Chapter 7.10

The Limitations of Scripture

Not All of the Information We Need

Table of Topics

A) Scripture Does Not Contain Everything Necessary to Glorify God

B) Scripture is Not a Self-sufficient Mode of Divine Authentication

C) Scripture is Not the Only Method God is Using to Communicate Some of its Contents

D) 2 Timothy 3:16 Applies Specifically to Ministers & Does not Teach that They Need No Other Information

E) The Obsolete Authority of OT Law

F) Scripture Will Only be as Sufficient as the Accuracy of its Interpretation and Teaching

G) Scripture is Not a Magical Oracle

Extras & Endnotes

A) Scripture Does Not Contain Everything

Primary Points

We need more information than the contents of Scripture to fulfill and glorify God in all of the responsibilities God has given us in life.

• Scripture alone is not sufficient to distinguish false Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers in the Church, but more importantly their virtue must be evaluated.
• God is using other modes of divine revelation today to communicate the contents of Scripture. God is constantly “speaking” through the old Creation all around us, and His “new creation” inside of us.
• 2 Timothy 3:16 applies specifically to ministers & does not teach that they or others need no other information.
• Christians are no longer under the authority of the Old Covenant and only those OT commands that are repeated in the NT are binding. This extends even to one of the “Ten Commandments,” the Sabbath.
• While we would claim the Law of Moses is obsolete for the Christian, contrary to some dispensational theology, we like the Apostle Paul are “under Christ’s law”
• The sufficiency of Scripture will only be as sufficient as the accuracy of its interpretation and teaching.

Necessary to Glorify God

In an age when the sufficiency and authority of Scripture is already being illegitimately diminished in so many ways, we hesitate to point out some legitimate limitations to Scripture. However, the Church has traditionally understood the sufficiency of Scripture with some qualifications. Webster’s defines “sufficiency” as “enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end.” ^[1] Scripture simply does not meet such a definition in every situation. Along these lines, even the Westminster Confession in its statement regarding the sufficiency of Scripture adds:

Nevertheless, we acknowledge . . . that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered [determined] by the light of nature, and Christian prudence [reason], according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (VI:6)

In other words, there are important topics that Scripture does not speak on, and while no decisions should violate Scripture, some need to be made according to extra-biblical means such as reason. In reality, we need more information than the contents of Scripture to fulfill all of the responsibilities God has given us in life. We also need our God-given reason and what we have called elsewhere human information. ^[2] Accordingly, we have noted:

[T]here is a great deal of valuable information to be discovered in God’s Creation. While Christians certainly hold to the superiority of Scripture as a method of revelation, it is not denied that other information outside of the Scriptures is needed in a person’s life for them to live the most effectively.

When the Apostle Paul says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:15-16), he did not mean to imply that a Christian doctor, for instance, will find all the information he needs to do his job in a loving, God glorifying way, in the Bible.

Likewise, when Christ promised the Apostles that the Spirit of truth would guide them into “all truth” (John 16:13), the promise did not include all the truth about computers and automobiles. What is meant is that the Scriptures contain all the truth especially essential for knowing and doing the will of God, which is by far, the most important truth to know, as our level of compliance with it determines whether or not we are sinning against our Creator and Judge. ^[3]

Indeed, a Christian brain surgeon who knew the divine revelation of Scripture well, but little about the human information on brains, would not be able to fulfill his God-given responsibility as a brain surgeon. More than that, the Christian surgeon would not glorify God. This is an important point of qualification on the sufficiency of Scripture.

For example, the rightly respected Bible teacher John MacArthur writes in a defense of the Reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura:

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God.

The author rightly qualified Scripture as “spiritual truth,” but then made what would appear to be the inaccurate conclusion that it contains, “all that we must do in order to glorify God.” No it doesn’t. A brain surgeon who has not adequately studied his medical manuals concerning the human body will be considered by his peers and patients as a less than exemplary surgeon and therefore will not glorify God in his occupation.

Here then, we make an important distinction regarding the sufficiency of Scripture. While it tells us everything we need to know to obey God, it does not tell us everything we need to know in order to glorify God. This is particularly illustrated in a professional occupation. Indeed, a man may work at surgery “with all [his] heart as working for the Lord” (Col 3:23), but that does not guarantee that he will be the kind of skilled doctor that would glorify God in his occupation. If he lacks skill or knowledge he will make unnecessary mistakes, which are not the sin that can only come from neglecting Scripture, but those mistakes will certainly diminish his ability to glorify God.

This is one reason why we prefer to speak in terms of the supremacy of Scripture rather than its sufficiency. ^[4] And indeed, this may be more accurate, as the Psalmist proclaimed, “You [God] have exalted above all things Your Name and Your word” (Ps 138:2). Accordingly, while the information in Scripture may not be sufficient in every circumstance, it is still supreme in every circumstance. Therefore, while an ignorant surgeon may kill people because of incompetence, an immoral one may kill them out of perversion. Thus the “Hippocritical Oath” taken by all medical professionals to “do no harm,” makes biblical morality absolutely foundational to even a secular profession.

B) Scripture is Not a Self-Sufficient Mode of Divine Authentication

We have noted above that previously supernaturally authenticated Scripture can be used to authenticate a claim to be one of God’s Prophets. However, Scripture is far from sufficient for such a critical task. Accordingly, the King’s instruction for recognizing a false prophet was to point us to the “fruit” of their life (Matt 7:15-16). No doubt this included accurate biblical teaching, but not exclusively or even primarily this. Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

It is not by the content of their message alone that a false prophet will be exposed, but rather, it will be primarily by the content of their character. The first can be faked, the other cannot because it requires a supernatural enablement that God will only grant to those who are His. Our Lord knows that the unregenerate cannot match the virtue (“good fruit”) of the regenerate, no matter how religious they may be.

In addition, in spite of all the supernatural power God may grant satan, he cannot and will not duplicate the greatest miracle which is supernatural virtue. Accordingly, because virtue is the ultimate apologetic, in the end, it alone is sufficient to distinguish divine from demonic power and people. ^[5]

Likewise, we demonstrate elsewhere that unbelievers can perform miracles and preach the Gospel. ^[6] Therefore, Scripture alone is not sufficient to distinguish fake or even demonic counterfeits of false Apostles, Prophets, and teachers in the Church, although it is an important tool for those purposes.

C) Scripture is Not the Only Method God is Using to Communicate Some of its Contents

Next, it is important to understand that the sufficiency of Scripture applies to the content of Scripture, not the mode. God is using other modes of divine revelation today (e.g. Creation, our New Nature), to communicate the contents of Scripture. Therefore, it would seem that some great theologians are slightly misleading to suggest that Scripture is the only mode of divine revelation operating today.

For example, the long time Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster, John Murray (1898–1974), would seem too strong when he wrote:

Since we no longer have prophets, since we do not have our Lord with us as he was with the disciples, and since we do not have new organs of revelation as in apostolic times, Scripture in its total extent, according to the conception entertained by our Lord and his apostles, is the only revelation of the mind and will of God available to us. This is what the finality of Scripture means for us; it is the only extant revelatory Word of God. . . .

It is only in and through Scripture that we have any knowledge of or contact with him who is the image of the invisible God . . . Without Scripture we are excluded completely from the knowledge, faith, and fellowship of him who is the effulgence of the Father’s glory and the transcript of his being, as destitute of the Word of life as the disciples would have been if Jesus had not disclosed himself through his spoken word . . . .

Our dependence upon Scripture is total. Without it we are bereft of revelatory Word from God, from the counsel of God “respecting all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life. ” ^[7]

Likewise, the great Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) wrote, “There is no knowledge of Christ apart from Scripture, no fellowship with him except by fellowship in the word of the apostles.” ^[8] Along the same lines, one of our favorite Bible teachers and Pastor of Moody Bible Church, Erwin Lutzer, writes: “When the Bible is open, God is speaking; when it is closed, He stops speaking.” ^[9]

We greatly admire the desire of these men to protect the authority of Scripture from the threats of mega mysticism and prophetism. And perhaps, they would add the needed minor qualifications to their statements, given the opportunity. Nonetheless, it must be said that God is constantly “speaking” through the old Creation all around us (cf. Ps 19:1-6), and His “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17) inside of us. We possess the nature of God through the indwelling of the Spirit, which is our New Nature (cf. Eph 4:24; Phil 2:13). Therefore, we would suggest that we have a revelation of God and fellowship with Him apart from Scripture. While the divine revelation contained in our New Nature is limited to the moral commands already contained in Scripture, and neither it nor any other revelation adds to the content of Scripture, it is a separate mode of revelation.

Evidently, then, Scripture is not considered by God as a sufficient mode of revelation as He has provided others as well, even though their contents, objectivity, clarity, and authority do not surpass Scripture.

D) 2 Timothy 3:16 Applies Specifically to Ministers & Does not Teach that They Need No Other Information

Theologian Wayne Grudem writes in his discussion regarding the sufficiency of Scripture:

Paul writes to Timothy, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Here Paul indicates that one purpose for which God caused Scripture to be written is to train us that we might be “equipped for every good work.” If there is any “good work” that God wants a Christian to do, this passage indicates that God has made provision in his Word for training the Christian in it. Thus, there is no “good work” that God wants us to do other than those that are taught somewhere in Scripture: it can equip us for every good work. ^[10]

We appreciate Dr. Grudem’s desire to support the sufficiency of Scripture, and again, given the opportunity, he may add the following qualifications as well. Nonetheless, while his statement is a typical application of 2 Timothy 3:16, it would seem to have some significant problems. First, as discussed above, Scripture does not provide “training” for “any good work” as is implied. It simply does not contain all a person would need to know in order to be a great, God-glorifying brain surgeon that truly helps people.

Secondly, we agree with many commentators who propose that the Apostle’s promise here particularly applies to ministers, or “men of God” like Timothy (cf. 1 Tim 6:11). This would reflect the exclusive use of “man of God” to refer to Prophets such as Moses and Elijah in the OT. The term was not used to refer to just any member of the Old Covenant (cf. Deut 33:1; 1 Sam 2:27; 9:6; and numerous references in 1 Kgs through 2 Chron). This meaning would also fit with the fact that it is primarily pastoral ministry that would be involved in the “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” that the Apostle describes as the “good work” the “man of God” will be doing.

Accordingly, NT scholar Donald Guthrie writes: “The phrase man of God appears to be applied specifically to the Christian teachers, rather than to Christians generally (cf. 1 Tim 6:11).” ^[11] Likewise, John MacArthur writes:

Paul is speaking here of Scripture’s special value for preachers. . . . The apostle is addressing the man of God, a technical phrase used only of Timothy in the New Testament. In the Old Testament it is frequently used as a title for one who proclaimed the Word of God. In this context, man of God refers most directly to Timothy and, by extension, to all preachers. ^[12]

However, again, even if the application of this statement is primarily to ministers, the Apostle’s language does not imply that Scripture is the only source of information needed to enable even a minister to do his work effectively. Who, for example, would deny the great benefit of training in hermeneutics (Bible interpretation), homiletics (preaching), counseling methods, and leadership and management skills, all of which may involve extra-biblical information, but which can make a minister significantly more effective in his God-given responsibilities in the Church than he would be without them.

It is admitted that in many places these extra-biblical sources of ministry training are over-emphasized and training in Scripture is relatively neglected to the great hurt of the Church. Therefore, we are reluctant to dilute the Apostle’s statement in any way, especially in a day when he is not taken seriously enough already. But exaggeration is just as misleading as understatement and it would seem a mistake to interpret the Apostle as saying that a minister only needs the information in Scripture to do his job in the best possible way. We would suggest that neither experience nor the Greek text of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 supports such an exclusive stand.

This erroneous perspective is, for example, what is conveyed in the KJV which renders v. 17: “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Many modern translations convey the same idea of perfection and exclusivity (cf. NIV, NLT, RSV, NKJV, NCV, PME). This is a bit stronger than the Greek needs to be translated.

Accordingly, the more literal translations are helpful here such as the NASB which reads:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable [ōphelimos: “useful, beneficial,” not exclusive or self-sufficient] for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate [artios: lit. “fitted”], equipped [exartizō: lit. “out-fitted”] for every good work. (cf. ESV and NRSV)

The Apostle used words like “profitable,” “adequate,” and “equipped” to communicate Scripture’s supreme benefit to the minister, but these words convey something less than Scripture being the exclusive tool for equipping ministers “for every good work.” ^[13]

With all that said, no one can or should deny that Scripture is by far the most important “equipment” a minister needs to fulfill his duties of “teaching . . . reproof . . . correction [and] . . . training [others] in righteousness.” More specifically, it would be difficult to deny that its contents are exclusively sufficient to fulfill these duties in particular. It is primarily in the delivery and application of Scripture, and in additional duties of ministers, that other information is needed. Accordingly, we would want to agree whole-heartedly with Dr. MacArthur who writes:

Whether our purpose is to lead men and women to saving faith in Jesus Christ, to teach God’s truth to believers, to refute error in the church, to correct and rebuild erring believers, or to train believers to live righteously, our supreme and sufficient resource is God’s Word. It not only gives us the information to teach but also shapes us into living examples of that truth.

One cannot help wondering why so many evangelical pastors of our day, like many Christians throughout history, have lost sight of that foundational truth. Every church, everywhere and in every time, should be totally committed to preaching, teaching, and implementing the Word, thereby pleasing and exalting the gracious and sovereign God who has revealed it.

Through the convincing and convicting power of the Holy Spirit, Scripture is God’s own provision for every spiritual truth and moral principle that men need to be saved, to be equipped to live righteously in this present life and to hear one day in the life to come, “Well done, good and faithful servant, . . . enter into the joy of your Master.” ^[14]

E) The Obsolete Authority of the OT Law

Throughout the NT, the OT is referred to as “the Law” well over 200 times. More specifically, “the Law” is what “is written in the Law of Moses” (1 Cor 9:8-9). And it is this law, the core of the Old Covenant, that no longer has authority over the New Covenant Christian.

The Apostle Paul is especially keen to repeatedly point this out to the Galatians and Romans. To the former he wrote:

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith . . . Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us . . .

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. (Gal 3:10-13, 24-25)

The Apostle wrote to the Romans:

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ . . . now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. . . . Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. (Rom 7:4, 6)

Obviously, much of the OT Law consists of ceremonial instructions and the like that clearly have no authority over Christians. However, the obsolescence of the Mosaic Law for the Christian extends even to one of the “Ten Commandments,” the Sabbath. The Apostle writes the Colossians:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Col 3:16-17; cf. Rom 14:5-6)

Accordingly, only those OT commands that are repeated in the NT are to exercise authority over the Christian. For example, while the fourth commandment is rescinded in the NT, all of the remaining nine of the “Ten Commandments” are repeated in some fashion in the NT. Nonetheless, the vast majority of divine commandments in the OT do not exercise authority over the Christian.

Some have claimed this applies to much, if not all of what Christ taught. This is a tendency of dispensational theology ^[15] which places rather strict and disconnected categories on the different “dispensations” its adherents see in Scripture. A rather extreme result of this view is illustrated by C. R. Stam, a founding Professor of Exposition at what is now Grace Bible College in Grand Rapids, MI, and the founder of the Berean Bible Society. In his book, Things That Differ, Mr. Stam wrote:

This so-called ‘great commission’ [cf. Matt 28:18-20] is generally supposed to embody our Lord’s ‘marching orders’ to His church today. What a mistake to call this ‘the great commission’ and ‘our marching orders.’ How pathetic to see sincere believers vainly trying to carry out this commission and these orders! . . . ‘Teaching them to observe all that I commanded you’ [would be] ‘legalism’ if we tried to apply it to the church. ^[16]

Not surprisingly, such “hyper-dispensationalism” teaches that even baptism is not for the Christian today.

We see then that wisdom must be applied when discerning Scripture that is not authoritative over our lives. While we would claim the Law of Moses is obsolete for the Christian, contrary to some dispensational theology, we like the Apostle Paul are “under Christ’s law” (1 Cor 9:21).

F) Scripture Will Only be as Sufficient as the Accuracy of its Interpretation and Teaching

The special relationship between ministers and Scripture implies yet another qualification on the sufficiency of Scripture. Scripture will only be as sufficient as the accuracy of its interpretation and teaching by those ordained by God for such a ministry. Elsewhere in Knowing Our God we have written:

While God has supernaturally provided Scripture, He has not revealed a divinely authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Rather, we read it with our God-given physical faculties, and each statement is a fact that is interpreted by our God-given reason based on common sense principles of interpretation. . . .

This, of course, partly explains why equally Spirit-filled Christians have a wide variety of interpretations of the one revelation of Scripture, instead of a more universal and unanimous interpretation a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit would provide. It is because the Holy Spirit has revealed Scripture that we have only one Bible; it is because the correct understanding of Scripture is a matter of private judgment that we have many different and often conflicting interpretations exercising authority over Christians’ lives. . . .

While some may be looking for some new direct divine revelation to enable them to properly interpret and apply the revelation of Scripture, the Apostle simply told Timothy, “Do your best to . . . correctly handle the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). . . . The Apostle says nothing about Timothy’s need to seek additional revelation in order to understand the revelation of Scripture, but rather, implies that it is Timothy’s responsibility to use his best judgment in order to “correctly” interpret, apply, and teach the Scriptures. ^[17]

Therefore, it is not Scripture itself that is sufficient for our revelatory needs, but only a correctly interpreted Scripture. ^[18]

G) Scripture is Not a Magical Oracle

You have probably heard of the fellow who opened the Bible and put his finger down on the phrase, “Judas went out and hanged himself.” This did not comfort him very much, so he tried again. And his finger fell on the verse, “Go thou and do likewise.” That shook him terribly, so he tried it one more time, and the verse he hit on was, “And what thou doest, do quickly.” That is rather humorous, but unfortunately it is how many use the Bible.

The Bible is not a magical book in the sense that people can use it to find God’s will by turning randomly to a page and considering the first text they read as God’s answer. John Wesley unfortunately practiced this. We should be reminded that God condemns magic.

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Father, we again thank You for the sufficiency of Scripture to know Your will. Help us to always study, understand, and apply it in every circumstance.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What are the different ways in which we have qualified the sufficiency of Scripture?
2. What do we mean by stating that Scripture does not contain everything necessary to glorify God? What would be some examples?
3. What other methods besides Scripture do we claim God is using to communicate some of its contents? Do you agree or disagree and why?
4. What are some common misconceptions concerning 2 Timothy 3:16 that we suggest in this chapter?
5. How is the ministry of Teachers related to the sufficiency and God-ordained purpose of Scripture?
6. What do we claim is the Christian’s relationship with Scripture? What are examples? Do you agree or disagree and why?
7. What is “hyper-dispensationalism” and why is it a serious error?

Publications & Particulars

1. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Frederick C. Mish, ed. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1986), 1179. ↑

2. For further discussion on the important relationship between the concepts of divine revelation and human information see section 2.3.C.1. For examples of human research in our personal knowledge, science, morality, and history see chapter 2.5. ↑

3. Excerpt from section 2.5.B. ↑

4. Our preference for referring to the authority of Scripture as supreme rather than sufficient is reflected in what one theologian has said:

   Protestants are divided in their understanding of biblical authority. Is it sola Scriptura, in which Scripture is the only authority (as Luther and Calvin taught), or is it suprema Scriptura as so many theologians believe today? For example, in his Systematic Theology, James Garrett makes a careful case for suprema Scriptura rather than sola Scriptura, because the former is only one authority among various authorities in Christianity, such as church and tradition. The Reformers used tradition (church councils) as authorities. Garrett concludes that suprema Scriptura describes more precisely how the authorities are related in practice. (ref. not available) ↑

5. Excerpt from section 5.3.D. See also 9.12.D. ↑

6. For further discussion on the superiority of supernatural virtue for distinguishing the divinity of things see section 5.3.D and 9.12.D. ↑

7. John Murray, “The Finality and Sufficiency of Scripture,” in Collected Writings of John Murray (Banner of Truth, 1976), 1:16-22. ↑

8. Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1 (Baker, 2003), 472. ↑

9. Erwin Lutzer, Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust the Bible (Moody, 1998), 194. ↑

10. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 127-130. ↑

11. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (TNTC), (Eerdmans, 1990, repr. 1999), 176-7. ↑

12. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary (MNTC), Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997), loc. cit. ↑

13. For the proper interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it is helpful to look specifically at the three words used in the NASB to describe Scripture and its affect: “profitable [ōphelimos],” “adequate [artios: lit. “fitted”],” and “equipped [exartizō: lit. “out-fitted”].” First, it is interesting to note that Paul doesn’t use the Greek words for “sufficient” or “complete” such as arkeō, hikanos, or teleios (cf. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Colin Brown ed., 4 vols., [Zondervan, 1986], III:726-30).

    Concerning ōphelimos, it essentially means “beneficial,” “helpful,” “valuable” and this is how it is translated in Paul’s only two other uses of the word outside of 2 Timothy 3:16 (cf. 1 Tim 4:8; Tit 3:8). Accordingly G. W. Knight III translates it at 2 Timothy 3:16 as “’useful’ in the sense of yielding a practical benefit.” (The Pastoral Epistles (NIGNT) [Eerdmans, 1992], 449). Therefore, we could not find a Greek lexicon that would support John MacArthur’s assertion that ōphelimos includes the idea of “sufficient”:

    The second predicate adjective Paul uses to describe Scripture is profitable, which focuses on the sufficiency of God’s written Word.  Profitable translates ōphelimos, which includes the ideas of beneficial, productive, and sufficient. (Commentaries, 2 Tim 3:16. in loc.)

    Likewise, on the meaning of “equipped [exartizō],” it would seem Dr. Guthrie reads more into the Greek than is required when he writes:

    The Christian minister has in his hands a God-given instrument designed to equip him completely for his work. The phrase thoroughly equipped consists of two Greek words, an adjective artios which describes a man perfectly adapted for his task, and a cognate verb exartizō which adds further emphasis to the same thought (176).

    There would again, seem to be some exaggeration of the Greek here. “adequate (artios: lit. “fitted”),” and “equipped (exartizō: lit. “out-fitted”) are virtual synonyms and the latter simply means “equipped” and cannot be dogmatically pressed into meaning “thoroughly equipped” as if absolutely nothing else is needed. While we would agree that “equipped” could certainly convey sufficiency, we would again deny that it must convey exclusivity. For example, a man on a journey may be “equipped” with everything he essentially needs for his trip, but it is possible that something extra may make his trip easier, safer, or somehow better.

    We believe the NIDNTT supports our interpretation of the Greek in this passage and quote it at length. In general it states:

    artios and its derivatives contain the idea of straightening, equipping and preparing for a specific purpose, which requires corresponding appropriateness, suitability, usefulness or aptitude . . . .

    Possible meanings for artios given are: “suitable, complete, capable, sound.” Those for exartizō are: “finish, complete, equip, furnish.

    We note a range of strength here in the acceptable meanings from the weaker “suitable” and “equip” to the stronger “complete.” Obviously, we are opting for the weaker sense as this reflects the clear meaning of ōphelimos in v. 16 and practical experience in equipping ministers for their God-given tasks. The NIDNTT goes on to note that in classical Greek:

    artios and its derivatives come from the root ar- which indicates appropriateness, suitability, usefulness, aptitude. artios accordingly means suitable, appropriate, fitting a situation or requirements . . . The oldest derivative in cl. Gk. is the vb. katartizō, to put in order, restore, furnish, prepare, equip. These various meanings have a common origin in the basic meaning to make suitable, make fitting.

    Specifically in regards to the use of this word group in the NT we read:

    Of particular importance are those passages in which artios and its derivatives are used in connection with the preparation and equipment of the believer and the church, for the service of God and their fellow-men. The adj. artios occurs only at 2 Tim. 3:17, together with the perfect pass. participle exērtismenos. [This passage means] In the OT scriptures the church of the New Testament has an indispensable, God-given guide to living, through which the man of God may achieve an appropriate state, viz. be equipped for every work of love: “so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (NEB).

    artios here does not imply perfection, as was originally thought, doubtless because of the variant reading teleios, perfect, in Codex D. Rather it refers to the state of being equipped for a delegated task. (R. Schippers, “Right” in NIDNTT, III:348-50) ↑

14. MacArthur, Commentaries, 2 Tim 3:17. ↑

15. The recognized “father” of dispensational theology was Lewis S. Chafer, a founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, which remains a foremost promoter of this approach to Scripture. Unfortunately the view does not do justice to God’s desire to bring His plans for Israel and the Church together (cf. Eph 2:11-16; Rom 11:11-24). Accordingly, the view is used to support the erroneous “Pre-tribulation Rapture” of the Church, and excludes many future promises to Israel from the Church. We believe the Reformers’ essential distinction between the Old and New Covenants best reflects Scripture. ↑

16. C. R. Stam, Things That Differ (The Berean Bible Society, 1996; originally from 1959), 169 ↑

17. Excerpt from section 2.5.E. ↑

18. For further discussion of the importance of properly interpreting Scripture see section ? ↑