When in 1934 Otis Q. Sellers set about to do his own biblical studies, he meant it: no more “hand-me-down” theology. He would no longer ransack commentaries, concordances, and lexicons to do what he had done the previous decade-and-a-half, that is, landscape a garden path of “evidence” to an opinion he was already inclined to hold (because people he respected held it).
No, he would consult such resources to examine the evidence, verse by verse, draw his conclusions, and let the chips fall where they may. In What Is the Soul?, published in 1939, Sellers shared the fruit of five years of laboring in the Lord’s vineyards. Twenty years into his life in Christ, at the age of 38, he was ready to show what starting from scratch looked like.
It was five years ago [1934] that I determined to place my own shallow, hearsay opinions concerning the soul upon the shelf and to open the Word of God, determined to know and embrace the truth. In presenting in written form the findings that have come from these years of definite study, I desire to present the steps which have led me to my present conclusions. The entire apparatus of study is given in order that the reader can follow the steps one by one and see if by so doing they arrive at the same conclusions. I ask the reader to observe that I do not attempt that seemingly impossible feat, performed by so many, of beginning at the top, then going down certain steps in order to demonstrate that if I had come up the steps I would have arrived at the same position.
There is a price to be paid for such independence of mind.
All truth seekers will come, sooner or later, to this crisis where decisions must be made and results of study must be embraced or rejected. These moments will never come to the one who studies what other men have to say about the Word, neither will they come to the man to whom the Bible is a book of texts upon which he may hang his sermons.
Many subtle men will carefully steer their course so as to avoid these crossroads where definite choice must be made and one path or another must be followed. Thus, they are able to hide behind their own confusion which they have deliberately created, and by continually traveling up and down the same well-worn paths they keep away from those places where the road divides and both paths cannot be taken.
For one’s view of the soul is related to one’s idea of future punishment: if the fear attaching to the latter is lively enough, it may inhibit one’s handling of the former. One hedges one’s bets. If, for example, one learns (as Sellers claimed to have learned) that “hell” is not a possible destination for a “soul,” what becomes of the business plan of countless “fire and brimstone” preachers?
I discreetly asked the majority of Christian workers and Bible students whom I met the question—“What is the soul?” or, “What do you believe about the soul?” This investigation led me to the conclusion that professing Christians and the Christian ministry as a whole have no definition of the soul and no fixed views concerning it. They speak much of saving souls, zeal for souls, soul winning, lost souls, passion for souls and love for souls, yet seem to have no definition that they can put into words concerning it.
Typical of the answers I received from Christian workers were: the soul is one of the three parts of man; the soul is the true man; the soul is that part of man which is immortal; the soul is the man that lives inside our bodies; the soul is the immaterial part of man. Several said that the soul could not be defined; some insisted that no one knows what it is; others seemed to dimly know that there is an orthodox view concerning the soul, but could not say what one needed to believe concerning it to be considered orthodox.
Sellers prefaced his textual study with a profession of method. This is the first expression of his approach to Bible study, and the workman’s spadework is on display. He would return to this subject throughout his ministry, but here we see his mind negotiating the dissonance between his study’s yield and what others expected him to teach. Others may have followed his methodology it; he never claimed to be the only one to do so or even the first. He did claim, however, that after searching for evidence that this issue had been thoroughly studied, he couldn’t find the relevant data laid out for the student in one place.
He would supply that lack.
I desire to state that, in the beginning and for several years, the only tools used were a Hebrew Concordance, a Greek Concordance, and the Word of God. No other writings on this subject were consulted until I was sure I knew what the Word of God said. Later I sought out all that I could find written by others. Nothing new is presented in this pamphlet. I disclaim originality. Yet, I know that all the teaching presented herein came to me from the Word of God.
… [T]he matter set forth in these pages has been presented to four classes of faithful students of the Word. After each presentation the material was restudied and reexamined…. A pamphlet written by me four years ago was used by several groups as a textbook in their Bible study classes. This brought me much satisfaction, as no thought of such use entered into my mind during the writing…. I believe that by the use of this pamphlet any believer can master this subject and teach it to others without hesitation. Classes using this as a textbook will be led into and through the Word of God on this important subject.
His principle? The inspiration of Scripture.
… [A]ll Scripture—from Genesis to Revelation—is God-breathed. This is the truth expressed in 2 Timothy 3:16 where the word theopneustos [θεόπνευστος] is rendered by five English words—“given by inspiration of God.” These studies are based upon the great fact that every word in the sacred Scriptures is God-breathed, and the reader must view the arguments of this book from that standpoint. No one will accept the findings set forth here who does not accept the fact of verbal inspiration.
A corollary of that principle is that the authority of what is theopneustos is superior to the authority of anything that is not.
Thus, it was by the mouth and by the hand of holy men that God gave His Word, It was David’s voice and David’s pen, but the words were not David’s words. They were the very words of God. Man deals out words at random on the principle of hit or miss, but God deals out His words by weight and measure on the principle of intentional selection. No word He has used will ever be found to be too heavy or too light; none are too strong or too weak. When God uses a word, it is because it is the only word that would express His thoughts.
Of nothing non-theopneustos can this be rightly said, certainly not of translations of the Hebrew or Greek.
Several years ago while in conversation with a certain well-known evangelist, he kept referring to “the inspired translators of our Authorized Version.” When I reminded him that these translators were not inspired, he insisted that they were “almost inspired.” Furthermore, he felt that any criticism of the King James Version [KJV] was the same as criticizing the Word of God. There are many who share his feelings.
The KJV was the one to which his reference materials were keyed, but his exclusive use of it implied no veneration. On the contrary, he mercilessly criticized the traditional ecclesiastical meanings that the “authorized” version promoted. This veneration invited rhetorical questions:
Early in 1600 [King] James purposed to have made a new translation of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures …. If history should repeat itself and these same events were duplicated today—if King George [VI, monarch of the United Kingdom when Sellers wrote] should purpose to have made a new translation of the Scriptures, if he should suggest the best brains of Cambridge and Oxford to do the work; if after their work was done the translation was reviewed by the bishops of the Church of England; if King George ratified it and authorized its use in the Churches—what would be the attitude of the reader toward this new translation? Would he put aside every other translation to receive this new one as the Word of God? Would he without examination accept its claim to be a faithful translation of the inspired originals? Would he feel that these translators were inspired by God? Would he feel that to criticize their renderings was to criticize the Word of God?
To ask such questions is to answer them.
… [T]he same man [James] who determined to control the worship of his subjects also exercised complete control over the translators whom he had appointed. But a stronger control than this was exercised by the biased opinions and prejudices of the translators who did the work. They were loyal members of the Church of England, they spoke its language and often worded their translations for the benefit of that body. Reverent students of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and the Authorized Version have insisted that these translators were too obliging to the King in favoring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft and kingly rights. This will be seen by all who read carefully The Epistle Dedicatory, which is to be found in front of most copies of the Authorized Version. After the work was done, and the results were being freely criticized, some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment in the matter, but were restrained by “reasons of state.”
As an American enjoying a modicum of liberty when it came to the things of God, Sellers felt no compunction to conform. Sellers’s interpretation of Scripture is a characteristically American gambit, for only in America is there both the interest and the freedom to expound controversial theology if that’s where one’s studies lead.
To Be Continued