2 Tim 3:16

Esteemed Julabee,

You asked:
If I may, have you ever considered the huge differences between Old Testament inspiration, and New Testament inspiration?

Yes. But not a great deal. Your message to this point has given me the opportunity to do so.

For there do seem to be substantive and clear differences. Both of course, produce the Word of God, with neither better than the other

Humbly, I disagree. In my opinion, the Gospels are the greater of equals. Although the rest of the Scriptures are the Word of God.

"What is the difference?", you might ask.

Well, whereas the other writings are the writings of men recounting what the Holy Spirit reminded them. The Gospels are the direct recounting of the events of God Incarnate.

In fact, as I write this, it is the difference which St.Peter was explaining in this reference:
2 Peter 1: 16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

The Old Testament writers were witnesses of the works of God through them.

The Gospel writers were witnesses of the works of God Incarnate.

(although sometimes serving better for one thing or another), and both as fully inspired as the other. I wanted to get that out of the way to begin with.

If I may, I don't think we've quite got it out of the way. I don't think they are "both as fully inspired as the other".

There is a definite difference from one prophet to the other. In the OT, we see Prophets who can keep the word of God strictly and those who can't. We also see that God doesn't necessarity judge them by that fact.

Examples:
Moses. It is said of Moses:
Numbers 12 5And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. 6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 7My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

Keep in mind that God is speaking to them, Aaron and Miriam, directly, not in a dream. And they are both Prophets. So God is explaining a qualitative difference between Moses and other Prophets. Even though Moses may commit errors as He did in Horeb. Yet Moses is beloved of God.

Why?

I believe it is explained here:
Numbers 12:3(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

The NIV renders it "humble".

Numbers 12:3 (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)

But I go on and on. My point is simply that in the OT there are Prophets and there are prophets.

I will add that Hebrews 1:1-2 (which I seem to quote a lot) gives us some pretty clear hints into the matter. Let me point up those differences in the Hebrews statement first, and we'll take it from there.

My point here, is that there are differences between the speaking by the prophets to the fathers, and the speaking to us today by His Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
And yet, they are both equally inspired, and both fully the Word of God.

As to both fully the Word of God, I have spoken.

As to the OT Prophets being equally inspired, I have spoken above. As to the Christian Prophets being equally inspired I will make a point.

Judas Iscariot was also a prophet, was he not? If you have included Balaam as a prophet above, who was a worshipper of Baal, then Judas who worshipped Yahweh, should certainly be considered a prophet, though a fallen prophet.

Obviously, Judas was not equally inspired as the rest of the Apostles. And Jesus makes it plain that not all are equally inspired when He says this to St. Peter:
Matthew 16:17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Obviously, the Father had not inspired the rest of the Apostles on this matter.

And what might some of those differences be?

The most important difference is 'justification'.

The Old Testament Prophets, none of them, had undergone the "washing of regeneration" otherwise known as Baptism.
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The Old Testament prophet was expected to repeat, exactly, what God had revealed to him. The Old Testament prophet was admonished to go straight to the task God had appointed him, turning neither to the left, nor to the right.
Not always. In the Prophets with the stronger portion of Spirit, God seemed to indwell them as He does the us. Elijah is an excellent example of such a Prophet, who literally lived in God's presence.

The Old Testament prophet was not to interject any personal opinion, or interpretation into the message (recall the trouble Moses got into for showing anger and striking the rock? Balaam?).

That is a confusing statement. I will answer it thus:

Either, I don't know of any Prophet, in the Old or New Testament who interjected personal opinion or interpretation into the message of God.

Or I don't know of any Prophet, in the Old or New Testament who didn't.

In short, there was precious little leeway given to Old Testament prophets.

Yeah. There are some for whom I feel painfully sorry. This fellow for instance:
1 Kings 13

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 1 Peter 1:20-21.

In the fine print found at the bottom of the Old Testament prophet's contract, on the last page, were these phrases...."No private interpretation allowed. Just repeat what you're told. Keep to the script, eye on the teleprompter always", and, "You are to keep your own will disconnected whenever you are doing your job." As a general rule, they were not to say anything other than that they had been told, they were not to serve as 'consultants' to the recipients of the prophecies, and they had to divorce themselves from any personal will in the whole matter.

If I may, I think what you mean is that they may not interject any personal will which conflicts with the will of God. But that is exactly the same "fine" print which we have in the New Testament. Jesus Himself expressed it when He said:
Luke 22:42
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Actually, prophesying wasn't the best line of work around those parts, in those days, especially given that the prophets were universally persecuted by their audiences. Quoting Stephen here, "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:52-53. And of course, we know what happened to Stephen after that sermon....

Yes.

And the authors of the New Testament? Through whom Jesus speaks to us today?

Well, the first author of note is the Holy Spirit, who had been given to the church in fulfilment of Jesus' own promise. The Holy Spirit indwelt the New Testament believers in a personal sense that would have been utterly foreign to an Old Testament prophet.

Agreed.

And that phrase in 1 Peter 1:21, quoted above? "....but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"? How does that square with my last sentence? The one where I said, the Holy Spirit indwelt the New Testament believers in a personal sense that would have been utterly foreign to an Old Testament prophet?

But that statement is not in reference to Old Testament Prophets only. Lets read more off that page:

2 Peter 1:19-21 (King James Version)

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

We can see that St. Peter includes himself in the group that has the prophecy.

The NIV says more clearly what I understand concerning this matter:
19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The NEW KJV also expresses my understanding of this matter:
2 Peter 1:19-21 (New King James Version)

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

The prophets of old spake as they were 'moved' by the Holy Ghost. The New Testament believers spake as they 'lived' in the Holy Spirit, 365/24/7.

Your statement is true. But that is not what the verse is saying. Nor is it the subject of the verse.

Even though the Holy Spirit lives in us, He still must move us to do the will of God. There are many of us in whom the Holy Spirit is simply a passenger. We don't let Him do the driving.

The New Testament believers had God Himself within them, in the person of the Holy Spirit, all the time. They lived daily the experience of God, in an incredibly personal way. And they were in constant and direct communication with God. They needed very few voices from heaven, or wake-up calls to get their attention. They were receiving the fulfilment of promise after promise from Jesus that made their life in the Spirit an online, every daily moment experience of God.

And I believe the same Holy Spirit who pervaded the lives of the authors of the New Testament, then guided the completion of the canon, assisted in the first translations (if the KJV was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me!), and then made it living in the hearts of the readers.

That is actually very much how the Catholic Church understand "inspiration".
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#105

I am and remain sincerely yours in Jesus Christ,

May God bless you also,

Humbly and sincerely yours in Christ,

De Maria