This is going to get me in trouble. A standard idea of Protestant Christianity is the inspiration of Scripture, and evangelicalism firmly holds to the inerrancy of Scripture. This could be the view of Luther, and is certainly the view of Calvin, Ericson, and almost all evangelical theologians. I have an alternative viewpoint. This is what’s going to get me in trouble I think.
I believe that the Bible is completely accurate in what it says it is. First of all the Bible is 66 books, written by many authors. It doesn’t say in the Bible that Moses wrote the first five books. In fact, a simple reading would indicate that Moses didn’t write the Law, although there is a possibility that he compiled the writings that made up Genesis. I believe that the Bible should be read for what it actually says, and not on what people want to impose upon it.
What the Bible actually says is not that every word is God’s word. Rather, the Bible is a collection of human experiences about God. From an objective standpoint, it is a lot of ancient historic data about the relation between human beings and God. It contains God’s word—in that God spoke to people, and that speech is occasionally transcribed, but it is not completely God’s word. It is full of human perceptions, locked within the ancient culture, and it contains many assumptions and even some errors. The main point of what it is speaking about is accurate—these are the stories of the people who had experiences of God. But this doesn’t mean that their perceptions were always accurate. Also, it is easy to misinterpret the ancient ideas as being more than what they intended.
I fully believe in the Bible—I believe that it is what it says it is. Nothing more. More specifically, I believe in Jesus. I believe that the gospels are what they say they are—testimonies of those who saw and heard Jesus, transcribed by those who heard these testimonies. And I believe that what Jesus said about himself is accurate—That Jesus alone is the only one who truly understands God and can best describe God and His desires and intentions for humanity. Better than Moses did, as great as Moses was. Better than Abraham, although Abraham is the trailblazer for faith. Better than Paul, although Paul is the earliest interpreter of Jesus we have, and so an important witness.
But those who claim more for the Bible than it claims itself, I think they are deluded and are deluding others. Those who claim more for the Bible, in the end are trying to claim more for their theology than can accurately be said. Those who look at what we do have of God’s revelation of Himself, and claim more for it than is there, will also claim more about God than can be claimed. Those who do not see theology as a science, but as some guess work, or community forum is not interested in truth. They are interested in something else. Perhaps they are interested in majority opinion. Perhaps they are interested in being right. Perhaps they are interested in their set of ideas. But they aren’t interested in simply listening to God and doing what little He said. And if that’s the case, I don’t really feel that their word should be taken as “God’s own truth.”
I appreciate that your reasoning isn't rigid and doesn't assume that church traditions are all accurate or useful. Personally, unlearning what I've been taught seems like an overwhelming task, and it takes intelligence and analytical skills that stump me.
ReplyDeleteWould you agree - Jesus Himself constantly taught "as one who had authority." This in distinction to the normal rabbinic tradition. Christ on numerous occasions declared, "You have heard it said . . . but I tell you." In the epistles of the apostles, a word of the Lord was enough to settle a matter. (e.g. 1 Cor 7:10-11, with reference to marriage and divorce; 1 Cor 11:23ff, with reference to conduct in worship) additionally, sayings of the Lord, not found in the canonical gospels are cited as authoritative (canonical) (Acts 20:35 also cf. 1 Thess 5:22).
1 Timothy 5:18 where Paul coordinates a quotation from Deut 25:4 (Do not muzzle the ox while he is treading out the grain) with a citation from Luke 10:7 (The laborer deserves his wages.), citing both as Scripture.
http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament
& 2 Ti. 3:16
Given the verses above, I don't understand how Paul's writings are not as good at revealing God as the gospels are. Thoughts?
It sounds like part of your point that Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, after God inspired the OT writers to gradually reveal His plan/our need for a Messiah. (?) And that before Jesus everything written was an incomplete revelation of God.
oh, & Jn. 1:1
ReplyDeleteJesus himself said, "No one knows the Father except the Son." This doesn't mean that we cannot gain information about the Father except through Jesus, but that Jesus has the most accurate information. For everyone else, the truth of God is veiled (as even Paul said about Moses) but for Jesus, it is open and clear.
ReplyDeleteFor this reason, Paul, acting on the basis of what Jesus said about the Father, can be more accurate than Moses, because at least Paul had Jesus' revelation first. Moses only ever saw God through a veil, as amazing as Moses' relationship with God was.
The reason Paul isn't as accurate as the gospels has to do with the nature of the writing that we have. The gospels are concerned only with what Jesus said and did-- thus they are a purer form of communication of Jesus himself. And although Jesus is interpreted by the writers, it is not as heavy-handed interpretation as Paul has in his letters. The reason for this is because Paul already taught the churches (or assume they had been taught) most of the teaching contained in the gospels-- the reiteration of Jesus' life and teaching. Paul alludes to this teaching when he mentions to a church what they had learned already from him. We can get hints from Paul about Jesus teaching, but he feels no need to repeat it, unless the church seems to have forgotten it entirely (like in I Cor 11). So, for the most part, what we have from Paul is his personal practical theology-- how Jesus' teaching is applied in his context of giving the gospel to the gentiles. This is important-- essential, really-- but it is application, not the pure doctrine of Jesus.
For this reason, I think that the churches in general have strayed from pure teaching. All the churches want to use an interpreter to understand Jesus, instead of using Jesus to understand all the interpreters.
You have a rationale. Yet all of the OT writing does add depth to the NT and to Jesus' words that we otherwise do not have, right? The NT has vivid color with an understanding of the OT: looking at the whole Bible as literary forms. Yes? Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteHow does the graded canon view address the verses above?
God was able/sovereign to use the personalities, cultures, and times of the writers of the original autographs. I.e.
God (perfect and sinless) + Mary (human and with sin) = Jesus: sinless
God (perfect and sinless) + human writers (human and with sin) = Bible: perfect in the original autographs.
I certainly would not deny the inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures. They are essential for understanding God's will and purpose for humanity. However, because of it's imperfection in comparison to Jesus' understanding of the Father, we must interpret the OT through the lens of Jesus' life and teaching. If we do not, then we will have a corrupted notion of God's will and plan.
ReplyDeleteI think you can see this in one of the passages you quoted: Paul quoting Deuteronomy (and other places) "Do not muzzle the ox when it treads the grain." It is interesting because Paul doesn't interpret that passage literally. In fact, Paul says, "He is not concerned about oxen is he? Or is he speaking this for our sake?" I Cor. 9:9-10 The literal understanding of the passage would be, Yes, Paul, he is concerned about oxen. But Paul understands the passage differently. Instead, he takes it as an illustration of one of Jesus' teachings: "The worker is worthy of his hire." Which means, if a person does work, they deserve to have their needs met by that work. If the principle applies to oxen, Paul reasons, then it must apply to people.
Thus, even as Paul takes the Scripture and has it be enslaved to Jesus' teaching and life, so we must do with all Scripture. Scripture is not to be understood on it's own, for it is weak unless strengthened by the perfect understanding of Jesus.
I googled "graded canon" and after finding *nothing*, am wondering where did the concept originate? I'd love to hear you and my Bible as Lit/ study methods prof. Ray Lubeck discuss this. He taught the classes I took. You might like Lubeck's book.
ReplyDeleteIt's a technical term, used mostly by Mennonite schools. It is in opposition to another Mennonite term, a "flat bible". I mention this in my Anabaptist blog. This is probably the main reason I became a Mennonite, years ago.
ReplyDelete