Chapter 3.5

Reevaluating the “Illumination of the Spirit” for the Interpretation & Application of Scripture

Does the Holy Spirit Tell Us What Scripture Means?

Overall Objective

To offer a biblical and practical evaluation of the popular suggestion that the Holy Spirit communicates the proper interpretation and a practical application of Scripture through an on-going “illumination.”

Table of Topics

A) An Introduction to the “Illumination of the Spirit”

B) Support for & Critiques of the “Illumination of the Spirit”

C) Biblical Problems with the “Illumination of the Spirit”

C.1) Scriptures Referring to Inspiration and Regeneration

C.2) Ephesians 6:17: The Sword of the Spirit

C.3) Other Scriptures

D) Additional Problems with the “Illumination of the Spirit”

Publications & Particulars

Primary Points

A “testimony of the Spirit” is claimed to enable us to determine what is Scripture and what is not.

• There is no clear biblical support for this application of the Holy Spirit.
• Rather than securing the certainty of biblical authority, the “testimony” undermines it by subjecting it to the subjective experience of the individual.
• The supposed effects of the “testimony” are difficult to distinguish from those that may be experienced from communication other than Scripture.
• If the “testimony” is as effective as many claim, then we would expect a new Christian to identify all or only the sixty-six books of our present biblical canon out of a larger selection of literature.
• The “testimony” must not have operated for many early Church leaders who accepted the OT Apocrypha as Scripture.
• Unlike “testimony” proponents, we claim that nothing in all of Creation is self-authenticating, nor did God intend it to be so.
• In essence then, it would seem the doctrine of the “testimony of the Spirit” becomes just another example of contemporary pragmatism in which we believe something to be true, like Scripture, because “it works.” What happens when it doesn’t “work?”
• The key to identifying Scripture is to know what documents were written by supernaturally educated and authenticated men. Such a determination can only be based on historical research.

A) An Introduction to the “Illumination of the Spirit”

In chapter 3.1 we wrote a great deal concerning the place of Spirit-liberated reason and our private judgment for interpreting Scripture through human research. Against this, or in addition to it, many claim that correctly interpreting Scripture is more a matter of divine revelation through what is called the “illumination of the Spirit.” This doctrine is very closely related to the “testimony of the Spirit,” discussed in the previous chapter. The difference is that the “testimony” is said to enable us to recognize Scripture, while the “illumination” supposedly enables us to interpret and apply Scripture.

Accordingly, we have quoted the Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch as saying, “The Bible is the Word of God in all that it teaches, though this teaching is not immediately self-evident but must be unveiled by the Spirit.” ^[1] Likewise, in an entry to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, the popular NT scholar Charles Ryrie provides a succinct definition of the “illumination of the Spirit”:

Specifically, the doctrine of illumination relates to that ministry of the Holy Spirit that helps the believer understand the truth of Scripture. . . . [I]nspiration concerns the method by which the Holy Spirit [once and for all] superintended the writing of Scripture; and illumination refers to the [continuing] ministry of the Spirit by which the meaning of Scripture is made clear to the believer. ^[2]

As in the case of the “testimony of the Spirit,” the “illumination” is a supposed ongoing, revelatory activity of the Spirit enabling us to do something that we would suggest our Spirit-enabled reason is already able to do. While many Christians promote a continual illumination of the Spirit after conversion, we suggest our experience is better explained as an initial liberation of reason by the Spirit with continuing effects. We do not believe that anyone has any need or basis on which to confidently claim some special “illumination” and that such an illegitimate claim disparages the God-given place of Spirit-liberated reason and our responsibility to use it for His purposes and glory. God does not do for us what He has already enabled us, and expects us, to do ourselves. For example we do not wake up on Sunday morning for church service and expect God to supernaturally translate us there. He could, of course, but He doesn’t because He has already given us the means to get there ourselves. Such is the case, we believe, with the interpretation and application of Scripture.

Perhaps the greatest error then, with the teaching of an “illumination of the Spirit” is not recognizing the great sufficiency of God’s normal way of equipping us to understand and apply Scripture, therefore suggesting the need for a continual miracle of divine intervention into our thinking. On the contrary, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit has given us a New Nature, and a Spirit-liberated reason for the purpose of effectively interpreting and applying God’s revelation in Scripture to our lives. Accordingly, as we have written elsewhere, the work of the Spirit in understanding and applying Scripture correctly is not an ongoing “illumination” but the supernatural virtues necessary for any proper reasoning. ^[3]

B) Support for & Critiques of the “Illumination of the Spirit”

Also similar to the “testimony of the Spirit,” the doctrine of the “illumination of the Spirit” has a large and respectable following. John Calvin (1509–1564) and other Protestant Reformers, in particular, described the relationship between the Spirit and Scripture as one in which the former is constantly working to remind, explain, and “illuminate” Scripture to us. In spite of Martin Luther’s (1483-1546) consistent insistence on the simplicity and clarity of Scripture, John MacArthur quotes him as saying: “The Bible cannot be understood simply by study or talent; you must count only on the influence of the Holy Spirit.” ^[4] Likewise, Charles Hodge (1797–1878) wrote in his Systematic Theology: “The inward teaching of the Spirit is to be sought by prayer, and the diligent use of the appointed means.” ^[5]

This position is concisely described by R. C. Sproul when he writes:

The Holy Spirit may be distinguished from the Word, but to separate the Word and the Spirit is spiritually fatal. The Holy Spirit teaches, leads, and speaks to us through the Word and with the Word, not apart from or against the Word. ^[6]

We can sympathize with what Dr. Sproul desires to protect, but as we will argue below and elsewhere, we can find no Scripture that would promise or prescribe such a thing. Rather than the more spiritual sounding explanation that the “Holy Spirit teaches, leads, and speaks to us through the Word” we would suggest that in reality the Holy Spirit has given us a Spirit-liberated reason so that the Spirit-given Scriptures teach, lead, and speak to us through the more natural means of our minds.

Still, it must be admitted that the teaching of the “illumination of the Spirit” in relation to Scripture has a wide, historic, and respectable following. For example, the well known OT scholar Bruce Waltke writes:

When I came to Regent College I was asked to teach a hermeneutics course, so I went to the library to find the best books on interpreting Scripture. I looked through all the books written on that topic during the past decade, the 1980’s, and read about ten of them carefully. They all said the same thing: Read the Bible as you would any other book. I was astounded.

No one mentioned the importance of praying through Scripture. The role of the Holy Spirit seemed to be driven out by academic scholarship. The Word of God is different; it is unique. We cannot fully understand His Word without the enablement of the Spirit. Reading the Bible as a scholarly or intellectual exercise is certainly possible, but to receive the full blessing of the Lord’s Word, and to understand His full meaning, we must approach the Scriptures through the Spirit of God. . . .

Before you begin to read your Bible, pray for the Lord to speak directly to you through His Word. Pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten you. Having spiritual understanding is nothing mystical; it means having God’s Spirit teach you [and that is not mystical?]. . . .

[I]n theological circles people speak of “exegesis” – constructing some accredited method to get out of the written text what the original author intended. If we accept the concept that the Holy Spirit plays a determinative role in revealing truth, then we must also concede that the Holy Spirit must be an essential part of our lives if we are to correctly read and interpret Scripture.

Unfortunately, many Christians seem to divorce theology from spirituality. I have seen seminary faculties divided over this issue, with those teaching spirituality courses fearing that those who teach exegesis will subvert the students’ faith, and those teaching exegesis suspicious of their counterparts for not relying enough on the originally intended meaning of the Bible.

Historically, orthodox theologians confess that the Holy Spirit must illumine the Bible’s meaning. “No one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God,” says Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:11. The apostle argues that only as we are in step with the Spirit can we know the things of God. “For if God does not open and explain Holy Writ,” Martin Luther commented, “no one can understand it.’ Similarly, John Calvin in the Catechism of the Church of Geneva wrote:

Our mind is too weak to comprehend the spiritual wisdom of God which is revealed to us by faith, and our hearts are too prone either to defiance or to a perverse confidence in ourselves or creaturely things. But the Holy Spirit enlightens us to make us capable of understanding what would otherwise be incomprehensible to us, and fortifies us in certitude, sealing and imprinting the promises of salvation on our hearts.

In our modern day, the Chicago Statement of Faith continues the tradition: “The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.”

Yet I find that most modern Bible scholars subscribe to the idea intellectually while ignoring it in practice. Almost any textbook on hermeneutics or Bible interpretation written by an evangelical during the past twenty years emphasizes finding the meaning of the original language in its historical context while neglecting to mention the role of the Holy Spirit and His impact on the life of the interpreter. ^[7]

We will address several of Dr. Waltke’s points in the discussion that follows. Here we would only ask if it is possible that the reason “that most modern Bible scholars subscribe to the idea intellectually while ignoring it in practice” is that the idea is impractical? One wonders, for instance, how Dr. Waltke would defend his “framework” theory of Genesis 1-2 in which he essentially denies any literal, face value interpretation of the text at all concerning scientific or chronological matters. If one reads his writing, the scholar never appeals to some “illumination of the Spirit,” but rather does all he can to appeal to ones reason. ^[8]

While Dr. Waltke mentions the support for the “illumination” among the Reformers, there are many contemporary adherents to the idea as well. For example, the highly respected British teacher D. M. Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) wrote: “What we [Christians] need is the illumination of the Holy Spirit upon our minds to enable us to understand it [Scripture] and to expound it.” ^[9] We would suggest Christians have already been “illuminated” in the sense that at the time of our regeneration the Spirit gave us a new “heart” and released our moral and logical reasoning from automatic, domineering, sinful control. Therefore, we no longer need “illumination.” And as demonstrated below in section C.1, Scripture teaches we have already been “illumined.”

Likewise, the influential Reformed theologian, Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) taught:

He who thinks that the Holy Spirit really gave the Scripture, but now leaves its appropriation to our natural reason, is woefully mistaken. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit, who gave the Scriptures, is Himself the perpetual author of all appropriation of their contents to the individual. ^[10]

We would remind this great theologian that no born again Christian has merely “natural reason,” and we would still ask why the Christian’s reason is insufficient to accomplish the “appropriation,” interpretation, and application of the truths of Scripture? And it is hard to read Dr. Kuyper in any other way than the Spirit’s authorship of Scripture was not enough, but that now He must also be “the perpetual author,” revealer, and inspirer of its meaning.

The great Princeton theologian Charles Hodge wrote:

Protestants admit that there is a common faith [understanding of Scripture] of the Church, which no man is at liberty to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian. They acknowledge the authority of this common faith for two reasons. First, because what all the competent readers of a plain book take to be its meaning, must be its meaning. Secondly, because the Holy Spirit is promised to guide the people of God into the knowledge of the truth, and therefore that which they, under the teaching of the Spirit, agree in believing must be true. ^[11]

In our view, Dr. Hodge’s first reason for trusting the Christian faith is adequate and biblical, but the second is unnecessary and non-existent. Dr. Hodge is obviously appealing to John 16:13 which, as we demonstrate elsewhere, was a promise specifically given to, and needed by the Apostles for the reception of Scripture, not to us for the understanding of Scripture. ^[12]

In the same vein, the honorable J. I. Packer writes:

As the Spirit gave the Word by brooding over its human writers and leading the church to recognize their books as its canon for belief and behavior, so now he becomes the authoritative interpreter of Scripture as he shows us how biblical teaching bears on our living. To be sure, what Bible books meant as messages to their first readers can be gleaned to some extent from commentaries. But what they mean for our lives today is something we learn only as the Spirit stirs our insensitive consciences. ^[13]

We can note here again, that if it was the Spirit who led the early Church to recognize the canon, why did it accept the OT Apocrypha? Also, Dr. Packer seems to question the clarity of Scripture and the ability of the Spirit-filled Christian to understand its intended meaning. Finally, we would insist that a born again Christian does not possess an “insensitive conscience,” but rather, normally eagerly desires to understand and obey Scripture. And it is the Spirit regenerated moral (conscience) and logical reasoning (mind) that we received at the time of our conversion that can enable us to decide “how biblical teaching bears on our living,” not some separate, ongoing, additional revelation or information from the Spirit as is clearly suggested here.

Another contemporary proponent of an “illumination of the Spirit” for the interpretation and application of Scripture is the Adventist theologian Norman Gulley who writes:

One can be aware of all the historical-grammatical principles for interpretation and still misinterpret the texts if done in human wisdom alone. . . . Theological students studying Scripture will ask that the Holy Spirit enable them to see through the human’s words to the divine content within. This is the reverse process experienced by the biblical writers [in divine revelation], but equally dependent on the Holy Spirit. . . . Ask the Holy Spirit to interpret truth to you as Christ promised He would (John 16:13-15). The use of hermeneutical tools is not sufficient to arrive at the truth-intent. ^[14]

In the first sentence Dr. Gulley ignores the biblical difference between the Spirit-liberated reason of the born again Christian and the devil-darkened reason of the unbeliever. ^[15] In the second sentence Dr. Gulley dangerously suggests there is a spiritual, deeper meaning in Scripture that goes beyond the face value meaning of the text. In the third sentence he equates the “illumination” to apostolic divine revelation, a perilous perspective that will be addressed momentarily. In the fourth sentence the author misapplies Christ’s promise to the Apostles concerning their divine revelation. It would seem that the author’s own supposed “illumination” has failed him here and he would have been well served by the very rules of hermeneutics he disparages, by correctly noting the context and literal content of John 16:13-15. ^[16] The final sentence is not only erroneous, but dangerous. The tools of interpretation are indeed quite “sufficient to arrive at the truth-intent” of Scripture for the reason and heart of the believer.

Unfortunately, we get the same impression from the popular Southern Baptist author, Henry Blackaby in his popular study, Experiencing God. In response to the claim, “I can open the Bible, pick out a verse that I want to use, and claim that I have a word from God for my circumstance,” Dr. Blackaby responds:

Sin has so affected us (Rom. 3:10-11), you and I cannot understand the truth of God unless the Holy Spirit of God reveals it. . . . Some may wonder why [this approach] is not acceptable. They may ask, “Can’t I get a word from God from the Bible?” Yes you can! But only the Holy Spirit of God can reveal to you which truth of Scripture is a word from God in a particular circumstance. . . . You cannot understand the Word of God unless the Spirit of God teaches you. ^[17]

While we appreciate the error that Dr. Blackaby is confronting, we would suggest he also ignores the difference between devil-darkened reason and Spirit-liberated reason, and the latter enables us to apply Scripture in their proper context, not some direct, immediate inspiration of the Spirit. Elsewhere, Dr. Blackaby writes, “God speaks to give application of his Word to the specific circumstances in your life.” ^[18] This is clearly a promise of direct divine revelation in addition to the text of Scripture and beyond a simple use of Spirit-liberated reason.

Dr. Blackaby illustrates his point by relating the following story:

Have you ever prayed for one thing and got another? I have. Then some dear soul would say, “God is trying to get you to persist. Keep on praying until you get what you want.” During one of those times I kept asking God in one direction, and I kept getting something else.

In the middle of that experience, I started reading from the second chapter of Mark in my quiet time. That is the story of the four men who brought their crippled friend to Jesus to be healed. Because of the crowd, they opened a hole in the roof and let the man down in front of Jesus. Jesus said, “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5).

I started to read on, but I sensed that the Spirit of God said, “Henry, did you see that?” I went back and began to meditate on that Scripture. Under the guiding, teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, I began to see a wonderful truth. The four men were asking Jesus to heal the man, but Jesus forgave the man’s sins. Why? They asked for one thing, and Jesus gave another! This man and his friends asked for a particular gift, but Jesus wanted to make the man a child of God so he could inherit everything!

I found myself weeping before God and saying: Oh, God, if I ever give You a request and You have more to give me than I am asking, cancel my request! ^[19]

Forgive us if we come across too harsh, but we think Dr. Blackaby is lying. Not intentionally, but he is self-deceived and deceiving others when he claims to have an ongoing conversation with the Holy Spirit Who tells him how to interpret and apply Scripture. As we point out elsewhere in a discussion of mega mysticism, God never promises such a thing. ^[20] It would seem Jonathan Edwards would not have thought Dr. Blackaby’s approach to Scripture was all that spiritual when he wrote:

So some are much affected with some apt thoughts that come into their minds about the Scripture, and call it the Spirit of God teaching them. So they ascribe many of the workings of their own minds, which they have a high opinion of, and are pleased and taken with, to the special immediate influences of God’s Spirit; and so are mightily affected with their privilege. . . .

And if persons have the will of God concerning their actions, suggested to them by some text of Scripture, suddenly and extraordinarily brought to their minds, which text, as the words lay in the Bible before they came to their minds, related to the action and behavior of some other person, but they suppose, as God sent the words to them, he intended something further by them, and meant such a particular action of theirs; I say, if persons should have the will of God thus suggested to them with texts of Scripture, it alters not the case. The suggestion being accompanied with an apt text of Scripture, does not make the suggestion to be the nature of spiritual instruction.

As for instance, if a person in New England, on some occasion, were at a loss whether it was his duty to go into some popish or heathenish land, where he was like to be exposed to many difficulties and dangers, and should pray to God that he would show him the way of his duty; and after earnest prayer, should have those words which God spake to Jacob, Gen. 46, suddenly and extraordinarily brought to his mind, as if they were spoken to him; “Fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will go with thee; and I will also surely bring you up again.” In which words, though as they lay in the Bible before they came to his mind, they related only to Jacob, and his behavior; yet he supposes that God has a further meaning, as they were brought and applied to him; that thus they are to be understood in a new sense, that by Egypt is to be understood this particular country he has in his mind, and that the action intended is his going thither, and that the meaning of the promise is, that God would bring him back into New England again.

There is nothing of the nature of a spiritual or gracious leading of the Spirit in this; for there is nothing of the nature of spiritual understanding in it. Thus to understand texts of Scripture, is not to have a spiritual understanding of them. Spiritually to understand the Scriptures, is rightly to understand what is in the Scripture, and what was in it before it was understood: it is to understand rightly, what used to be contained in the meaning of it, and not the making of a new meaning. ^[21]

In Dr. Blackaby’s apparent desire to super-supernaturalize his relationship with Scripture, he completely ignores the value of the gift God has given him in his Spirit-liberated reason to correctly interpret and then practically apply Scripture to his current needs, desires, and struggles. Instead, he wishes to claim direct divine revelation for these things, something that he cannot confidently do. It would seem too unspiritual for Dr. Blackaby to admit what we have noted elsewhere:

What is completely ignored on the issue is the God-given and God-glorifying creativity and capability of our Spirit-liberated reason. Our minds are well aware of our current emotional/spiritual needs and personal circumstances, and it is not unspiritual to point out that our Spirit-liberated reason is able to make encouraging, insightful, and mind/heart transforming connections between those needs and circumstances, and what we read in Scripture or hear in a sermon. Who would really doubt that the Christian’s mind would be perfectly capable of doing this without needing additional revelation from the Spirit? We do the exact same thing constantly and correctly in all sorts of ways in every day life.

This seems to be another case in which God the Holy Spirit is being called upon to do something that He has already equipped us to do ourselves. While some would claim that the proper and personal application of Scripture requires a revelation of the Spirit, we would only point out that the Spirit has already “fixed” our mind such that it is now capable of producing customized applications of God’s word for us without additional revelation. ^[22]

More recently, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity, has written:

The idea that biblical meaning is something that can be recovered by understanding simply by reading relegates the doctrine of the Holy Spirit to the theological margins. . . . Understanding is theological because we are enabled to follow the issue of the text only by the Holy Spirit. The role of the Spirit is to enable us to take the biblical texts in the sense that they were intended, and to apply or follow that sense in the way we live. . . .

[T]he Spirit illumines the letter by impressing upon us the full force of its communicative action, its illocutions. The Spirit does not alter biblical meaning. Rather, “the spiritual sense is the literal sense correctly understood.” The distinction between “letter” and “spirit” is just that between reading the words and grasping what one reads. Likewise, the difference between a “natural” and an “illumined” understanding is that between head and heart knowledge, between having an opinion and having a “deep sense of its truth, goodness, and beauty.” Illumination has to do with the quality and the force of our appreciation of the literal sense. ^[23]

Contrary to Dr. Vanhoozer, understanding the Scriptures may be as simple as reading it for the regenerated Christian. It is our reason by which “we are enabled to follow the issue of the text,” not “only by the Holy Spirit.” Dr. Vanhoozer also seems to make the same mistake as many others, dividing the head from the “heart” and implying that some supernatural action of the Spirit is needed, in addition to the work of our mind on the text of Scripture, if we are to understand “the spiritual sense” of it, instead of just the “literal sense.” It is wrongly suggested here that our minds will only be “reading the words” but the immediate action of the Holy Spirit will allow us to “grasp” their real meaning. Dr. Vanhoozer’s description may apply to an unregenerated person, but not a regenerated one, and he falls into the “faculty psychology” we have addressed elsewhere. ^[24]

Similar unfortunate tendencies are communicated in the following from Dr. Woodrow Kroll, host of the popular radio program Back to the Bible:

I always prepare myself to read the Bible. It’s like stretching before you exercise. I ask God to give me a right understanding of the text and a proper interpretation of what I read. The apostle Paul wrote, “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God” (I Corinthians 2:10). Why should I struggle getting to know the deep things of God if the Holy Spirit can help me understand them? ^[25]

Several responses are in order to such a statement. First, praying before you read Scripture, as discussed further below, is certainly advisable and appropriate. However, it may be misguided to ask God to do something that He has already given you the ability to do, like interpreting and applying Scripture. Usually, a regenerated Christian has no more need to ask God for help in understanding the Bible, than he does in asking God’s help to open the Bible. It is possible that if God were to respond audibly to such prayers, he would quote existing Scripture which simply says, “Do your best [Be diligent NASB] to . . . correctly handle the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15), implying that if there is a lack of understanding, it is additional human research that is needed, not divine revelation.

In addition, praying for the proper interpretation of Scripture is not nearly as trustworthy as many suggest, and is, in fact, no guarantee at all. Many people have offered such a sincere prayer and have still incorrectly interpreted and applied Scripture. Also, there is no biblical warrant for praying that God will grant us a separate revelation telling us the meaning of Scripture. Rather, we should pray for a clear, focused, objective, eager, humble, hungry mind, so that the faculty that God has given us for interpreting and applying Scripture can be used properly.

Secondly, 1 Corinthians 2:10 does not support Dr. Kroll’s suggestion. A careful and reasoned interpretation of the passage will reveal that the Apostle is referring to the divine revelation that Apostles received, taught, and recorded in Scripture, not to some continual revelation of the Spirit to all Christians. ^[26]

Thirdly, while we assume Dr. Kroll did not intend such, his statement implies that a revelation from the Spirit can bypass the need for careful and diligent study of the Scriptures. In fact, no matter how much promoters of the “illumination” attempt to say otherwise, such a great emphasis on the need for the work and influence of the Spirit in our interpretation of Scripture diminishes the perceived need of good and laborious hermeneutics.

Accordingly, the respected Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland rightly asserts:

The Spirit . . . does not teach us the cognitive meaning of the text. He leaves that up to us. . . . I fear that our inaccurate emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s role in understanding Scripture has become an easy shortcut to the hard work of building a personal library of study tools and using them. As Gallup poll after Gallup poll has shown, the result of our inaccurate emphasis on the Spirit, along with our intellectual laziness, is that modern Christians are largely illiterate about the content of their own religion and feel inadequate because of it. We need local churches dedicated to the task of training believers to think theologically and biblically. We must develop intelligent Christians. ^[27]

Again, the Apostle told Timothy: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15 NASB). Here, the Apostle clearly implies that the accurate interpretation and application of Scripture requires hard, mental work, not a revelation or “illumination” of the Spirit. It is the easy, mystical interpretations of Scripture “from the Spirit” that have proven to be the source of heresy throughout the Church’s history.

Accordingly, then, our prayers before approaching Scripture are for the purpose of ensuring that we are being controlled by the Spirit Who is not, “a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline” (2 Tim 1:7 NLT), all of which are necessary virtues to enable us to use our reasoning as God intended in order to properly understand and apply Scripture, as discussed elsewhere. ^[28]

Another affect of the “illumination” doctrine is to suggest that there is some sort of deeper, hidden meaning that requires more than our reason to discover. For example, Dr. Bloesch writes:

My own position could be regarded as a fusion of biblicism and spiritualism. The Spirit not only certifies the truth of the biblical witness but brings this truth home to the contemporary situation. The Spirit illumines the Bible . . . In biblical hermeneutics we begin with the natural sense of the passage but do not remain with this sense. We proceed to the spiritual sense-the relation of the text to the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ, a relation that is unfolded only by the Spirit working with our spirits to lead us into the knowledge of the truth. ^[29]

For Dr. Bloesch, it would seem the “natural sense” of Scripture is not spiritual enough, and because of his erroneous and unbiblical dependence on some supposed continuing activity of the Spirit, he again sounds very Barthian. And as with the “testimony of the Spirit,” we find it difficult to separate “the illumination” from the neoorthodox teachings of Karl Barth (1886–1968) and others that many Evangelicals have discounted as dangerous. Barth emphasized that reading the “letter” of Scripture was not enough for divine communication, but that a separate operation of the Spirit was needed to make the words of Scripture the real word of God. ^[30]

In addition, when Dr. Bloesch says, “In biblical hermeneutics we begin with the natural sense of the passage but do not remain with this sense. We proceed to the spiritual sense,” his use of the “illumination of the Spirit” opens the way for the mystical/allegorical type of interpretation that ones like Origen (c. 185- c. 254) were known and subsequently denounced for, and depreciates the value of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. Origen, in fact, used the idea of the ongoing work of the Spirit in the life of those more spiritual, to enable them to get at otherwise hidden meanings of Scripture. In essence, he distinguished between those with “the illumination” and those without it. ^[31]

It becomes obvious too that the “illumination of the Spirit” doctrine can encourage the idea that the Spirit may lead people to several different interpretations of Scripture, based on the “spiritual sense” and that all of them can be correct because it is the Spirit that is interpreting the word for us.

Unfortunately, it is not only in the interpretation of Scripture but in its life changing application that a supposed “illumination of the Spirit” is considered necessary. For example, the popular and rightly respected Christian counselor Ed Smith writes:

The written Word is the primary source for truth information, but apart from the Holy Spirit interpreting, instructing, and illuminating this written Word, we only gain knowledge. Hebrews 4:2 expresses the need to have the Holy Spirit’s help for understanding the scriptures: “For we also have had the Gospel preached to us, just as they did, but the message they heard was of no value to them because those who heard it did not combine it with faith.”

For example, a non-believer can read the Bible and become more knowledgeable in Biblical fact, yet be void of life transformation and true spiritual understanding. Unless the Holy Spirit reveals truth, we cannot receive it beyond the point of knowledge. A pastor may preach a sermon and we may hear and understand what he said without truly receiving it, but when the Holy Spirit releases truth into our innermost parts, it illuminates our souls and releases us from the bondage of lie-based thinking. ^[32]

As discussed more fully elsewhere, Dr. Smith is clear that our God-given Spirit-liberated reason faculties are not sufficient to enable the Scriptures to change our life. ^[33] He erroneously confuses what happens in regeneration and the preaching of the Gospel (i.e. Heb 4:2), with some supposed ongoing activity of the Spirit to enable believers to think correctly.

In addition, Dr. Smith would seem to completely ignore the tremendous difference between the Spirit-liberated reason of the regenerated believer, and the devil-darkened reason of the spiritually dead unbeliever. For the former, mere knowledge of the Scriptures will most often be life changing for the humble believer controlled by the Spirit in their New Nature. There is no need, nor any Scripture, for some additional “release” of the truth by the Holy Spirit in order to experience mind renewal. The Holy Spirit has already released our minds in order to properly process the clear revelation in Scripture to renew our mind.

When the Apostle Paul simply instructed, “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2), he was writing to people whose minds had been freed to receive, process, and accept the life changing truth of Scripture, and never even hinted at the need for some “illumination of the Spirit.” Rather, as we have written elsewhere:

[W]hen the Apostle commanded, “be transformed by the renewing of your mind (nous; understanding, reason)” he was not describing some mystical process that bypasses our reason. On the contrary, life transformation is essentially a process of replacing the lies we believe with the truth of God, and our reasoning faculties, the very place God created for us to discern truth from falsehood is vital in this matter. While it is popular to disparage merely cognitive methods for life transformation, the Scriptures emphasize them.

Sanctification and practical holiness is not something that simply descends upon us from on high as some spiritual anointing like some suggest, but rather is, in large part, a process that results from constantly improving our moral and logical reasoning (i. e. conscience and mind). Accordingly, the Apostle describes the process by which one becomes consecrated to God. Simply put, we must exchange the worldly lies we believe with the truth of God to form new beliefs, all of which is the domain of our reason. Our life is “transformed” when the beliefs that are processed, evaluated, accepted, and stored by reason are renewed to conform to Scripture, rather than the world. ^[34]

Mind renewal and spiritual transformation for the regenerated believer, then, are described in Scripture as a matter of right reasoning, not the “illumination of the Spirit.” And anyone would have a hard time proving otherwise from Scripture.

All of this talk of an “illumination of the Spirit,” of course, plays into the hands of our “charismatic” brethren who insist that the Spirit is constantly and clearly granting divine revelation today apart from the reasoned understanding and application of the written word of God. And advocates of the “illumination of the Spirit” have little ground to stand on to critique them, as an ongoing, immediate, supernatural guidance of the Spirit in our interpretation and application of Scripture is rather indistinguishable from the mysticism that is rampant in Charismaticism.

Accordingly, the influential Reformed theologian John Armstrong, no doubt a proponent of the “illumination” doctrine, nonetheless critiques the same idea in Charismaticism when he writes: “According to modern charismatics and enthusiasts of all types Scripture is illumined, or made plain, by a personal or privatized inner light, which is communicated directly or immediately to the soul.” ^[35] While Dr. Armstrong intends this to be a critique, it would seem impossible to distinguish this description from how others describe the “illumination of the Spirit” in relation to Scripture. No doubt, the insistence of many that this “illumination” only applies to the written word, certainly serves to protect it from some of the dangerous subjectivism in Charismaticism, but in principle, it is just as unbiblical.

Along these lines, the popular Baptist theologian Millard Erickson writes:

[T]here are some groups that regard the Holy Spirit [instead of Scripture] as the chief authority for the Christian. Certain charismatic groups, for example, believe that special prophecy is occurring today. New messages from God are being given by the Holy Spirit. In most cases, these messages are regarded as explaining the true meaning of certain biblical passages. Thus, the contention is that while the Bible is authoritative, in practice its meaning would often not be found without special action by the Holy Spirit. ^[36]

Again, while many Evangelicals would reject this practice of Charismaticism, they have little to complain about because their doctrine of the “illumination” is hardly different. Even here, Dr. Erickson is being critical of the idea that Scripture’s “meaning would often not be found without special action by the Holy Spirit,” and he even writes eloquently about the use of reason and rules of interpretation in understanding Scripture. ^[37] However, a few pages later Dr. Erickson writes:

A view emphasizing the objective component [of interpreting Scripture, i.e. reason and rules] regards the Bible alone as the authority; it relies on methods of interpretation to the neglect of the inner witness of the Spirit. . . . He . . . gives understanding of the text through the exegete’s work of interpretation. ^[38]

What this fine theologian criticizes on page 278 of his Christian Theology, he seems to endorse five pages later. Dr. Erickson is not content to say that God has given us Spirit-liberated reason in order to properly interpret and apply Scripture, but insists that the Spirit is constantly and supernaturally intervening in our reasoning, such that it is ultimately the Holy Spirit Himself who “gives understanding of the text.”

Finally, the “illumination of the Spirit” doctrine can result in just one more attack on the God-ordained value and place of the born again Christian’s Spirit-liberated reason. Like the “testimony of the Spirit,” the “illumination” mistakenly suggests that something God intended to be a matter of regenerated human research, is a matter of divine revelation.

For example, Dr. Bloesch seems to deny any need for the Christian to even think about Scripture when he writes, “The Bible is the Word of God in all that it teaches, though this teaching is not immediately self-evident but must be unveiled by the Spirit.” ^[39] In other words, it would seem, the correct interpretation comes as a direct revelation, not requiring any mental processes in order to obtain it. Again, we would suggest that at the time of our spiritual regeneration and conversion, the Spirit “fixed” our reasoning faculties and restored them to their intended function.

Along the same lines, the Charismatic philosopher J. P. Moreland attempts to differentiate the “analytical” interpretation of Scripture which depends on reason, and the more spiritual application of Scripture which depends on a special, immediate action of the Spirit. He writes:

The analytical mode for the reading and study of Scripture is highly honored in the scholarly evangelical tradition. The words Bible study, exegesis and hermeneutics are associated with this approach in which we bring questions to the text and analyze it in order to gain knowledge of the truth. Analytical reading highlights the use of our God-given minds to master the public meaning of the God-given written text, an essential process [how about the only process] to discern the objective truth of God’s special revelation. . . .

Yet meditative Scripture reading also offers a rich opportunity to visit with God, although it has not been discussed much in our particular evangelical tradition. Evangelicals have begun to recognize the need for both approaches, yet the question is, how do these approaches relate to each other? Our preference is to engage them in a cyclical process, now employing an analytical mode, now pausing to engage the meditative mode, then again employing an analytical mode, and pausing again to engage the meditative mode and so on. Through such repetitive movement we can seek understanding of truth and universal principles for living and welcome God’s penetrating and personal touch on our lives.

Meditative reading is of a different tone and texture and adds another dimension to how the Bible can affect our lives. Here we patiently wait and listen for God to speak to us personally. Our purpose is not to master a certain portion of Scripture, but to read a few verses, slowly, meditatively, perhaps vocalizing each word, and monitoring our heart to sense God’s movement to highlight a certain word or phrase or sentence for our attentive reflection and rumination. . . . We wish to be ready for God to speak to us personally. ^[40]

Several responses are in order. First, we wonder why Dr. Moreland would assume that not all the words of the King, the Apostles, and Prophets are God’s personal word to us. They are all equally personal to us.

Secondly, what the author may mean is that not all of God’s word is equally applicable to our current needs, circumstances, desires, or decisions. Understandably, Scriptures that relate more directly to these things will seem more “personal.” Nonetheless, it is wrong for Dr. Moreland to super-supernaturalize and mega mysticize the process of finding personal applications for the commands and promises of Scripture. Both the “analytical” and “meditative” mode of reading Scripture require and involve nothing more (and nothing less!) than our God-given Spirit-liberated reason. Meditation itself is the focused effort of our Spirit-liberated human reason, not the quiet listening for another divine revelation.

C) Biblical Problems with the “Illumination of the Spirit”

C.1) Scriptures Referring to Revelation and Regeneration: Eph 1:18- I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened

We have claimed throughout this chapter that the proponents of the “illumination” have no clear support from Scripture for their doctrine. We have dealt with some of these erroneous proof texts in the previous chapter regarding the “testimony of the Spirit.” In addition, we thoroughly discuss many such texts in Book 14 regarding mysticism in general. More specifically, we demonstrate that many of the biblical promises used to defend the “illumination of the Spirit” doctrine, most clearly apply to the divine revelation that the King promised to His Apostles to produce Scripture, not some ongoing, constant, and immediate ministry of the Spirit to enable us to interpret and apply Scripture accurately. ^[41]

Likewise, we would suggest that promoters of the “illumination” are also confusing it with the regeneration of the Spirit at the time of conversion. It is interesting to note that in passages where the Spirit is said to be interacting with the word, the context would seem to be the preaching of the Gospel and the regeneration and conversion of the spiritually dead people hearing it, not to a continuing ministry of the Spirit for the believer to interpret Scripture (cf. 1 Thess 1:4-5; Acts 16:14; 2 Cor 4:6).

Nonetheless, we will address a few common proof-texts for the “illumination” doctrine here. First, in Ephesians 1:18 the NIV translates the Apostle saying: “I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you.” Such a translation suggests that the Apostle is praying for an ongoing “illumination” of the Spirit in the lives of the Ephesian Christians so that they can understand divine revelation. However, the NET Bible more accurately reflects the Greek text:

I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you spiritual wisdom and revelation in your growing knowledge of Him, – since the eyes of your heart have been enlightened [pephōtismenous – perfect tense indicating past action with continuing results]– so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what is the wealth of His glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the incomparable  greatness of His power toward us who believe . . . (Eph 1:17-19 NET ^[42])

This translation reflects the fact that the Greek participle pephōtismenous [“having been enlightened”] is in the perfect tense, meaning an action that has already been completed in the past with continuing results in the present. Accordingly, Harold Hoehner, Distinguished Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, notes in the Bible Knowledge Commentary:

The neb, nasb, and niv state another request: I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened. However, this is not a new sentence in Greek. It seems to be parenthetical, as in the kjv, asv, and rsv. In other words, Paul had prayed (v. 17) that they might have true spiritual insight into God, and then he included the phrase, “having the eyes of your heart enlightened” (rsv). Paul’s request for them to know God was within proper bounds because their hearts had been enlightened (the Gr. perf. tense indicates past action with continuing results). ^[43]

Therefore, enlightened hearts is something Paul describes the Ephesians as already having. Accordingly, the prayer would read that God, “may give you spiritual wisdom and revelation ^[44] in a knowledge of Him (your heart having already been enlightened), so that you would know . . .” The enlightenment that Paul is speaking of then is not some future operation of the Spirit yet to occur that will provide some sort of “illumination” but rather the “illumination” has already occurred for these Christians at the time of regeneration. Perhaps this view of “illumination” is reflected by Dr. MacArthur who writes: “God must open the eyes of our understanding before we can truly know and rightly interpret His truth. His truth is available only to those with a regenerate spirit and in whom His Spirit dwells, for only the Spirit can illumine Scripture.” ^[45] We can wholeheartedly agree with this. The necessary “illumination” is available and active to all “with a regenerate spirit and in whom His Spirit dwells.” Of course “illumination” is needed, but it is given permanently in regeneration, and is not an ongoing, sporadic ability.

C.2) Ephesians 6:17: The Sword of the Spirit

Ephesians 6:17 is understandably another verse that is used to support the idea that the Holy Spirit is dynamically and continually interacting between us and Scripture. There the Apostle says: “Take the . . . sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The suggestion is that the Spirit personally and directly interacts with memorized or known Scripture to bring to mind the specific spiritual truth needed to counteract the lie with which satan may be attacking. This may be the case, but the verse does not clearly state that.

Most commentators suggest that the phrase “the sword of the Spirit” is a genitive of source or origin, suggesting simply that the sword of written, memorized Scripture came from the Spirit (i.e. through the divine revelation of Apostles and Prophets), rather than suggesting that the Spirit is using the Scripture. ^[46] The idea of the Spirit being the revelational source of the Scripture, rather than the means of its application, parallels the phrase “the armor of God” (6:11, 13) in this very passage. Here we understand that the armor comes from God, not that it is used by God, and that we have both the ability and responsibility to put it on and apply it. Such would seem to be the case with the “sword of [from] the Spirit” which is Scripture. Scripture is given by the Spirit and it is now actually up to us to apply our knowledge of it and “take” it and use it effectively.

In fact, a major problem with super-supernaturalizing the real process by which we apply Scripture to our lives is to leave Christians defenseless. The author has worked with a number of Christians who believed picking up and using “the sword of the Spirit” was God’s job, not theirs. Accordingly, they were “waiting on God” to rescue them from the onslaught of negative, sinful thinking in their mind. It was not until they recognized their God-given ability and responsibility to fight themselves, did they begin to have victory. The biblical statement “take up the shield of faith” is a command for us to do, not a promise of what God will do. And it is a command to believe the correct biblical truth that defeats the particular lie we are being attacked with. And our Spirit-liberated reason is able to do that.

God will not do for us what He has already enabled us to do. If we think we cannot walk without some sort of divine intervention, then we will not walk. Likewise, if we do not think we are capable of fighting the devil by taking up the sword of the Spirit and applying the Scriptures to the lies we are being attacked with, we will not do it. We will be “waiting on God,” which sounds spiritual, but because in this case it is not biblical, the devil takes great advantage of it. We have already been enabled to successfully process truth for spiritual battle. God has given us a sword (the truth in Scripture) and the means to use it (our Spirit-liberated reason) and we just need to use them both!

This idea of personal God-given ability and therefore responsibility is again reflected in the Apostle’s instruction to Timothy to, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15 NASB). Again, no promise of some sort of guidance from the Spirit here. Likewise, he says in Colossians, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom (Col 3:16). Obviously the place where the “word of Christ” would “dwell” is our mind, and if it does so, we will be equipped to “teach and admonish one another with all wisdom” making additional revelation from the Spirit unnecessary. Certainly few would claim that we should expect the Spirit to use Scripture that we do not know, therefore demonstrating the importance of our mind regardless.

This is the view of the highly respected NT scholar F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) who writes concerning Ephesians 6:17:

“God’s word” is his utterance- “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Deut. 8:3 LXX). It is through his Spirit that his word is both uttered and received on earth [in Scripture]. Perhaps the best example of the use of his word to repel spiritual foes is seen in Jesus’ employment of the text just quoted (Deut. 8:3) to repel the tempter in the wilderness (Matt. 4:4). The divine utterance, the product of the Spirit [that which “is written” (Matt 4:4)], lends itself readily to the believer who has laid it up in his heart (cf. Ps. 119:11; Col. 3:16a) for effective use in the moment of danger against any attempt to seduce him from allegiance to Christ. ^[47]

Dr. Bruce sees no need to imply that it was the Spirit of God, rather than the mind of Christ, that appropriately remembered and applied what “is written” (cf. Matt 4:4, 7, 10) in Scripture. No doubt, the King had memorized Scripture and used His reason to bring them to mind and apply them to the lie the devil was attacking with. Neither Ephesians 6:17 nor Matthew 4 would seem to be a case in which the Holy Spirit had to immediately reveal the needed Scripture in the face of temptation. It would seem then that a very good interpretation of Ephesians 6:17 would be that the word of God which was originally revealed by the Spirit and recorded in Scripture, is to be applied to whatever lie satan is attacking with, in the same way we remember and apply other truths—with our reason. ^[48]

Here, we will point out an additional and related error regarding Ephesians 6:17. This concerns the meaning of the Apostle’s use of the word rhēma (an utterance, saying, word) instead of the more common logos (something said, word) to refer to the “word [rhēma] of God.” It is common, particularly in Pentecostal circles, to differentiate between these terms and suggest that logos is simply a written or spoken word, but rhēma refers to a word that has a Spirit-empowered effect on the recipient.

Besides smelling like neoorthodoxy which denies that the written word is God’s word, there is no linguistic or biblical support for imposing this meaning on the use of rhēma. Logos and rhēma are most often used interchangeably in the Scriptures with no meaningful difference at all. The only possible difference that can be made is that logos may refer to a more extended statement in order to express an entire thought, while rhēma may specify a single word or utterance. ^[49] Matthew 12:36 illustrates our point where the King says, “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word [rhēma] they have spoken.” Surely the “rhēma” spoken here is not Spirit-empowered.

C.3) Other Scriptures

Henry and Richard Blackaby write:

At the close of the Gospel of Luke, we find Jesus appearing to his followers who had gathered together. Scripture indicates that Jesus “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45 HCSB). Apparently even when Christians gather together, they cannot understand the Scriptures apart from the work of God in opening their hearts and minds. Since Pentecost, the role of the Holy Spirit is to help people understand what the Bible has to say to them. ^[50]

Again, the Blackabys imply that there is an absolutely necessary, continual, and evidently revelatory work of the Holy Spirit that enables believers to “understand what the Bible has to say to them.” What is missed here is that the disciples had not yet been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. A few verses later, Jesus tells them, “I am going to send you what My Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (v. 49). Of course He needed to open their minds to understand the Scripture. They were spiritually dead. But that was no longer needed after Pentecost, and after the miracle of regeneration gave them a Spirit-liberated reason. And such is the case for all regenerated believers today.

Likewise, Dr. MacArthur writes:

The psalmist understood the need for God’s illumination of His Word. He prayed, “Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Thy law” (Ps. 119:18). He did not need the Lord’s help to read His Word, but he knew he needed His help to understand it. ^[51]

It is possible that such a prayer as “Open my eyes” was needed by the psalmist, whoever he was, under the Old Covenant in which God’s people were not universally given Spirit-liberated reason through supernatural regeneration at the time of spiritual conversion. Thus, David prays elsewhere, “Do not . . . take your Holy Spirit from me,” (Ps 51:11) referring to something he had witnessed in Saul’s life (cf. 1 Sam 16:14), but could not happen under the New Covenant (cf. Eph 1:13-14). Therefore, perhaps such a prayer was more appropriate in an age in which Spirit-liberated reason was both rare and potentially fleeting.

In addition, it is very possible that by the psalmist asking that God would correct his thinking, that he is merely asking the Spirit to control his mind with the virtues we have discussed above so that he is thinking properly in regards to God’s word.

Finally, we would like to suggest that such a prayer is very appropriate in any age. Our difficulties and concerns with the doctrine of “illumination” are not intended to deny that God has the freedom to supernaturally intervene in our thought processes and divinely reveal thoughts that the more normal process of meditating on Scripture with our Spirit-liberated reason would not have produced. God may very well do this, and if we need Him to, He will. Because we do not know when our Spirit-liberated and empowered faculties will be inadequate to fulfill His will, and we therefore need a miracle, it is appropriate to habitually ask for one. Nonetheless, we see no Scripture that prescribes or promises the miracle of insight that the “illumination” doctrine claims. And we must remember that miracles are rare by definition, and that God is not in the habit of doing for us what He has already enabled us to do.

D) Additional Theological & Practical Problems with the “Illumination of the Spirit”

No Christian is in a position to dogmatically deny that God would ever supernaturally give us a direct divine revelation in order to enable us to accurately interpret and creatively apply the written divine revelation we already have in Scripture. While we do not believe God has promised this, He is still free to do it when and if He pleases. However, proponents of the “illumination of the Spirit” are not honest enough about the difficulty of distinguishing between the more normal and sufficient processing of our Spirit-liberated reason and the possible, but more supernatural occurrence of God directly intervening in our thinking to ensure the proper conclusions. The only way that anyone could test such a thing is to practice the age old process of comparing other clear Scripture with our interpretation, which obviously gets us back to the use of our reason for interpreting Scripture.

One critical question is how does a person “turn on” the “illumination” and how does it get “turned off”? Proponents of this view certainly imply that we are at times experiencing the “illumination” and at other times we are not. Why is this so? What do we need to do to be “illuminated”? The Scriptures never say. Wouldn’t that be an important thing for us to know? If we need some sort of ongoing but conditional “illumination” why wouldn’t God instruct us on the conditions? And proponents of the illumination doctrine never tell us either.

We also mention in chapter 3.3 that the doctrine of the “illumination” is an attack on the historically held belief in the clarity of Scripture of which we have written elsewhere:

Essentially, this historic belief of the Church claims that divine revelation in Scripture possesses sufficient clarity and that human reason possesses sufficient ability, so that Scripture is readily understood by humans. . . . It is because God designs His revelation to be sufficiently clear, and human reason to be sufficiently able, that humans are responsible to understand and obey it. ^[52]

Also, proponents of the “illumination” doctrine leave us in the rather ridiculous position of needing a divine revelation in order to properly understand and obey another divine revelation. Where would this circular dependency stop? Why don’t we need additional revelation in order to understand and apply the revelation that comes through “illumination?” Is it because it is more clear and straight-forward than the objective words written on the page? Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

[A]fter the Apostle Paul relates some analogies about ministry to Timothy, he adds, “Reflect [noei: “contemplatively think over”] on what I am saying [writing], for the Lord will give you insight into all this” (2 Tim 2:7). How would “the Lord . . . give . . . insight into” what the Apostle was writing? By using the God-given faculty of reason to research the meaning of the Apostle’s revelation.

The reason that the Apostle attributes a resulting understanding as divine insight is not because it occurs in a mystical, miraculous way, but a mental, more regular way, in which we use the human means God has given us to understand His revelation. The Apostle does not imply or even hint that some supernatural “illumination” of the Spirit or an additional divine inspiration is needed to understand Scripture, but rather and simply mental reflection by Timothy.

The Scriptures are already the revelation of the Spirit and we do not need another revelation of the Spirit to properly understand and apply this revelation. Scripture is not in some secret divine code for which we need supernatural “illumination” in order to decipher it. The Spirit revealed Scripture, and now it requires the diligent use of our Spirit-liberated reason to fully understand that revelation and to apply it. While a reference to an “illumination of the Spirit” certainly sounds more spiritual, it is an unnecessary misunderstanding of something that actually occurs more naturally for the born again Christian. ^[53]

The suggestion that we need a revelation of the Spirit in order to interpret and apply the revelation of the Spirit we have in Scripture is also in danger of redefining the divine revelation of God’s Apostle’s and Prophets. In other words, what is being claimed is that the work of the Spirit in revelation is not enough, but that another, continual, supernatural act of the Spirit is needed for the work of divine revelation to be completed. For example, Colin Gunton, Professor of Christian Doctrine at King’s College, University of London unfortunately laments that:

[M]uch of the history of the doctrine of inspiration is in large measure an attempt to equate inspiration and revelation in such a way that the text in some way or other replaces or renders redundant the mediating [interpreting] work of the Spirit. . . .

Here I am very close to the classic Reformed distinction between the external word of scripture and the verbum internum [revelation, illumination, inspiration] of the Spirit. The modern version of the confusion of inspiration and revelation is . . . the tendency to turn the text [Scripture], the narrative, etc. into the divine agent [instead of an immediate and additional inspiration of the Spirit]. ^[54]

Putting some supposed spontaneous, possibly intermittent action of the Spirit between the text of Scripture and the mind of the Christian has no biblical warrant and has some dangerous consequences. Notice how Dr. Gunton uses such a doctrine in order to propose something very popular in postmodern theology:

Any new [inspiring] action [of the Holy Spirit], therefore, can be expected within the framework of this eternal revelation [i.e. Scripture]. [This implies] the possibility of progress in theology which is grounded in revelation, and in particular the promise that the Spirit will lead the church ‘into all truth’. Therefore dogma and theology are revisable, scripture is in certain respects open to question, but revelation, mediated through scripture, is not. ^[55]

Likewise, James DeYoung, Professor of New Testament at Western Seminary, claims in his book, Beyond the Obvious: Discover the Deeper Meaning of Scripture, that because of this same spontaneous and intermittent work of the Spirit, God can give “new truth and revelation to those who listen for his voice.” ^[56]

If the Spirit actually did such a thing how would we know? Does this not seem to open up the Scriptures to all kinds of various interpretations in the name of the Spirit? And if it is a spirit that is telling us the correct interpretation of Scripture, how do we know it is the Holy Spirit? Isn’t the devil in the habit of offering an interpretation and application of Scripture (cf. Gen 3:1-4; Matt 4:5-7)?

There are several other practical difficulties with the doctrine of the “illumination of the Spirit” as well. First, if we are so dependent on the Spirit for correctly interpreting Scripture, who gets the blame when we interpret and apply it incorrectly? Likewise, haven’t we all experienced being strongly convinced of a particular interpretation or application of Scripture in a way that certainly felt like a supernatural “illumination,” only to discover later that our interpretation or application was wrong? Didn’t we feel the same way when it turned out to be right? Doesn’t this expose the danger of putting our trust in a feeling which is basically how the “illumination” of the Spirit manifests itself in those who claim it?

Another question is: Are the myriad of differences in biblical interpretation due to one party being more “illuminated” with the Spirit than others? We know of no Evangelical theologian who would describe interpretations of Scripture in this way.

Without exception, correct interpretations are described and promoted in very scientific terms such as “fitting the facts,” “making sense of the biblical data,” “reflecting the context,” “not contradictory,” and otherwise being what any reasonable person would conclude from an unbiased reading of the text. Such interpretations are supported with arguments and evidence in a courtroom-like manner appealing to our reason. No one appeals to some subjective “illumination” of the Spirit to defend their interpretation of Scripture, because there is no validity to such a thing.

Accordingly, Gary Friesen remarks:

By way of illustration, there is one area where an appeal to inner impressions is deemed to be invalid in decision making. Virtually no one admits to such an approach in biblical interpretation-the science of hermeneutics. There are many accepted principles for the study of God’s Word, but tuning in to inward impulses is not one of them. If a commentator were to adopt the [mystical] view of decision making and apply it to matters of biblical interpretation, he might write something like this:

Having just explained the five possible interpretations that Bible scholars have suggested for this text, this writer confesses that this is a very difficult passage to understand. In such cases, the Holy Spirit must be the final Guide. In response to my prayer for guidance, the Spirit has indicated to my heart through His still small voice that the correct interpretation is the last one listed above.

Surely such a rationale would raise red flags in the mind of the reader. ^[57]

And so should the claims of proponents of “illumination.” On the contrary, erroneous interpretations are exposed and demonstrated with logic and reason because this is the way that humans were made to determine and recognize the truth. Theologians can theologize about the Spirit continually guiding us in our interpretations of Scripture, but in practice they do not seem to believe it, or use it, and in fact demonstrate the very dependence on reason that we believe in.

Additionally, the need for supernaturally revealed customized applications of Scripture is exaggerated. Not only because our God-given moral and logical reasoning are capable of effectively applying Scripture, but because needs and circumstances of people are fairly universal and the rather easily understood encouragements in Scripture speak to them all. Do we really need the Holy Spirit to supernaturally reveal to us a customized application of, “I can do everything through Him Who gives me strength” (Phil 4:13)? We know how that applies to our lives today, and it would not seem to be because the Holy Spirit directly and supernaturally revealed something to us apart from Scripture.

Finally, as with the “testimony of the Spirit” to the canon of Scripture, we perceive a desire in the promotion of the “illumination of the Spirit” to provide a greater, even supernatural level of certainty for our interpretation of Scripture. Like the “testimony,” this teaching accomplishes no such thing, and we are again left to the right use of our liberated, but human reason. An “illumination” of the Spirit certainly sounds more spiritual, supernatural, and certain, but it is neither necessary, biblical, accurate, nor honest about how God really works. In the matter of properly interpreting, applying, and teaching Scripture, God has simply said, “Do your best” (2 Tim 2:15).

Publications & Particulars

1. Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vols. 1 & 2 (Harper & Row, 1978), 2:273. ↑

2. Charles C. Ryrie, “Illumination” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT) Walter Elwell ed., (Baker, 1984), 545. ↑

3. Regarding “reasoning rightly” see section 4.4.C. ↑

4. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons, 1997), 1 Cor 2:15. ↑

5. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols., reprint (Hendrickson, 2003), I:IV.1. ↑

6. R. C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit (Tyndale, 1990), 121. ↑

7. Bruce K. Waltke, Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? (Eerdmans, 1995), 74-5, 180-2. ↑

8. For Dr. Waltke’s defense of the “framework theory” of Genesis 1-2 see “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One.” Crux, Dec. 1991; 2-10. Also, “The First Seven Days: What is the Creation Account Trying to Tell Us?” Christianity Today, 12 Aug. 1988; 42-46. ↑

9. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, The Sovereign Spirit: Discerning the Gifts (Harold Shaw, 1985), 76. ↑

10. Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology (Eerdmans, 1953), 402. Elsewhere Dr. Kuyper goes on to write:

    Hence the Holy Spirit alone can interpret the ‘Scripture. . . . Hence the work of the Holy Spirit with reference to interpretation is indirect and the means employed are: (1) scientific study; (2) the [pastoral/teaching] ministry of the Word; and (3) the spiritual experience of the Church. And it is by the cooperation of these three factors that, in the course of ages, the Holy Spirit indicates which interpretation deviates from the truth, and which is the correct understanding of the Word. (194)

    Here, Dr. Kuyper is at least willing to admit that the Spirit uses indirect means (even “scientific study”) to guide us in interpretation. Here there is no need to imply a separate, ongoing, direct revelation of the Spirit. However, he does not take the same approach to the application of Scripture of which he writes:

    Hence this work of application belongs to the Holy Spirit alone, for only He knows the relation which the Scripture must sustain at last to every one of God’s elect. As to the manner in which the work is performed, it is either direct or indirect.

    The indirect application comes most generally through the ministry, which attains its highest end when standing before his congregation the minister can say, “This is the message of the Word which at this time the Holy Spirit intends for you.” An awful claim indeed, and only attainable when one lives as deeply in the Word as in the Church. Besides this there is also an application of the Word brought about by the spoken or written word of a brother, which sometimes is as effectual as a long sermon. The quiet perusal of some exposition of the truth has sometimes stirred the soul more effectually than a service in the house of prayer.

    The direct application of the Word the Holy Spirit effects by the reading of the Scripture or by remembered passages. Then He brings to remembrance words deeply affecting us by their singular power. And, although the world smiles and even brethren I profess ignorance concerning it, it is our conviction that the special application of that moment was for us and not for them, and that in our inward souls the Holy Spirit performed a work peculiar to Himself. (195)

    Again, we are not denying this is how it may happen, but we disagree with the complete denial that our Spirit-liberated reason is capable of doing the same, and normally does so by God’s own design. Did not give us a mind to remember things like Scripture? Proponents of the “illuminaition” do not seem to think so. ↑

11. Hodge, I:V.6. ↑

12. For further discussion of Scriptures relating to the revelation of Apostles, and particularly John 16:13 see chapter 14.13 and section D. ↑

13. J. I. Packer, Knowing Christianity (Harold Shaw, 1995), 37-8. ↑

14. Norman Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena (Andrews University, 2003), 133, 163, 709. ↑

15. For an introduction to the difference between the Spirit-liberated reason of the regenerated believer and the devil-darkened reason of the unregenerated unbeliever see chapters 4.12-16. ↑

16. For further discussion of Scriptures relating to the revelation of Apostles, and particularly John 16:13 chapter 14.13 and section D. ↑

17. Henry T. Blackaby, and Claude V. King, Experiencing God Workbook (Lifeway, 2000), 36-37, 78. ↑

18. Henry and Richard Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Broadman & Holman, 2003), 18. ↑

19. Blackaby, Experiencing God, 91. ↑

20. Mega mysticism is the belief that God regularly communicates to us regarding extrabiblical matters (e.g. what job to choose) through more direct and miraculous means of divine revelation such as inspired intuitions, miraculous “signs,” and the spiritual gifts of “knowledge” and “prophesies.” For further discussion see Book 14. ↑

21. Jonathan Edwards, Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, III:4; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

22. Quoted from section 3.3.A.1. ↑

23. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture, & Hermeneutics (Intervarsity, 2002), 208, 228, 233-4. ↑

24. For further discussion of “faculty psychology” which, in our opinion, erroneously distinguishes between such concepts as the human mind/ “heart” and reason/ “will” see chapter 4.2. ↑

25. Woodrow Kroll, Back to the Bible: Turning Your Life Around with God’s Word (Multnomah, 2000), 174. ↑

26. For further commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 see section 14.13.E. ↑

27. J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (NavPress, 1997), 47, 48. ↑

28. For further discussion of the place of Spirit-given virtue in properly interpreting Scripture see section 3.3.A.5. ↑

29. Donald G. Bloesch, The Holy Spirit (InterVarsity, 2000), 279. ↑

30. Neo-orthodoxy is a relatively complex theological perspective best known as the position Karl Barth (1886-1968) promoted. R. V. Schnucker relates in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT):

    Neo-orthodoxy . . . does not have the popularity it enjoyed earlier in the [20^th] century. Certain inherent elements have precluded its continuing influence. For example . . . its view of Scripture, “The Bible is God’s Word so far as God lets it be his Word” (Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/2, 123), has been seen as a rejection of the infallible sola Scriptura of conservative Protestantism. . . .

    Perhaps the greatest weakness within the movement has been its pessimism concerning the reliability and validity of human [even Christian] reason. [Its critics claim] If human reason cannot be trusted, then it follows that since neo-orthodoxy relied on human reason, it could not be trusted. (“Neo-orthodoxy,” [Baker, 1994], 756)

    Which is the same inevitable result of any philosophy or theology that degrades the God-given place of especially Spirit-liberated reason. ↑

31. For further discussion of Origen’s approach to interpreting Scripture see his De Princiis, Book 4, ch. 1, para. 10.; online at http://www.ccel.org ↑

32. Ed M. Smith, Theophostic Prayer Ministry Basic Seminar Manual (New Creation, 2005), 138. ↑

33. For further discussion of the helpfulness, but biblical errors in Dr. Ed Smith’s Theophostic Prayer approach to counseling see Appendix 14.A. ↑

34. Quoted from section 4.3.C. ↑

35. John H. Armstrong, “The Authority of Scripture” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995),134. ↑

36. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Baker, 1998), 278. ↑

37. Ibid., 282-3. ↑

38. Ibid., 283. ↑

39. Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vols. 1 & 2 (Harper & Row, 1978), 2:273. ↑

40. J. P. Moreland and Klaus Issler, In Search of a Confident Faith (Intervarsity, 2008), 180-82. ↑

41. For further discussion of the biblical promises of apostolic divine revelation see chapter 14.13. ↑

42. Regarding Ephesians 1:18, the translators of the NET Bible note:

    The perfect participle πεφωτισμένους (pephōtismenous) may either be part of the prayer (“that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened”) or part of the basis of the prayer (“since the eyes of your heart have been enlightened”). Although the participle follows the ἵνα of v. 17, it is awkward grammatically in the clause. Further, perfect adverbial participles are usually causal in NT Greek.

    Finally, the context both here and throughout Ephesians seems to emphasize the motif of light as a property belonging to believers. Thus, it seems that the author is saying, “I know that you are saved, that you have had the blinders of the devil removed; because of this, I can now pray that you will fully understand and see the light of God’s glorious revelation.” Hence, the translation takes the participle to form a part of the basis for the prayer [not a hoped for result]. (Online at http://net.bible.org/bible, in loc.)

    For further discussion of the proper meaning of Ephesians 1:17-18 see section 14.18.A.4. ↑

43. Harold Hoehner, “Ephesians” Bible Knowledge Commentary, eds. John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, (SP Publications, NT, 1983; OT, 1985) ↑

44. For arguments that the “wisdom and revelation” Paul is speaking of in Ephesians 1:17 refers to the doctrinal knowledge that would come through the NT Apostles and Prophets, instead of some private inspiration, see section 14.18.A.4. ↑

45. MacArthur, Commentary, 1 Cor 2:15. ↑

46. A. S. Wood comments in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:

    The genitive tou pneumatos (“of the Spirit”) is hardly appositional, since the following words identify the sword with rhema theou, (“word of God”). Nor is it a genitive of quality (the spiritual sword). Some make ho (“which”) refer to pneumatos, i.e., “the Spirit who is the word of God,” but that is not substantiated in any other NT passage. The genitive is either of possession or better still of origin or source (Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.). ↑

47. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT) (Eerdmans, 1984), 409-10. ↑

48. As we noted above, many Scriptures speak of the work of the Spirit specifically in conjunction with the preaching and reception of the Gospel. Accordingly, many commentators suggest that the Apostle is speaking specifically of the preaching of the Gospel in Ephesians 6:17 (cf. Rom 1:16). For example, Peter O’Brien writes in his well regarded commentary on Ephesians:

    This sword of the Spirit is identified with ‘the word of God” a term which in Paul often signifies the Gospel. However, he normally uses logos (‘word’) instead of rhēma, which appears here. The two terms are often interchangeable, but the latter tends to emphasize the word as spoken or proclaimed (as in 5:26).

    If this distinction holds here, then Paul is referring to the Gospel (cf. Rom. 10:17), but stressing the actual speaking forth of the message, which is given its penetration and power by the Spirit [cf. 1 Thess 1:5]. . . .

    What is in view here is not some ad hoc word addressed to Satan, as though what we speak against him will defeat him. Rather, it is the faithful speaking forth of the Gospel in the realm of darkness, so that men and women held by Satan might hear this liberating and life-giving word and be freed from his grasp. (The Letter to the Ephesians [Eerdmans, 1999], 482).

    This is possible, but for our part, we would not limit the Apostle’s words to evangelism. Why would he leave out of the spiritual battle the important work that Teachers and Pastors do with the word of God as well? Are there not other truths important for the spiritual protection of believers apart from the contents of the saving Gospel? ↑

49. Accordingly, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology relates that in the Greek OT, the two terms are “often synonymous,” and that in the NT “logos can often designate the Christian proclamation as a whole, rhēma usually relates to individual words and utterances.” (H. Haarbeck, “Word” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT) Colin Brown ed., 4 vols., [Zondervan, 1986], III:1120-21). See also O’Brien, 482. ↑

50. Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice, 70. ↑

51. MacArthur, 1 Cor 2:15. ↑

52. Excerpted from section 3.3.A.3. ↑

53. Ibid. ↑

54. Colin E. Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation (T&T Clark, 1995), 66. ↑

55. Ibid., 80-81. ↑

56. James DeYoung and Sarah Hurty, Beyond the Obvious: Discover the Deeper Meaning of Scripture (Vision House, 1995). ↑

57. Gary Friesen and J. Maxon, Decision Making and the Will of God (Multnomah, 1980), 131-32. ↑