Distinctions are vital in theology. Indeed, the failure to maintain necessary distinctions between related concepts in Scripture is often a chief cause of confusion in important areas of doctrine. For example, if we fail to make a distinction between justification and sanctification in our view of salvation, we will remove our grounds for assurance. If our right standing with God is based, in any way, on our personal holiness and practical obedience, we can never enjoy a full assurance that God accepts us, because our holiness and obedience is always imperfect. These two doctrines belong together, but well-drawn, impenetrable line must remain between them.
Similarly, within our the doctrine of the Bible, we must maintain a clear distinction between the Spirit’s work of inspiring Scripture and his work of illuminating his saints to understand Scripture. Lack of clarity at this point will cause (and has caused) tremendous confusion about how we are to prioritize the Bible over tradition and assess and appreciate various interpretations of the Bible.
Let’s begin with some definitions. Inspiration was (past tense) the Spirit’s act of breathing out written Scripture through the work of human authors. Over the course of approximately 1400 years, God used multiple different human authors to pen his written Word. Although Scripture was written by human authors, the final product—the writings themselves—is the very Word of God. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not entirely accurate to say that the biblical authors were “inspired.” Rather, we should say that the writers of Scripture were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21), while only the Scriptures are inspired, or, reading Paul’s word theopneustos literally, “breathed out by God” (2 Tim 3:16). The work of inspiration is, with the closing of the canon, no longer active. The Holy Spirit’s work of breathing out Scripture has ceased.
Illumination is the present activity of the Spirit whereby he enables his saints to rightly interpret and apply Scripture. I say “present,” not because illumination hasn’t happened in the past (it has, as we will see), but to emphasize that this work of the Spirit is ongoing, while the work of inspiration is not. Illumination is essential for conversion, for one cannot trust in Christ if they do not understand the gospel (Matt 13:19; 16:16-17; 1 Cor 2:12-16). But illumination is also essential for spiritual growth and maturity because we can’t grow apart from understanding and applying God’s Word (Matt 4:4; Luke 24:44; Col 1:28). This growth and maturity, however, is not just for individual believers, but for the corporate church as well. Both individual Christians and the church at large grow in maturity through a proper understanding of the Bible, provided through the Spirit’s work of illumination (see Eph 4:11-16).
Two Reasons to Maintain a Distinction Between Inspiration and Illumination
But why is it crucial to maintain a clear distinction between the Spirit’s finished work of inspiration and the Spirit’s ongoing work illumination? First, maintaining this distinction helps us to differentiate between Scripture and interpretations of Scripture, between the Word of God and the theological traditions of men. Without this distinction, we are unable to assess interpretations of Scripture and various theological traditions for their biblical fidelity. If the lines between inspiration and illumination are blurred, the basis on which to judge the validity of any interpretation of Scripture will be undermined. Interpretations of Scripture will blend with Scripture itself, and confusion will reign.
But second, without this distinction we are also unable to appreciate the insights that God has granted his saints throughout church history. Biblically, we know that God is in the business of illumining his people so we grow in our grasp of biblical truth (1 Cor 2:12-16; 1 John 2:20). This reality keeps us humble, for we can’t conclude that we are the only Christians that God has instructed and to whom he has granted insight into his Word. Under the New Covenant, all of God’s people enjoy intimate instruction from God (Jer 31:33; John 6:45). There is a wealth of teachers, both past and present, who have enjoyed the Spirit’s illuminating work, and who have shared those insights with the larger church through their preaching, teaching, and writing. Skilled teachers are a gift to the church given by Christ specifically for its growth (Eph 4:12).
There have also been periods of history where God has enabled his church to articulate fixed doctrinal boundaries in response to heretical onslaught, theological and ecclesiastical challenges, and nettlesome cultural issues. In this latter category we can include the ancient Creeds (e.g., Nicene and Constantinople, Chalcedon), confessions (e.g., Belgic, Westminster, London) and doctrinal statements (e.g., Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Danvers, Nashville). Inasmuch as these creeds, confessions, and statements accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture and faithfully apply it, we can say they are the fruit of the Spirit’s illuminating work.
But therein lies the necessity of maintaining the distinction between inspiration and illumination. We must be careful to maintain the ontological difference that exists between Scripture as God’s written Word and interpretations of that written Word. Among written documents available to the church, Scripture is the only God-breathed, infallible written revelation. Creeds may accurately reflect Scripture, but they are not Scripture as such. This means that the quality of any explicit or implicit claim to illumination—whether it is found in a theological treatise, commentary, or Reformed confession—is judged by its fidelity to Scripture. Scripture remains the touchstone of every tradition and the standard by which all interpretations are judged. Granted, no interpretation is conducted in a theological vacuum—we all come to the text with assumptions that influence our study of the text—but removing the distinction between God’s Word and interpretations of it disables us, by necessity, from evaluating those interpretations.
What are the practical takeaways of these truths? I will mention three.
(1) Christians Must Avoid the “Just Me and My Bible” Methodology to Biblical Study
The distinction between Scripture (inspiration) and interpretation (illumination) should not lead us to an individualistic approach to biblical study. Historically, those who have rejected sound theological tradition in favor of a “pure biblicism” detached from any confessional church consensus have often veered into serious error. To reject the interpretational help of the universal church (through its faithful creeds, theological traditions, confessions, and teachers) is not to exalt Scripture, but to exalt one’s own capacity to rightly interpret Scripture. Scripture itself warns us against such a posture: “He who isolates himself seeks his own desire and breaks out against all sound reason” (Prov 18:1).
While some indict Luther and Calvin as purveyors of a tradition-less biblicism, the truth is that these men argued that their interpretations of Scripture were not novel but a retrieval of what the church had always taught. Actually, it was the Roman Catholic Church who had exchanged the church’s historic stance on justification and the centrality of Scripture for new interpretations (namely, that justification comes by way of faith plus works and that Scripture and Tradition were ontologically equal). Luther and Calvin often quoted past theologians to demonstrate that their arguments from Scripture were not new. As we’ve already noted, God not only grants us insight into his Word; he has been granting his saints insight into this Word for the last two millennia. We do well to listen to the teachers God has given us to gain help with rightly interpreting and applying the Bible.
(2) You Can’t Say, “That’s Just Your Interpretation“
In recent years it has become fashionable with some to reject a Christian’s doctrinal position by noting that the Christian is just offering their interpretation of what Scripture teaches. Given the plethora of interpretations, they argue, one cannot insist on their own interpretation as the correct one. While it’s true that interpretations are distinct from Scripture as such, it does not follow that an interpretation cannot be biblical—that is, that it can’t accurately reflect what the Bible teaches. Actually, Scripture must be interpreted in order to be rightly understood. In other words, it is not enough to say, “I just believe the Bible.” You must explain what you believe the Bible teaches, and this will always be expressed in a set of statements that go beyond mere biblical quotations. That is what an interpretation is doing, whether it is in the form of a creed, confession, statement, or exegetical commentary. The question is not whose interpretation it is, but whether or not the interpretation accurately reflects what the Bible teaches. If it does, then it is an authoritative interpretation that must be followed.
(3) A Claim to Illumination is No Proof that Illumination Has Occurred
Spiritual illumination provides a true grasp of biblical teaching, nothing less. When Jesus opened the minds of his disciples, he opened their minds to “understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45). When Paul prayed for the Ephesians to experience spiritual enlightenment from their heavenly Father, he was asking that God would grant them true knowledge of the gospel and its entailments (Eph 1:17-20). These texts indicate that when the Spirit grants illumination, he is granting nothing less than an accurate interpretation of divine revelation. Illumination has not occurred if an interpretation is unfaithful to biblical teaching. Even if someone claims to have prayed about how to interpret a specific biblical passage or doctrine, their claim to have prayed does not guarantee that they have accurately interpreted the passage or doctrine. The interpretation must accurately articulate the meaning of Scripture if it going to bear the weight of divine authority. Hence the need—to state it again—for upholding an ontological difference between written Scripture and theological tradition. Even Calvin (mentioned above) prefaced his Institutes of the Christian Religion by exhorting his readers to test his interpretations against the Bible. “Above all, I must urge him to have recourse to Scripture in order to weigh the testimonies I adduce from it.”
Conclusion
The aim of this article is to help you develop a proper understanding of the relationship between Scripture and interpretations of Scripture—inspiration and illumination. Maintaining the proper distinction between these two enables us to both assess interpretations of Scripture and appreciate God’s illuminating work among his people. This is an important balance that we must maintain for our personal spiritual health and the spiritual health of the church.
