra has all his scrolls in front of him, takes notes, makes outlines, reflects on things he has in his memory, talks with other teachers of the Law and experts on history, prays over it all, and then finally compiles what we have as the two books of Chronicles. It may look every way like writing a thesis paper. However, the Holy Spirit ensures that Ezra's final work comes out jot-and-tittle what the Holy Spirit wants to say. It is inspired.

It is possible for an uninspired man to learn the same things and do the same research as Ezra, and maybe even develop a similar work product. There were many who did the same work as Luke in researching the life of Christ, and they probably found out many of the same things as Luke. In our examples though, the Holy Spirit claims Ezra and Luke as His mouthpieces in their final work products. Their accounts are God-breathed.

Revelation is when God reveals things that no man can discover. For example, the six days of creation and what happened on each one. The Covenant of Grace in Genesis 3:14-15. The Abrahamic Covenant and its aspects in Genesis 12, 15, 17, 22. The mystery of the Gospel, grace alone, faith alone. The bringing in of the Gentiles. The Trinity. How world history will end. No man can possibly find these things out by his own research or knowledge. God must reveal them. That is revelation.

However, what is revelatory will also include inspiration. Since God took care to reveal the truth, He also provided that the communication of it would be inspired--that is, preserved from error. Otherwise, we cannot be sure that we really have a right knowledge of God or the Gospel.

 

[jwithnell]

@Solparvus Thank you! I like your analogy with a term paper and your observation that revelation would reveal what is otherwise unknown. I'll take the time this afternoon to revisit the Hodge passage.

 

[py3ak]

C. Distinction between Revelation and Inspiration

Second. The above definition assumes a difference between revelation and inspiration. They differ, first, as to their object. The object of revelation is the communication of knowledge. The object or design of inspiration is to secure infallibility in teaching. Consequently they differ, secondly, in their effects. The effect of revelation was to render its recipient wiser. The effect of inspiration was to preserve him from error in teaching. These two gifts were often enjoyed by the same person at the same time. That is, the Spirit often imparted knowledge, and controlled in its communication orally or in writing to others. This was no doubt the case with the Psalmists, and often with the Prophets and Apostles. Often, however, the revelations were made at one time, and were subsequently, under the guidance of the Spirit, committed to writing. Thus the Apostle Paul tells us that he received his knowledge of the gospel not from man, but by revelation from Jesus Christ; and this knowledge he communicated from time to time in his discourses and epistles. In many cases these gifts were separated. Many of the sacred writers, although inspired, received no revelations. This was probably the fact with the authors of the historical books of the Old Testament. The evangelist Luke does not refer his knowledge of the events which he records to revelation, but says he derived it from those “which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the Word.” (Luke 1:2.) It is immaterial to us where Moses obtained his knowledge of the events recorded in the book of Genesis; whether from early documents, from tradition, or from direct revelation. No more causes are to be assumed for any effect than are necessary. If the sacred writers had sufficient sources of knowledge in themselves, or in those about them, there is no need to assume any direct revelation. It is enough for us that they were rendered infallible as teachers. This distinction between revelation and inspiration is commonly made by systematic writers. Thus Quenstedt (1685) says: “Distingue inter revelationem et inspirationem. Revelatio vi vocis est manifestatio rerum ignotarum et occultarum, et potest fieri multis et diversis modis.… Inspiratio … est interna conceptum suggestio, seu infusio, sive res conceptæ jam ante scriptori fuerint cognitæ, sive occultæ. Illa potuit tempore antecedere scriptionem, hæc cum scriptione semper fuit conjuncta et in ipsam scriptionem influebat.” Often, however, the distinction in question is overlooked. In popular language, inspiration is made to include both the supernatural communication of truth to the mind, and a supernatural control in making known that truth to others. The two gifts, however, differ in their nature, and should therefore be distinguished. Confounding them has sometimes led to serious error. When no revelation was necessary, no inspiration is admitted. Thus Grotius says: “Vere dixi non omnes libros qui sunt in Hebræo Canone dictatos a Spiritu Sancto. Scriptos esse cum pio animi motu, non nego; et hoc est quod judicavit Synagoga Magna, cujus judicio in hac re stant Hebræi. Sed a Spiritu Sancto dictari historias nihil fuit opus: satis fuit scriptorem memoria valere circa res spectatas, aut diligentia in describendis veterum commentariis.” It is an illogical conclusion, however, to infer that because a historian did not need to have the facts dictated to him, that therefore he needed no control to preserve him from error.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 155–156.

There is a vital distinction to be made between inspiration and revelation. Revelation has to do with new information being communicated. Inspiration has to do with the expression of that information so as to communicate it to others. When Paul was caught up to the third heaven and heard words that it was not lawful to utter, that was revelation; he didn't write them down, because he was not inspired to do so. But when he passed on what he had learned (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:1-3), inspiration secured the authoritative and comprehensive accuracy of that transmission.

 

[jwithnell]

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 155–156.

There is a vital distinction to be made between inspiration and revelation. Revelation has to do with new information being communicated. Inspiration has to do with the expression of that information so as to communicate it to others. When Paul was caught up to the third heaven and heard words that it was not lawful to utter, that was revelation; he didn't write them down, because he was not inspired to do so. But when he passed on what he had learned (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:1-3), inspiration secured the authoritative and comprehensive accuracy of that transmission.

This quote is from the section that puzzled me.

I may be mixing categories here, but y'all tell me if this is a reasonable understanding:

G. Vos joins revelation and the redemptive acts. Would it be reasonable to say that God's delivery of Noah and his family was revelation while Moses' recording of that act was inspiration? Jesus' atoning work was revelation while the gospel writers who recorded the words about those actions worked under inspiration?

 

[Solparvus]

This quote is from the section that puzzled me.

I may be mixing categories here, but y'all tell me if this is a reasonable understanding:

G. Vos joins revelation and the redemptive acts. Would it be reasonable to say that God's delivery of Noah and his family was revelation while Moses' recording of that act was inspiration? Jesus' atoning work was revelation while the gospel writers who recorded the words about those actions worked under inspiration?

That's right. The flood revealed many things, including God's righteousness and judgment, and the event itself also typified baptism. God was communicating divine truth in the event itself, and we are meant to understand it the event this way. This doesn't happen with other historical events (eg. we don't seek infallible revelation of God in the death of Julius Caesar). However, the inspiration concerns the communication of that event (or its meaning) to others. Moses under inspiration infallibly communicates what happened during the Flood, and Peter infallibly communicates the interpretation.

I agree too on what you say about the Gospel writers and Christ's atonement. God's justice and mercy are revealed in the crucifixion of Christ, and the Gospel authors infallibly communicate the details of the events.

 

[py3ak]

This quote is from the section that puzzled me.

I may be mixing categories here, but y'all tell me if this is a reasonable understanding:

G. Vos joins revelation and the redemptive acts. Would it be reasonable to say that God's delivery of Noah and his family was revelation while Moses' recording of that act was inspiration? Jesus' atoning work was revelation while the gospel writers who recorded the words about those actions worked under inspiration?

Yes, I think that's what Hodge and others are getting at. Inspiration relates to communication, and it is now limited to Scripture.