In the OT, the Hebrew words ruakh (“breath, spirit”) and neshamah (“blast, spirit”) are the standard terms, even collectively translated “wind.” Constructively, these terms reflect the vibrant relationship between God and humankind. However, God’s “breath” can also be an agent of judgment. So “breath/wind” is the invasive power of God—proof of his supremacy—capable of disruption or transformation of human life.

It is in human creation that God’s breath is given one of its most dynamic illustrations. Formed of “dust” (’apar), the human being must be enlivened by the Creator’s breath. In the OT, human flesh remains dormant and helplessly passive until God breathes; then a living human being (nepesh) is animated (Gen. 2:7; 6:17; cf. Pss. 33:6; 104:29). “Soul” (nepesh) must be thought of in a holistic way in the OT, not as part of a dualism: “Praise the Lord, my soul; all my inmost being, praise his holy name” (Ps. 103:1). For human existence, “breath” is God’s gracious gift that mortals cannot “possess.” Reflecting on this, the psalmist writes, “When you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust” (Ps. 104:29; cf. Gen. 7:22). Theologically, Israel understood that life is utterly dependent on God; the “self” has no permanent properties of its own.

“Breath/wind” is also a powerful force in God’s anger, when a “blast of breath from his nostrils” can undo and destroy (2 Sam. 22:16). Similarly, a “strong east wind” rolls back the Red Sea for the Israelites’ crossing (Exod. 14:21), but the very same force is the undoing of Pharaoh’s army, which was destroyed as God, Israel’s warrior, “blew” with his “breath” (Exod. 15:10). Whether in the aimless waters of creation (Gen. 1:2; 8:1) or the mighty waters of “un-creation” (Exod. 15:10), the same cosmic might of God’s ruakh is evident.

Not surprisingly, themes combining breath, wind, and spirit are also used to describe new creation (Ezek. 37:9). The life-generating force of the ruakh/spirit emerges in the NT as the Holy Spirit, manifested in wind, a breath, or Spirit (Gk. pneuma). At Pentecost “a violent wind came from heaven,” enacting another creation (Acts 2:2). John clearly symbolizes Jesus’ “breathing” on the disciples (John 20:22). Not only does this illustrate John’s theology of being born “from above” (3:3 NRSV), but also “he breathed” reenacts the enlivening of Gen. 2:7. The two creations are connected: God’s enlivening in Gen. 2:7 and Jesus’ creation of eternal life following his own resurrection.

An archaic expression for the word “spirit,” such as in “giving up of the ghost” (Job 11:20 KJV) or “child of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1:18 KJV). In modern translations the term is reserved for the Greek word phantasma (Matt. 14:26; Mark 6:49), which may refer to an apparition, and for a restricted sense of pneuma (often translated “spirit”), based on context (Luke 24:37, 39). In these occurrences the disciples potentially mistake Jesus for a ghost in the sense of being something less than what he had been before death—without flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). His passing through walls may have contributed to this misunderstanding (John 20:19). By eating a fish, however, Jesus demonstrates that his resurrected body is of a different order (Luke 24:42–43; cf. John 21:1–14). The Bible never denies the existence of ghosts, but it offers little about their origin and purpose. The Mesopotamians believed that neglect of the dead might result in the ghost’s malevolence, requiring a ritual. Those who died violently or tragically also required ritual. Evoking the spirits of the dead goes back at least as far as Homer. We find a similar view in the story of the raising of the spirit of Samuel by the medium at Endor (1 Sam. 28:1–25). The Bible condemns the practice (Lev. 19:31; Deut. 18:10–11; 1 Chron. 10:13–14).

Traditionally identified with John the son of Zebedee, the Gospel of John depicts him as the ideal eyewitness to Jesus and as the ideal author. He first explicitly appears in John 13–21. In representing the Beloved Disciple as the author of the Gospel of John (John 21:24–25), the author thus claims a privileged place for its revelation about Jesus, perhaps in relation to the Gospel of Mark, which many in the early church considered to have Peter as its primary source of testimony.

Binding can mean physically restraining a person or people (Judg. 15:13; 2 Kings 25:7; Job 16:8; Pss. 119:61; 149:8), mending, as with a wound (Isa. 61:1; Ezek. 34:16; Hos. 6:1), or taking a legally constraining oath (1 Sam. 14:27–30; Neh. 10:29; Jer. 50:5). The opposite of binding is loosing or setting free, which can describe literally being freed from bonds (e.g., Acts 16:26) or the release from something that is binding.

The law, a binding covenant between Israel and God, is to be literally bound on one’s forehead as a reminder (Deut. 6:8; 11:18). Non-Israelites who wish to identify with the God of Israel can bind themselves to his laws (Isa. 56:6). In Num. 30:6, 9, 13, an oath taken by a young woman still in her father’s house will be binding only if the father is not against it. If he is against it, it is not binding and she is loosed from it (30:5). This is the same in the case of a married woman, whose approval has to come from the husband. However, for widows or divorced women, all pledges they make are binding since there are no men in their lives to void the pledges (30:9).

While contracts were binding, some had time limits. For example, the seventh year and the fiftieth year (Jubilee) allowed for cancellation of such binding contracts as slavery or land ownership (Lev. 25:10–54; 27:24).

The binding of Isaac (Gen. 22), traditionally known as the Akedah, has theological significance for both Christians and Jews. It is interpreted as a form of resurrection, a coming from the dead for Isaac after Yahweh had instructed his father, Abraham, to sacrifice him (Heb. 11:17–19). God inquires of Job whether he can “bind the chains of the Pleiades” or “loosen Orion’s belt” (Job 38:31).

The book of Proverbs encourages the wise to metaphorically bind love and faithfulness around their necks (3:3) and their parents’ commands and teachings to the heart (6:21) and the finger (7:3); it also talks of folly being bound up in the heart of a child (22:15), perhaps alluded to by Paul in Rom. 11:32 when he says that God has bound all people to disobedience that he may have mercy on them.

Introducing his ministry in Luke 4:18, Jesus quotes Isa. 61:1, which talks of binding up the brokenhearted, a reference to his healing ministry. Further, binding and loosing are found in Jesus’ commissioning of his disciples (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; cf. John 20:23), where it may be referring to the binding of demons and loosing of demoniacs bound or oppressed by demons (cf. Mark 3:14–16; 6:7; Luke 13:6). Since Jesus has the power to bind and loose (John 8:36), he chooses to empower his followers to do the same. Binding Satan is the subject of the ultimate eschatological battle in Jewish lore (T. Levi 18:11–12) and becomes central in Christianity. Jesus encounters satanic forces embodied in humans and looses such people from the chains of Satan (Mark 5:3; Luke 13:12, 16). Ultimately, Satan is to be bound for a millennium and loosed only for eternal damnation (Rev. 20:1–3).

Paul invokes Jewish law about marriage by claiming that one is bound in marriage only as long as one’s partner is alive (Rom. 7:2). In this way, Paul explains how Christians are dead to the law, because Jesus has died on their behalf, thus setting them free from the law (Rom. 7:4–6; cf. Heb. 9:15). To the Corinthians also he talks of the binding nature of marriage but with a caveat: if the marriage is between a believer and a nonbeliever, and if the nonbeliever leaves, then the believer is not bound (1 Cor. 7). But for Paul, being set free from sin (Rom. 8:2) means being bound to God (6:22).

In biblical and systematic theology, “inspiration” is one of several descriptions of God’s involvement in the production of Scripture. It is not an exhaustive description of the many ways in which divine revelation is mediated.

Taken as a description of “all Scripture” (as in 2 Tim. 3:16), inspiration must necessarily encompass such diverse modes of revelation as words audibly spoken or dictated by God and written down by humans (i.e., dictation: “the Lord said to Moses,” “thus says the Lord”), words spoken by angels, texts in which a divine or angelic voice is entirely obscured by the voice and identity of the human author (e.g., the letters of Paul), and, in the vast majority of cases, texts that are essentially anonymous, invoking no human author or divine author in particular. Moreover, any catalog of divinely inspired texts must include not only direct quotations of God’s speech but also occasional letters (the NT Epistles), prayers directed to God by humans (the Psalter), divine oracles given through prophets, the results of historical research (e.g., Luke 1:1–4; 1 Kings 14:19), and anthological texts that were collected and edited over a long period of time, often by unnamed individuals or groups of individuals.

Thus, the inspiration of Scripture must be regarded as a concept that is applied in the broadest possible way to the materials of Scripture. While the doctrine of inspiration constitutes a strong statement concerning the authority and divine authorship of Scripture, it must remain highly flexible with regard to the particular modes and literary products of divine revelation in Scripture.

God-Breathed (theopneustos) in 2 Timothy 3:16

The idea of divine inspiration is stated most clearly in 2 Tim. 3:16–17: “All Scripture is God-breathed [theopneustos] and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Here, the fact of divine inspiration serves the apostle’s interest in the authority and relevance of Scripture, especially as Scripture undergirds Timothy’s religious education (2 Tim. 3:14–15). This sole biblical use of the term theopneustos says little about how inspiration is accomplished, and the emphasis is entirely on the consequences of the fact. Because it is inspired, all Scripture is useful and authoritative for a variety of purposes.

In some older English translations, the key term, theopneustos, was translated as “inspired,” following the ancient tradition of rendering the term in Latin as divinitus inspirata. Strictly speaking, “inspiration” is not a biblical term. In one classic Protestant evangelical exposition of the text and doctrine, B. B. Warfield noted that the Greek word denotes not so much a “breathing in” as a “breathing out” on God’s part. Scripture is not simply a container into which God has breathed his word (so that Scripture merely “contains” God’s word), nor is Scripture only “inspiring,” in the sense that it works an effect on the reader (taking theopneustos in an active rather than a passive sense: “God-breathing” rather than “God-breathed”). Scripture is not the product of inspiration, as if produced by inspired authors but not itself inspired. Rather than all these things, it is most correct to say that Scripture is, in the strictly literal sense of the word, “expired”—breathed out by God himself. This view of the matter is reflected in, among other places, the NIV translation of theopneustos as “God-breathed.”

The translation by the NIV—“all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful . . .”—takes theopneustos as a grammatical predicate. Others have suggested that theopneustos can be understood attributively: “all God-breathed Scripture is useful.” This interpretation remains a minority position, especially among evangelical scholars, both on grammatical grounds and because it implies a distinction between inspired and noninspired Scriptures. There is little other evidence for such a notion in the NT.

The application of the notion of inspiration to the whole of the Christian canon (OT and NT) inevitably involves some extension of the original meaning of 2 Tim. 3:16. By no account were the NT writings either composed or collected prior to the writing of 2 Timothy, and the final shape of the Christian OT canon may also have been undecided at the time 2 Tim. 3:16 was written. In postbiblical Christian theology, however, what is said of “all Scripture” (pāsa graphē) in 2 Tim. 3:16 is applied to all Christian Scripture, regardless of what was directly in view when the verse was written. It is likely that by “all Scripture,” the apostle meant nothing more than the Christian OT—that is, the books that lay before Timothy as he was educated in the faith from his infancy (2 Tim. 3:14–15). In systematic theology, the application of inspiration and other descriptors of “Scripture” to the NT writings owes much to a comment in 2 Pet. 3:16 that places the letters of Paul in the same class as “the other Scriptures” (tas loipas graphas).

Why “Inspiration”?

The sheer diversity of the modes of revelation described in the Bible raises a question: Why is “inspiration” (or, as Warfield argued, “expiration” or “breathing out”) a particularly appropriate description of God’s involvement in the production of the scriptural text? At the root of theopneustos, Greek pneuma (as well as its Hebrew cognate, ruakh) denotes several related concepts ranging from “wind” or “breath” to “spirit,” as in “the Holy Spirit.” It is from this complex of meanings that the relevance of theopneustos is evident.

Physiologically, several of the speech organs are also organs of respiration, so that the spoken word can be thought of as a kind of breathing, as in Acts 9:1: “Saul was still breathing out [empneuōn] murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples.” To speak of Scripture as “God-breathed,” then, is simply to identify it as God’s spoken utterance or word, as in the many biblical texts that introduce a scriptural utterance as “the word of the Lord” or with the phrase “thus says the Lord.” To the extent that 2 Tim. 3:16 has in view the physiological dimension of “breathing,” it extends these explicit statements of divine speaking to the whole of Scripture. In one sense, theopneustos is an anthropomorphism: God does not speak as a human, with lungs, throat, and mouth. Scripture is not God-breathed as opposed to being written by humans; the figurative breathing or speaking of God does not circumvent other processes of textual production. Again, the idea of inspiration pertains more to the authority of Scripture as revelation than to the mode of the mediation of God’s word.

As with the concept of “inspiration” itself, to speak of Scripture as the “word of God” specifies its divine authority without exhaustively describing how that word is mediated to the human author who then commits it to writing. To speak of Scripture as the “breathing out” of God is to invoke the broader concept of God’s (anthropomorphic) breath, and thus to place scriptural production among the other phenomena that are so described. These include the divine creation of life (Gen. 2:7; Job 33:4; Ezek. 37:5) and the cosmos (Ps. 33:6), divine judgment and destruction (Job 4:9; Isa. 30:33; 2 Thess. 2:8), the impartation of divine wisdom (Job 32:8), the impartation of the Holy Spirit (John 20:22), and the continuing action of God in creation (Exod. 15:10; Job 37:10; Isa. 40:7). In contrast to the living God of Israel, the idols lack breath (ruakh) and are therefore false gods (Jer. 10:14).

Equally important as the anthropomorphic description of God’s role as exhalation or speaking is the fact that pneuma refers not only to bodily breathing but also to the spirit of God—that is, the Holy Spirit. The inspiration of scriptural revelation is the particular work of the Holy Spirit, as comes to light particularly in 2 Pet. 1:20–21: “You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Unlike 2 Tim. 3:16, this verse gives a description of the mechanism by which God is involved in scriptural production: the Holy Spirit “carries along” humans speaking from God. Again, however, if this is to be taken as a description of the entirety of the Christian Bible, it must encompass a wide variety of literary phenomena.

As in 2 Tim. 3:16, the emphasis is on the authority and divine origin of Scripture rather than on the worldly history of the Bible. Like the adjective “God-breathed,” the Holy Spirit’s “carrying along” of the prophets is figurative and anthropomorphic, and the expression leaves many questions unanswered regarding the mode of revelation. Nevertheless, the specific mention of the role of the Holy Spirit as the divine agent of scriptural production sheds light on the term theopneustos in 2 Tim. 3:16. This is consistent with the citation formula in Acts 4:25, which quotes Ps. 2:1–2 by saying, “You [God] spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David.” This verse highlights several facets of the notion of the inspiration of Scripture: its character as divine speech, the agency of the Holy Spirit, and the concurrence of divine and human authorship.

The word “mission” was coined by the Jesuits in the sixteenth century to refer to the sending of the Godhead into the world, reflecting a particular trinitarian formulation. The Jesuits used the term “mission” to describe the Father, who sends the Son, who sends the Holy Spirit, who sends the church into the world as an agent of redemption and reconciliation. Simply put, the Jesuits conceived of mission as sending. That biblical term “send” (e.g., Gk. apostellō) described the fundamental nature of the church as being sent by God into the world with a specific purpose, animated by the Holy Spirit to accomplish its task given by God, as a sign and instrument of God’s kingdom. Initially, the Jesuits employed the term in the context of both the conversion of heathens (those who failed to recognize the God of the Bible) and the reconversion of Protestants to Roman Catholicism.

The biblical notion of mission affirms that God is a sending God (Lat., missio Dei), who loves the world so much that he sent his Son into the world to redeem it (e.g., John 3:16), and whose Son then sends the Holy Spirit as the Counselor (Gk. paraklētos [e.g., John 16:5–7]) and guide so that the church can fulfill its purpose. Mission (sending), therefore, expresses both the heart of God and the nature of the church in the world.

The Role of Language and Culture

Functionally, mission is the sharing of the good news of Jesus Christ in word and deed across cultural and linguistic boundaries, without granting any particular language or culture a superior position in the divine economy. The Bible tells the story of God’s mission in offering human beings a covenantal relationship with himself. South African mission scholar David Bosch suggests that the missionary in the OT is God himself, whereas the NT presents several significant missionaries, with Jesus and his disciples being the most illustrative examples. Indeed, it can be said that the NT is itself a mission document, since it was written by people actively involved in mission (e.g., Paul, Luke). Biblically, the Christian mission implies a certain perspective on language and culture whereby all languages and cultures are relativized in the light of Christ, with no language or culture having privileged access to God, for God communicates through every particular language and culture. Thus, for instance, Koreans, Zulus, Cambodians, Quechuas, and Swedes have the same access to God through their own language and culture, and none of them are required to adopt another language or culture, such as Hebrew, Greek, or English, in order to know and worship God.

The importance of the parity of languages and cultures worldwide as vehicles of the gospel is exemplified biblically in the account of the Jerusalem council, where the apostle Paul confronted Jewish Christians who would have made Torah and circumcision the litmus test of authentic faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 15). Paul argued vigorously against those who sought to require new Christians to adopt Jewish ceremonial practices of the OT in order to join the body of Christ. The relativization of language and culture is so crucial to Christian mission that Scripture records Paul rebuking Peter for seeking to make Gentile Christians follow Jewish customs (Gal. 2:14). Requiring followers of Christ to adopt Jewish (or other) ceremonial traditions (e.g., circumcision) would render the grace of Christ useless, making a mockery of the cross (Gal. 2:21), since Christ liberates human beings within their own language and culture. Simply put, people were to become followers of Jesus Christ on the basis of their own language and culture (Greek or otherwise) rather than according to any other tradition. According to the biblical account, no language or culture is too profane to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ.

Mission as Sending

Biblically, sending implies a sender, the one sent, and a message. The sender is the agent who initiates the deliverance of the message. The one sent has been given the authority to deliver in word and deed the message of the sender. The message refers to the content in word and deed that is shared by the agent (e.g., missionary) of the sender. The authority of the sender is invested in the messenger, so much so that the messenger (e.g., the missionary) represents the sender directly. More broadly, the biblical term “sending” appears in both Testaments, and it occurs in mundane contexts that are not concerned with God’s mission (missio Dei) as well as in texts that are explicitly mission related. In the OT, the Hebrew term shalakh, which occurs in various forms over eight hundred times, refers to sending the intentions of an authority figure, often a king, judge, or other person of high status. An example would be God, as a demonstration of his authority, sending Adam out of the garden (Gen. 3:23). The act of sending expresses the intention of the sender. The mission of God as presented in the OT is communicated clearly in Gen. 12:1–3 (in what is known as the Abrahamic covenant), where God tells Abram to leave his country, guided by God, in order to be a blessing to the entire world. Following Israel’s continual disobedience, God promises to send them a savior (Isa. 19:20), a statement that Christians interpret as foreshadowing the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ.

In the NT, the Greek terms for “send,” and their variations, occur over two hundred times, appearing in texts such as “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves” (Matt. 10:16); “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21); and “Jesus sent two of his disciples” (Mark 11:1). People often assume that there is one Great Commission text, Matt. 28:18–20, which summarizes the biblical warrant for mission. However, there are several “great commissions” in the Gospels, which might be better understood as “last commissions.” Each Gospel writer records his own version of the last commission, reflecting his theological purposes within the particular contexts out of which he writes his account. The last commissions appear in Matt. 28:16–20; Mark 16:14–20; Luke 24:44–47; John 20:19–23.

The most responsible interpretive strategy with regard to these passages is to read them within the larger context of each Gospel narrative rather than as individual texts (i.e., proof texts) disconnected from their wider context. That is to say, a faithful theology of mission in part entails letting the text interpret itself through study of the entire Gospel account. Otherwise, one may fail to understand the biblical notion of mission in its entirety. For instance, Luke 24:47 announces that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his [Christ’s] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” which emphasizes the need for confession, forgiveness, and redemption (vertical aspects of mission). Yet one could misinterpret Luke’s Gospel were one to understand mission solely through the words of Luke 24:44–47, the vertical (spiritual) aspect, while overlooking Luke 4:16–30, verses that announce Jesus’ mission to liberate captives and give sight to the blind, reflecting the horizontal (social) nature of mission. In Luke’s Gospel, mission is characterized as equally vertical (i.e., calling for repentance and forgiveness) and horizontal (i.e., seeking sociopolitical justice). According to Luke’s Gospel, then, both vertical and horizontal aspects must be present in mission.

Mission and Missions

It is worthwhile to note the difference between the terms “mission” (sg.) and “missions” (pl.). Whereas “mission” refers to the singular act of God, who sends his Son, who sends the Holy Spirit into the world, “missions” refers to the specific agencies and organizations in history and currently that have sought to carry out that mission of God. There is only one mission (missio Dei), with several missions aiming to accomplish that singular mission through time and space. Generally, missions are divided into denominational and faith missions. Denominational missions, such as those of Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian churches, send out missionaries financially supported by the denomination. Faith missions, such as Wycliffe Bible Translators, Operation Mobilization, or SIM (Serving in Mission, formally Sudan Interior Mission), require that missionaries serve in mission by faith, either by going where they are called by God without having prior financial support or by raising financial support from friends and churches prior to leaving for their intended region of service.

Conclusion

Finally, there are two important lessons from the biblical account of mission. First, Paul and the other disciples, while seeking to communicate the gospel of good news to particular people, sought to maintain the unity of the churches in the face of their diverse cultural and linguistic makeup (e.g., Eph. 4:4–7). This means that a biblical perspective on mission sees culture and language as channels rather than obstacles to the communication of the gospel. Second, Paul and the disciples never started missions but rather established churches. Since mission implies movement across cultural and linguistic frontiers, the earlier followers of Christ were on the move, with the conviction that the Holy Spirit would guide, direct, and protect them until Christ returned.