I was really impressed with the comments yesterday. I’m almost embarrassed to throw my thoughts into the mix, especially because they’re not nearly as spiritual as some of those made yesterday. Still, I started this, so I can’t really drop out now. So here goes:
- I’d smooth over some of the rough edges. You know, the killings, the slavery, things like that.
- I’d make sure that the narratives had clearly delineated morals. No ambiguity about who acted justly or whether or not what someone did was a sin. I’d spell it out.
- Along that line, I’d have a section of laws to satisfy those who think the Bible should be a rule book.
- I would also have a section of “catechism,” spelling out the correct position on major doctrinal issues (and minor ones that everyone treats as major issues)
There’s my remake of the Bible. Any other suggestions?
[Now before anyone gets upset, no, I’m not criticizing the Bible. Again, this is what I consider to be a thought exercise. Apologies if anyone is offended.]
What if the Didache (c. late first century AD) had been included in scripture? How would that have changed the discussion on baptism? First, would we be spending money for baptistries in a building or would we go down to a lake or river to baptize in “living water”? Would we immerse a believer once or would we immerse them three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit (which some scholars think is what Matthew’s “Great Commision” had in mind)? While immersion would still be the normative practice, would we put a person dying in a hospital from 3rd degree burns all over their body who wants to be baptized through the physical agony of immersion in water or would we pour water over their head as the Didache suggest for those who are too sick to be immersed?
I realize those are somewhat pointless questions since the Didache is not a part of the canon but considering what it does say about baptism (and some of the changing practices) and its generally accepted date of writing, we might ask ourselves why the issue of baptismal practice (which we think is of utter importance) is not addressed in the Epistles of John which were probably written around the same time as the Didache? Could it be that what we believe about Jesus and how we live in response to that belief (issues that the Epistles of John do address) are essential matters to Christianity while some of our questions about baptism are not as essential as we would like to make them?
…just thinking out loud.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Jer 31:31 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Jer 31:35 ¶ Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name:
Jer 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
( And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, )
( If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. ) That is pretty strong language, coming from a God who people say turned around a wrote a book , outlining how to teach every man and his neighbor, about God. yep the bible is a little confusing, as to why some things were added and some were not.
Rex none of your questions were pointless, they are questions that require a lot of thought.
Tim: Rex’s comment almost begs a week’s worth of posts on the Canon. It may be unavoidable now. :)
laymond: Should we be Gnostics? I’m not being facetious with this question; but a singular attachment to the spiritual (in our hearts) would almost beg such a thing. Not only that, but who or what then has authority; or who could keep check against false teaching? The Scriptures, from the very beginning of Christianity/The Way (1st century), were authoritatively used to combat false teaching. The New Testament is littered with this specific concern (even Jesus spoke of it). If we are all running around with the doctrine of our hearts, which are yet to be fully sanctified (therefore, still subject to wickedness, pride, deceit, all sorts of sin); how can we tell false teaching from the Truth? The Gnostic tendency to leave it all spiritual is dangerous, I think. We are too easily deceived.
Jr, at some point, I’d like to write some about the canon. I’m hoping guys like you will do so first, so I can steal your ideas. :-)
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer