Tag Archives: Canon

The Bible and inspiration

4 Replies

Yesterday’s post reflects a concern I have, the observation that the church is increasingly de-emphasizing the role of the Bible and proportionately giving more weight to the voice of experience. There is a growing distrust in the human authors of the text; I’ve given plenty of time recently to that idea. The Bible is seen as a very human book; interpreters are free to embrace or reject each passage as they see fit.

As society clamors for religious experience outside of religious institutions, there is an increasing focus on God’s Word beyond Scripture itself; the Bible is seen as part and parcel of organized religion, so those dissatisfied with religion in general seek to find Jesus apart from the written word. This idea is often expressed as focusing on the red letters of the gospels above all else, thinking that they represent the purity of Jesus’ teachings.

Much of it comes down to our view of the Bible and our view of inspiration. If, for example, the apostle Peter was merely the N.T. Wright of his day, then we’re free to agree or disagree with what he says (though there seems to be greater hesitancy to disagree with Wright than to disagree with the biblical authors!). If the epistles are nothing more than a historical curiosity, preserved in a sort of textual museum, then we may read what they say and shake our heads in pity at the inadequacy of their understanding of Christianity.

I don’t believe in divine dictation; I recognize the humanity behind Scripture. But I also believe that God was at work in the production and preservation of the writings of early church authors; I believe that these men wrote God-breathed, Spirit-aided, Christ-honoring texts. Though not perfect men, I believe their writings reveal God’s words to us.

I believe in the unity of the teaching of Scripture. I don’t pit one author against another. I don’t see one book as a corrective to another book, nor one verse as fixing what another says. I do see differences, both differences in narrated details and differences in outlooks on doctrinal themes. But even when the biblical melody isn’t always sung in unison, I believe it’s sung in harmony.

I also believe that the church was guided by God in the selection of which books to keep. The purpose was not to preserve a historical record of the church’s beginnings; these writings were selected because of their ongoing value to the church. What Paul said to Ephesus was seen as being relevant to the church two hundred years later; I believe it’s still relevant two thousand years later.

This is a deep and complex subject, one that I can’t fully explore in 500 words. I’ll try and summarize with this: I firmly believe in the truth and inspiration of the Bible, even the uncomfortable parts. When experience, church teaching, or personal emotions conflict with Scripture, I’m sticking with Scripture.

Why the ad hominem attack on Paul?

2 Replies

We’ve been discussing the concept of “Jesus vs Paul” or “the gospels vs the epistles.” There’s one other observation that I want to make, even though I doubt it will be a popular one. Who is trying to demote Paul’s theology to second class? That is, who wants the words of the epistles to carry less weight than they traditionally have?

In my experience, this view is promoted by basically two groups, who share a common argument (though they rarely admit it). In churches of Christ, it’s primarily those who hold to an egalitarian view. In Christianity at large, it’s also those who no longer see homosexual behavior as a sin.

I rarely hear people saying, “Jesus emphasized baptism more than Paul did; I take Jesus much more seriously.” Seldom is the argument: “Jesus taught a works-based justification while Paul emphasizes grace; I take Jesus much more seriously.” (And yes, those claims are debatable… like the idea that Jesus promoted egalitarianism more than Paul did.)

I’m very open to correction on this point. Feel free to point me to people who are de-emphasizing Paul for reasons other than the ones I’ve mentioned. My experience is naturally limited.

For now, I’m very uncomfortable with any attempt to not take a biblical writer seriously, especially one who wrote as much as Paul did. Yes, many have over-emphasized Paul in the past, many have stripped his words of all context, many have built ridiculous arguments based on proof texts. But none of that calls for us to demote apostolic teaching to a second tier.

Did God have anything to do with our New Testament?

1 Reply

This discussion started last week, so you may want to read some previous posts if you haven’t done so. Last week, I pointed out the humanity of the gospels, which often gets overlooked. There was as great a human element in the writing and preserving of the gospels as there was with the epistles.

That said, I believe that all the books of the Bible were inspired. I’ll admit to not being able to explain all the ins and outs of inspiration, for I’m neither a “divine dictation” believer nor a “purely human” advocate. But I’m firmly convinced that God breathed life into the words in this book, giving it value that common books do not have.

Both Luke and John talk about why they wrote their books. They felt that writing was their decision. Paul also speaks of choosing to write the letters he writes. That shows the existence of some humanity in what was done. Yet I’m convinced that God guided their writing, shaping the books into what he wanted them to be.

I also believe that God guided the church in the preservation process. Early Christians debated a bit, but relatively quickly came to a consensus as to which books belonged in our Bible (despite what you might have read in Dan Brown novels). They rejected certain gospels, discarded certain letters, but kept the books that they felt best met the needs of Christians outside of the original recipients. I don’t think these choices were made by chance.

That’s why I’m frustrated with the current “That’s just Paul” movement. It very much downplays the role of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Book. Paul is not divine in the way Jesus is. But Paul’s words are as inspired as the recorded words of Jesus. The early church thought they had a wider application than their original audience; surely God had a hand in that. They deserve to be taken seriously, very seriously.

Don’t overlook the wider applications of Paul’s writings.

4 Replies

As we talk about “Jesus vs Paul,” or “taking Jesus much more seriously than we do Paul,” I think we need to remember that the epistles are more than just letters from the apostles to certain people.

For many years, we read the epistles as if they were written directly to us. I still hear people say, “I Corinthians 16 commands us to take an offering every Sunday.” I often point out that it also commands us to hold those collected funds until somebody comes to take them to Jerusalem. Reading the epistles as if they were direct commands to today’s church can cause problems.

I know you’re sick of me saying it, but I think we did a pendulum swing on this one as well. Now we read 1 Corinthians as if it were nothing more than teachings for the Corinthians. We rightly look at the historical context of the original writing but fail to see one other context: the preservation of certain writings of Paul and others.

Paul wrote letters that weren’t saved. We know of at least one letter to the Corinthians that we don’t have (1 Corinthians 5:9). We know that he wrote the church in Laodicea (Colossians 4:16), but we don’t have that letter. Given the duration of his ministry (and the duration of his captivity), it’s probable that Paul wrote numerous other letters. They weren’t saved.

But the church looked at these letters and realized that they had an application far beyond their original context. They saved them and read them regularly for that very reason.

That’s what I see people missing today. They aren’t asking the question: “Why did the early church think this was useful?” That goes for the epistles and it goes for the gospels.

Given my view of inspiration, I think the Holy Spirit was active in guiding the church as to what to preserve and what not to preserve. I’ll have more to say about that in a future post.

For now, let’s recognize that identifying the original situation being addressed is an important step, but it’s not a limiting step in interpretation. The instructions given to the Corinthian church about a limited time special offering still show us the importance of giving sacrificially, the central faith act of taking care of brothers in other countries when they are in need, and even the practicality of a Sunday offering. We can’t just say, “Oh, that was the first century.” We have to look deeper.

In other words, it’s time that the church took Paul way more seriously.

Why the New Testament doesn’t have a Torah

Leave a reply

While the Jews had their canon within a canon, what about the early church? The Jews emphasized the Torah above the other scriptures? What about early Christians? Specifically, how did they see the New Testament writings?

I would argue that the stratifying of authority took place during the years when the canon was in flux. That is, writings seen to be of lesser authority were not included as part of the New Testament. There were highly respected books like the Didache or 1 Clement that were read regularly, but not seen as part of the authoritative scriptures of the church.

There was debate about some of the accepted books, like 2 Peter or Jude. But for the most part, the books we use today were seen as holy scriptures. (And yes, I’m greatly simplifying decades and decades of study and debate)

I don’t place the epistles over the gospels nor vice versa. I do read the varying literary sections in different ways, which helps explain why I don’t take Revelation literally (Jesus isn’t a slain lamb with seven horns and seven eyes)

I guess the huge difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that the Old Testament had books that were expected to be read as law; that’s why the Torah was/is seen differently. The New Testament lacks such legal code. There are commands and instructions throughout the New Testament writings, but there is nothing similar to what we find in the laws of the Torah.

That’s where I ended up on this mental side trip. How about you?