Tag Archives: epistles

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.

Choosing Jesus, rejecting Paul

1 Reply

The other day a friend included this in a Facebook post:

“I take Jesus much more seriously than I do Paul.”

That statement didn’t sit well with me.

On the one hand, well… yeah. Jesus is Lord of Lords. He should be taken much more seriously than any other human.

But it seems to me that this friend was echoing a sentiment that I hear in the church today, a need to downplay the writings of Paul and emphasize the gospels. He wasn’t really talking about Jesus and Paul as individuals, but about their teachings.

Historically, churches of Christ have often been guilty of doing just the opposite, preaching Paul and ignoring the gospels. I’ve written before about the strange doctrine that would seek to relegate the gospels to a time long past, discounting their relevance and applicability to people today. That’s an extreme form of the traditional view that argues “The New Testament begins with Acts 2.” (I’ve heard that exact statement)

Today’s view would seem to be the expected pendulum swing that happens so often as churches, as people react to one view by going to the opposite extreme.

I want to spend a little time examining the “gospels only” approach to the New Testament. I’ll include the “red letters only” view as well, which tries to take quotes from Jesus and elevate them above the rest.

Feel free to voice some opinions now or wait until we start trying to cook some of these half-baked thoughts.