The Word of God must be free. Positively, God has called each of his children to share his Word in their various capacities (Col 3:16). Negatively, he has condemned the sale of this Word in any capacity. Carried along by the Spirit, the apostles spoke the words of God himself, and they never sold this divine revelation. In fact, this approach of freely giving their message distinguished themselves from their opponents.

For we are not like so many others, who peddle the word of God. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as men sent from God. (2 Corinthians 2:17; cf. 2 Cor 10:7, 12).

Does this same prohibition apply to adaptations of Scripture? By “adaptations,” I refer to what is known in copyright law as “derivative works.” For example a motion picture based on a novel is a derivative work. A drawing based on a photograph would also be a derivative work. With Scripture, adaptations would include translations of Scripture, digital formats for Bible study apps, or musical arrangements so that it may be sung. These are all the products of human creativity mixed with the word of God.

From a modern, legal perspective, the answer is “no.” Adaptations of Scripture are subject to copyright law and regarded as the property of those who have created the adaptation. Under US law, these works are regarded as protected by copyright the moment they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression—i.e., when it is put on paper, recorded by a camera, typed into a computer etc.

But ought we give the same answer from a theological perspective? Our question is not limited to concerns about copyright. Even in a pre-copyright world—i.e., pre-1710—we could ask about the ethics of selling adaptations of Scripture. However, because a modern consideration of this question revolves so heavily around the notion of intellectual property, we will address it as needed. This should not be interpreted as a positive affirmation of the legitimacy of such legal frameworks,^[1] but as a practical concession to make application for the Christian who would operate within them.

A biblical view of inspiration demands we regard adaptations of Scripture as possessing a divine quality that demands the same prohibition on their sale. This will become evident as we consider the nature of the word of God and inspiration. To confirm, we will subsequently examine several biblical examples of adaptations as case studies. Lastly, we will demonstrate that a prohibition on the sale of adaptations of Scripture is demanded not only by divine law, but even from a biblically-informed evaluation of contemporary human law.

An Argument from Power: The Nature of the Word of God

That the word of God is divinely given truth may be illustrated by the etymology of the term “theology,” literally signifying “words of God.” In the Bible, the phrase “word of God” is used to speak of various forms and stages of revelation.

1. Spoken revelation—“Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you” (Heb 13:7)
2. Written revelation—“they have been entrusted with the very words of God” (Rom 3:2; cf. Matt 15:6)
3. Received revelation—“the word of God abides in you” (1 John 2:14)
4. The Son of God—“His name is The Word of God” (Rev 19:13)^[2]

The second person of the Trinity is called the “Word of God” because he is the ultimate agent of revelation. We know the Father through the Son; he is both God and of God (John 1:1). Yet Scripture is also called the word of God because it is through the word that we know Christ, hence it is sometimes called the word of Christ (Rom 10:17; Col 3:16). In his prophetic office he has given us his word in order that we might know him. Theologians have distinguished between Christ and Scripture in various ways:

Christ	Scripture
Principium Essendi (principle of being)	Principium Cognoscendi (principle of knowing)[3]
Essential Word	Written Word
Archetype	Ectype

As Christ is the radiance of God (Heb 1:3), so Scripture conveys Christ. Hence, both are termed the “word of God.”

To be clear, this stands opposed to all frameworks that would elevate Christ as the Word, only to reduce Scripture to being a mere witness to the Word.^[4] For example, in Barthian theology, Scripture itself is not the word so much as a vehicle for the Word. It is inert, but quickens and becomes the word when the Spirit chooses to make it effective, communicating Christ to the heart of the hearer. Scripture is not dead and dormant as in the Barthian conception, rather it is living and active, piercing to the soul and spirit, judging the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb 4:12).

If Scripture, on account of communicating the Word of God (Christ), may be regarded as the word of God, then adaptations, on account of communicating the word of God (Scripture) may in some sense likewise be regarded as the word of God. Because Scripture is indissoluble from the Christ it communicates, to sell Scripture is to sell Christ himself. Because adaptations of Scripture are indissoluble from the Scripture from which they derive, to sell adaptations is to sell Scripture. Transitively, to sell adaptations of Scripture is to sell Christ.

Furthermore, the word of God is that exclusive way that God may be made known savingly (Rom 1:19-21; 10:14-17).^[5] When we do not regard derivative works of the word as the word, then we must either reject their saving power or affirm the false idea that God may be known through human contrivances. Neither is an option for the faithful Christian. Faithful Christians universally affirm that Christ may be known through translations and even presentations of Scripture. Faithful Christians deny that the Creator would permit Babel to reach the heavens.

If adaptations of the word of God are in some sense the word of God, then the biblical prohibition on peddling the word applies to them. Any adaptation that purports to accomplish the purpose of revealing Christ must be subject to the same restrictions.

An Argument from Authorship: The Nature of Inspiration

The fact that Scripture is “inspired” indicates that it is of both divine and human authorship. The term “inspire” literally means to breathe into, just as “expire” means to breathe out from. Paul describes it the following way to Timothy:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (2 Tim 3:16)

Peter likewise says,

For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet 1:21)

God is the divine author of Scripture, using men in the process of inscripturation. This is different from the notion of an amanuensis, where the human is merely a scribe, copying down divine words. For example, in Islam, Muhammed is not regarded as the author of the Quran, only as the messenger of Allah who wrote down what an angel revealed to him. In Christianity, God is not the author of Scripture to the exclusion of man. Moreover, he is not the author of Scripture in combination with man as though Scripture is a 50/50 mix of human and divine components. It is truly human writing and truly divine writing. One might even regard inspiration as similar to incarnation, Christ being both truly God and truly man rather than a mixture of the two. A number of theologians have made this observation, but perhaps Bavink said it best.

The Word (λογος) has become flesh (σάρξ), and the word has become Scripture; these two facts do not only run parallel but are most intimately connected. Christ became flesh, a servant, without form or comeliness, the most despised of human beings; he descended to the nethermost parts of the earth and became obedient even to the death of the cross. So also the word, the revelation of God, entered the world of creatureliness, the life and history of humanity, in all the human forms of dream and vision, of investigation and reflection, right down into that which is humanly weak and despised and ignoble. The word became Scripture and as Scripture subjected itself to the fate of all Scripture. All this took place in order that the excellency of the power, also of the power of Scripture, may be God’s and not ours. Just as every human thought and action is the fruit of the action of God in whom we live and have our being, and is at the same time the fruit of the activity of human beings, so also Scripture is totally the product of the Spirit of God, who speaks through the prophets and apostles, and at the same time totally the product of the activity of the authors. “Everything is divine and everything is human” (θεια παντα και ἀνθρωπινα παντα).^[6]

The question of charging for adaptations is essentially the question, “what rules apply to a work that is of both human and divine authorship?” Since Scripture itself is a work of human and divine authorship, we already have an answer for this: such works must not be sold. Adaptations are likewise a product of divine and human authorship. Therefore, they likewise ought not be sold.

Of course, one may object that adaptations of Scripture are not products of divine authorship in the same way that Scripture itself is. In the immediately inspired text, the human author does not compete with or compromise the character of the divine authorship in the resulting work. In contrast, adaptations of Scripture introduce a human element in mixture with the divine character of the original work. That is, despite its human authorship, Scripture is thoroughly divine while adaptations are not so pure. Regardless, apart from a complete replacement of the text, the divine character remains. As such, adaptations must not be sold.

Case Study #1: The Translation of the Word

Perhaps the most obvious adaptation of Scripture is translation. Jesus and the apostles frequently used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The miracle of tongues at Pentecost foreshadows that the word of God will be spoken to all languages, and the angel of Revelation 14:6 indicates that the good news must be given to every language. Even the original message of the cross, “King of the Jews,” was translated into the three languages of Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.

The Westminster Confession and Second London Baptist Confession advocate for translation with these words:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),⁠ and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.”^[7] (WCF/2LBCF 1.8)

Though it is not the immediately inspired Word of God, it clearly has authority as a document that has the very in-breathing of God. This suggests a notion of mediate inspiration, though theologians have generally not adopted this particular phrase for the concept. To put it in other words, we should acknowledge that translations of Scripture should be regarded as inspired to the degree that they faithfully express the meaning of that text from which they originate. In the formulation of Francis Turretin, translations are not “formally authentic,” but are “materially authentic.” They are inspired in their “things”—the ideas they communicate—though not in their “words.”^[8] The in-breathing of God in Scripture is mediated by the process of translation.

As the preface to the King James Version of the Bible declares, even the least of translations is still the word of God.

That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of their’s of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.^[9]

Written several centuries later, the Chicago Statement concurs.

We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.^[10]

Besides, what is the alternative? Christians are commanded to read and hear the word of God (John 5:39); have the vast majority never done so? This would map to the theology of Islam where the one who has not read the original Arabic words has not read the Quran, but it does not map to a Christian theology of Scripture.

Case Study #2: The Preaching of the Word

Preaching is an adaptation of the word of God; from the written word, as men faithfully present it, it is the preached word. This is not a mere encapsulation of the word of God so that the minister’s words are to be regarded as completely distinct. In other words, it is not like a ship carrying cargo, but like a painting presenting paint. The ship and the cargo may be distinguished so that either may exist without the other. However the paint may exist without being incorporated into the painting, the painting does not exist without paint. Similarly, the preached word may not be disentangled from the word that is preached.

Scripture repeatedly acknowledges this reality: Faithful preaching and teaching should not be regarded as a natural thing, but as divinely empowered by the Holy Spirit as the word itself.

And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. (1 Corinthians 2:13)

God could communicate all truth directly by his Spirit, but he chooses to use human messengers. Thus, God does not direct Cornelius directly by the angel, but the angel tells him to go to Peter, where he submits to the apostle as in the presence of God (Acts 10:6,33). Romans 10:17 concludes that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the preaching [rhēmatos] of Christ.”

In fact, Scripture goes further than merely saying it should be regarded as powerful as the word, but that it should even be regarded as the word itself.

If anyone speaks, he should speak as one conveying the words of God. (1 Peter 4:11)

As the Second Helvetic Confession states most poignantly, “The Preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God.”^[11] Of course, we may make the distinction between it being immediately the word and mediately the word,^[12] but it is still the word. Hence, Calvin and the Reformers spoke of preaching as prophesying.

One might reject the idea of preaching the word being the word on account of its interpretive nature. Yet, if we are to entertain these doubts, we must reject translations as the word of God since, in the words of John Owen, “all translation is, of necessity, interpretation.”^[13] One might similarly object that even though man’s preaching may have the power of the word of God, it could not seem to share in other properties of Scripture, such as infallibility. Owen likewise anticipates this objection:

The word duly and legitimately interpreted is still the word of God, and so the exposition (if it departs not from the analogy of faith) is also the word of God, so far as it is founded on and expands upon the written word. All correct exposition may thus be said to share in infallibility, so far as it expounds the infallible word.^[14]

So what does all this imply as we consider whether adaptations of the word of God may be put to sale? In the words of William Perkins, who famously wrote the preaching text The Art of Prophesying,

"[preachers] should not make merchandise of the word of God, setting it to sale…because the graces of God exhibited unto us in the preaching of the word, are so precious, that they cannot be valued at any price, all earthly things a man can desire, are not to be compared to them”^[15]

Case Study #3: The Singing of the Word

In Ephesians and Colossians, Paul instructs the families of his churches to sing psalms and hymns.

speaking to each other in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, (Ephesians 5:19)

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing each other in all wisdom, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with grace in your hearts to God. (Colossians 3:16)

Perhaps these “psalms” signify more than the inspired 150, but it cannot signify less; this was the corpus to which the apostles frequently referred (Act 1:20). As such, Paul’s instruction represents a commanded adaptation of Scripture.

On one hand, it could be argued that this does not necessitate any adaptation of Scripture at all.^[16] Though employing music and rhythm, the early church sang psalms without textual modification. Additionally, those who affirm exclusive psalmody would argue that nothing may be added to this canonical set.

Yet there is no significant movement today that would advocate for exclusive psalmody without textual modification. The exclusive psalmodist would concede the propriety of adaptation to meter. And as nothing stands in opposition to that sentiment, along with that propriety comes an implicit command, as we ought to always follow the dictates of wisdom. Calvin argued thusly for metrical composition of the Psalms:

After the intelligence must follow the heart and the affection, a thing which is unable to be except if we have the hymn imprinted on our memory, in order never to cease from singing. For these reasons this present book, even for this cause, besides the rest which has been said, ought to be a singular recommendation to each one who desires to enjoy himself honestly and according to God.^[17]

Of course, the more common evangelical position is that the Bible authorizes the singing of uninspired hymns, sometimes even to the practical exclusion of psalms. Though perhaps not employing them in corporate worship, from the earliest ages of the church, Christians followed Paul’s instruction with original compositions. In the second century, Irenaeus remarked on their quantity “how many psalms and hymns, written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God.”^[18]

If either metrical psalms or original hymns are to be regarded as obedience to Paul’s instruction, then they are “the word of Christ” (Col 3:16). In commanding that the word of Christ dwell richly in us, and appositionally commanding that we sing in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, we ought to recognize our words in song as imparting the word of God.

The implication here should be obvious regardless: The songs we sing to one another are both adaptations of the word and—at least in some sense—are the word. They ought not be regarded as merely containing the word of Christ, as though the word could be removed, leaving some song intact. And if these songs express the word of Christ, they must not be sold.

An Argument From Contemporary Human Law

Outside these strictly theological evaluations of inspiration, we may make another argument simply from the nature of our own law. If we are to grant its legitimacy for the moment, consider the implications of copyright legislation on a Christian understanding of Scripture. In our present system, adaptations of Scripture—whether they be translations, metrical psalters, etc.—are all regarded as fully owned by the author of the derivative because Scripture itself is in the public domain. Yet two details should give us pause.

First, typically, copyright is not to perpetuity, only extending a short while beyond the life of the author, and the primary author of Scripture is alive. Though the world may adjudicate the matter differently, from a believing perspective, why should the Bible be regarded as the public domain work of a dead man? The Spirit is living and active, just as his word. Those who claim ownership of a derivative of Scripture either treat God as dead or as having less rights than man.

Second, typically, joint works are fully owned by each of the authoring parties, and the divine author has demanded his work be free (Matt 10:8; 2 Cor 2:17). God has freely given us his word, but not for us to do with it as we will. We are called to be stewards of that word, and he has forbidden its sale. If we are to regard him as a living author, his wishes must be upheld even on adaptations of his word.

The first US case against copyright infringement on a translation of Scripture argued differently. In Lesser v. Sklarz (1875), the defendant was on trial for selling an unauthorized facsimile of a newly translated Pentateuch. He argued that the work should not be subject to copyright since it exists beyond the memory of man. Of course, the translation itself did not exist beyond the memory of man, and the judge ruled in the plaintiff’s favor.^[19] Perhaps the defendant would have had more success if he had argued for a continuing copyright rather than an absent one. If the judge did not fear God, it would have made no difference, but our liberty to copy Scripture comes primarily from the Lord’s instruction over his own word rather than an absence of living authors.

Conclusion

As much as they reflect the truth of Scripture itself, adaptations of Scripture have the power and authority of Scripture. With appropriate qualification in mind, we may even confess along with the Reformers that adaptations of the word of God are the word of God. Furthermore, prohibitions against making merchandise of Scripture necessarily apply to its derivatives.

As demonstrated, this applies to the translated, preached, and sung word. However, the application may be spelled out further. If we are to regard hymns as fulfilling the command to speak the words of Christ to one another (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16), then they must not be sold. If the taught word possesses a similar authority to the preached word, then it likewise must not be sold. All biblical instruction must fall under the regulation that would prohibit its sale.

Men sell their biblical teaching, songs, translations, etc. because they regard them as their own work. Yet if they are derivative of Scripture, they are not purely of human authorship. The inspired writers of Scripture entertained no such delusions, and neither should we. Rather, let the one who speaks, speak as conveying the words of God (1 Pet 4:11). Let him not speak in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit (1 Cor 2:13).

---

1. I deny that “intellectual property” is truly property, and likewise deny that human governments are authorized by God to make laws protecting the “ownership” thereof. https://thedoreanprinciple.org/#aC ↩︎

2. See Rijssen, Leonard, A Summary of Elenctic Theology, 2.2. ↩︎

3. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, §1.1.7, p1.2; Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Dogmatics, 2.194. ↩︎

4. Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Dogmatics, 2.192. ↩︎

5. The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.1; Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1.1. ↩︎

6. Bavink, Herman, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.434-435. The quote at the end is a reference to Hippocrates final observation in The Sacred Disease. ↩︎

7. The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.8; Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1.8. ↩︎

8. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, §2.13.14-15, p1.125-126. ↩︎

9. King James Version, Preface. ↩︎

10. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. ↩︎

11. The Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter 1. ↩︎

12. Robert Rollock, A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling, 42. See also, Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Dogmatics, 2.204. ↩︎

13. John Owen, Biblical Theology, 806. ↩︎

14. Ibid, 816. ↩︎

15. William Perkins, Commentary on Galatians, 6:6. ↩︎

16. William Binnie, The Psalms: Their History, Teachings, and Use, 362. ↩︎

17. John Calvin, Preface to the Psalter. ↩︎

18. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.28.5. ↩︎

19. Lesser v. Sklarz. ↩︎