Theology must relate to scripture. Theology comes from scripture. Too often it seems that it is felt that if scripture is quoted or cited then theology is being done scriptural.
Too often in current theology, however, scriptural quotations simply have no relation to the message being written. Or the verse quoted is taken out of context of the message of the text the verse comes from.
We should always seek to be faithful to the meaning of scripture.
Showing posts with label scripture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scripture. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Friday, October 23, 2015
What is Clear
Often there are many events in scripture where the main historical events are clearly described, but some of the details are left out. Scripture is written for our edification and growth not to satisfy every curiosity we have.
Often there is debate about the minor details of what happened in a text. The debate usually misses the point. Scripture did not care to elaborate on the details.
We want to speculate what all the minor nuances of the event are. We are confused because we miss the point that scripture has told us all we need to know.
It is not that scripture could not have given us more details. But the untold details are not relevant the the point of the text.
It is especially unfortunate when Christians want to argue about the details of a text which the text does not have concern about.
We always need to keep the focus in theology on what scripture finds important. When we feel that scripture lacks something which we would wish to know we need to realize that scripture was created as it is for a reason.
God has withheld nothing good from us. Even though our sinful nature at times feels that God has withheld things from us.
Often there is debate about the minor details of what happened in a text. The debate usually misses the point. Scripture did not care to elaborate on the details.
We want to speculate what all the minor nuances of the event are. We are confused because we miss the point that scripture has told us all we need to know.
It is not that scripture could not have given us more details. But the untold details are not relevant the the point of the text.
It is especially unfortunate when Christians want to argue about the details of a text which the text does not have concern about.
We always need to keep the focus in theology on what scripture finds important. When we feel that scripture lacks something which we would wish to know we need to realize that scripture was created as it is for a reason.
God has withheld nothing good from us. Even though our sinful nature at times feels that God has withheld things from us.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Inerrancy is Comprehensive
Many pastors have a great concern with inerrancy. The doctrine is very important, but is of very little practical use without an insistence on comprehensiveness in exposing scripture.
With the great amount of topical preaching done in the current day having a pastor with a doctrine of inerrancy is of little practical use to his congregation if the pastor avoids teaching on many topics in scripture. It is rarely stated in a crass way by the pastor that he does not wish to preach on a topic in scripture, but many pastors have certain topics they refuse in practice to preach on.
I once heard a high profile preacher who preached an entire sermon series on inerrancy and faithfulness to scripture proudly state that he has and never will preach a sermon on giving. It is difficult to reconcile his great passion for inerrancy in scripture with his objection to preaching the fullness of scripture.
Many pastors in the current day live in this state. They insist upon the inerrancy and usefulness of all scripture while trying to hide many elements of scripture away from view.
I find one of the best ways to judge the orthodoxy of a pastor or theologian is to look at what they refuse to or never speak on. It is easy to say all the right things when a pastor or theologian picks and chooses the topics to speak on.
But what is unsaid is often where orthodoxy is made or broken. A pastor may claim to hold a "high view of scripture" but that high view is only so high as the pastor's concern to practically model that all scripture is useful.
It seems that the focus of pastors would be better to focus on a comprehensive view of scripture. An insistence on comprehensive view of scripture coupled with an inerrant view of scripture is of far greater use than simply a concern with inerrancy.
With the great amount of topical preaching done in the current day having a pastor with a doctrine of inerrancy is of little practical use to his congregation if the pastor avoids teaching on many topics in scripture. It is rarely stated in a crass way by the pastor that he does not wish to preach on a topic in scripture, but many pastors have certain topics they refuse in practice to preach on.
I once heard a high profile preacher who preached an entire sermon series on inerrancy and faithfulness to scripture proudly state that he has and never will preach a sermon on giving. It is difficult to reconcile his great passion for inerrancy in scripture with his objection to preaching the fullness of scripture.
Many pastors in the current day live in this state. They insist upon the inerrancy and usefulness of all scripture while trying to hide many elements of scripture away from view.
I find one of the best ways to judge the orthodoxy of a pastor or theologian is to look at what they refuse to or never speak on. It is easy to say all the right things when a pastor or theologian picks and chooses the topics to speak on.
But what is unsaid is often where orthodoxy is made or broken. A pastor may claim to hold a "high view of scripture" but that high view is only so high as the pastor's concern to practically model that all scripture is useful.
It seems that the focus of pastors would be better to focus on a comprehensive view of scripture. An insistence on comprehensive view of scripture coupled with an inerrant view of scripture is of far greater use than simply a concern with inerrancy.
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Less is more in Ministry
We live in a culture obsessed with more. More is always better.
We often have revelations that less may be more. Of course the idea is not new, but it is new to us.
God has always told man that less is often more. It is everywhere through scripture. Three hundred men with God is more than ten thousand without God.
Ninety percent with God is more than one hundred present without God. Six days of work with God is better than seven days of work without God.
Often pastors and ministers get and teach the point. But they often fail to live it. They miss that their ministry is hampered because often they live as if more is more rather than less is more.
If we wish to grow the church, then it should be grown God's way. One pastor related that he tried to grow his church tirelessly for years with no effect and it damaged his life. Finally when he placed his ministry into balance then his church grew.
Of course many pastors grow churches by tireless effort. Ministry of all forms is tiring. But hard work with rest is God's plan. And often I believe many ministers would find the results of their ministry improved if at times they lived out the idea of Sabbath as if they actually believed scripture.
We often believe scripture, but not enough so to live it out. To really truly reach the final level of belief on any scriptural topic is to live it out. If we have still failed to live out the scriptural point in life we have still failed to believe it fully to some degree.
We often have revelations that less may be more. Of course the idea is not new, but it is new to us.
God has always told man that less is often more. It is everywhere through scripture. Three hundred men with God is more than ten thousand without God.
Ninety percent with God is more than one hundred present without God. Six days of work with God is better than seven days of work without God.
Often pastors and ministers get and teach the point. But they often fail to live it. They miss that their ministry is hampered because often they live as if more is more rather than less is more.
If we wish to grow the church, then it should be grown God's way. One pastor related that he tried to grow his church tirelessly for years with no effect and it damaged his life. Finally when he placed his ministry into balance then his church grew.
Of course many pastors grow churches by tireless effort. Ministry of all forms is tiring. But hard work with rest is God's plan. And often I believe many ministers would find the results of their ministry improved if at times they lived out the idea of Sabbath as if they actually believed scripture.
We often believe scripture, but not enough so to live it out. To really truly reach the final level of belief on any scriptural topic is to live it out. If we have still failed to live out the scriptural point in life we have still failed to believe it fully to some degree.
Monday, June 8, 2015
A Selective Biblicism
Often we see a selective use of the bible in churches or Christian's lives. I had experiences with a Christian which caused me to end our relationship.
His response to me was that we should follow the teaching of God and work things out and reconcile. He went on to tell me how I was completely in the wrong on all points and that I needed to accept that everything between us was my fault.
The spirit of the response was in fact the entire reason the relationship had ended. There was no working through things between us. He was always right and I was always wrong (in his view).
The issue aside there is a spirit of biblical principle which is being selectively used. We can of course work things out in the spirit of God seeking understanding and dialogue but we cannot work things out if the person "seeking dialogue" and "reconciliation" is really simply looking to get our way.
It is often like this in life that we find people adopt or reject parts of scripture as it suits them. Scripture is often inconvenient. Living in love and seeking dialogue takes time. True biblical living requires us at times to question ourselves and our motives. It takes time to live out our faith.
God knows that we have failed and will fail and loves us anyway. It is Jesus' perfect life that God counts as our holiness.
His response to me was that we should follow the teaching of God and work things out and reconcile. He went on to tell me how I was completely in the wrong on all points and that I needed to accept that everything between us was my fault.
The spirit of the response was in fact the entire reason the relationship had ended. There was no working through things between us. He was always right and I was always wrong (in his view).
The issue aside there is a spirit of biblical principle which is being selectively used. We can of course work things out in the spirit of God seeking understanding and dialogue but we cannot work things out if the person "seeking dialogue" and "reconciliation" is really simply looking to get our way.
It is often like this in life that we find people adopt or reject parts of scripture as it suits them. Scripture is often inconvenient. Living in love and seeking dialogue takes time. True biblical living requires us at times to question ourselves and our motives. It takes time to live out our faith.
God knows that we have failed and will fail and loves us anyway. It is Jesus' perfect life that God counts as our holiness.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
True Biblical Belief
Often people are examined today for being "biblical" based on what they say. Viewpoints on scripture are of course an important test for being "biblical," but far more important is how one lives.
Living biblical truth is far more important for being "biblical" than doting all the right points in a conversation. Living is what makes or breaks our faithfulness to scripture.
If we really understand scripture in a deep way it will change us. Understanding scripture in this way a way that really matters is ultimately what is important.
If you want to know how faithful we are biblically we need to not look as much at what we say, but look to what we do. The saying "talk is cheap" is very applicable.
If we want to know what we care about we often have to stop looking at what we say we care about and instead look at what our actions say we care about. Our actions flow from our heart and speak volumes to what we actually truly care about most.
Living biblical truth is far more important for being "biblical" than doting all the right points in a conversation. Living is what makes or breaks our faithfulness to scripture.
If we really understand scripture in a deep way it will change us. Understanding scripture in this way a way that really matters is ultimately what is important.
If you want to know how faithful we are biblically we need to not look as much at what we say, but look to what we do. The saying "talk is cheap" is very applicable.
If we want to know what we care about we often have to stop looking at what we say we care about and instead look at what our actions say we care about. Our actions flow from our heart and speak volumes to what we actually truly care about most.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Numbers and Names
Numbers and Names often have great meaning in scripture. I read recently a commentary on a number which was quite poor.
The commentary was exactly right in its belief that numbers have meaning, but seemed unaware of the fact that the chapters and verses of scripture where a far later addition than the written scripture and are not divinely inspired dividing points.
You cannot thus include the perceived contents of the "eleventh" chapter of many books in scripture into the biblical meaning of eleven. Certainly scripture repeatedly plays on numbers and repeats numbers which are significant for effect so that the significance will be noticed.
But we should always allow scripture to point out significance rather than forcing arbitrary significance where significance is not present. The dividing of chapters and verses in scripture is a blessed convenience to enable the better study of scripture, but not a divine inspiration of God.
Often I find the study of Names in scripture to be of more interest. The Name of a person is supposed to convey identity. The giving of a name is thus the giving of a blessing or curse.
Thus Joseph is a natural name for a blessing, "May Jehovah add/give increase," as well as Daniel, "God is my judge."
It is interesting the naming of names of children who are "sons of sorrow" or other names which reflect the feeling of the parent, but seem not to exist as a blessing. It is easy to read to much in to the giving of names and what was thought or not though.
The point is that the giving of the name is the giving of a blessing. The direction is that it is not about us, but the other. That is the drift of scripture to turn our hearts from inward focus to outward focus at ever turn.
The commentary was exactly right in its belief that numbers have meaning, but seemed unaware of the fact that the chapters and verses of scripture where a far later addition than the written scripture and are not divinely inspired dividing points.
You cannot thus include the perceived contents of the "eleventh" chapter of many books in scripture into the biblical meaning of eleven. Certainly scripture repeatedly plays on numbers and repeats numbers which are significant for effect so that the significance will be noticed.
But we should always allow scripture to point out significance rather than forcing arbitrary significance where significance is not present. The dividing of chapters and verses in scripture is a blessed convenience to enable the better study of scripture, but not a divine inspiration of God.
Often I find the study of Names in scripture to be of more interest. The Name of a person is supposed to convey identity. The giving of a name is thus the giving of a blessing or curse.
Thus Joseph is a natural name for a blessing, "May Jehovah add/give increase," as well as Daniel, "God is my judge."
It is interesting the naming of names of children who are "sons of sorrow" or other names which reflect the feeling of the parent, but seem not to exist as a blessing. It is easy to read to much in to the giving of names and what was thought or not though.
The point is that the giving of the name is the giving of a blessing. The direction is that it is not about us, but the other. That is the drift of scripture to turn our hearts from inward focus to outward focus at ever turn.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Balanced Diet of Scripture
Scripture has a great balance of topics. All scripture is life breathed and useful for teaching and instruction.
It is easy to enjoy focusing on only a few parts of scripture. All themes in scripture are important.
We may not always see the importance in the themes, but it is an act of faith to the God at his word that all scripture is important.
If we only sample or read favorite parts of scripture we risk vulnerability to imbalance. The bible is a whole work. It is segmented in many parts, but it is too easy to wrongly prioritize parts over others.
It is not to our benefit to strongly prioritize parts of scripture over others. It is easy to look too closely at teaching of a few texts and fail to understand the large scale movements of scripture.
At times it seems to be a point of pride for preachers on how much they can extract from a single verse. What is important is how much God is glorified rather than how impressive an exposition seems.
The glory of God is the final word on the success or failure of any expression of scripture.
It is easy to enjoy focusing on only a few parts of scripture. All themes in scripture are important.
We may not always see the importance in the themes, but it is an act of faith to the God at his word that all scripture is important.
If we only sample or read favorite parts of scripture we risk vulnerability to imbalance. The bible is a whole work. It is segmented in many parts, but it is too easy to wrongly prioritize parts over others.
It is not to our benefit to strongly prioritize parts of scripture over others. It is easy to look too closely at teaching of a few texts and fail to understand the large scale movements of scripture.
At times it seems to be a point of pride for preachers on how much they can extract from a single verse. What is important is how much God is glorified rather than how impressive an exposition seems.
The glory of God is the final word on the success or failure of any expression of scripture.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Expectations
One of the greatest discouragements in living out our faith can be unrealistic expectations. Unrealistic expectations about how Christianity will radically change our lives and how far we will get in sanctification.
Often the reality is that spiritually new Christians quickly find just how bad their life is. It is easy to judge our living as good or okay when we compare ourselves to the world.
Once we see the reality of the world as God sees it life is radically different. I often find Christians who seem to have no sense of sin troubling.
They may be truly sincere believers who fail to understand scripture. But without a sense of personal sin they truly lack a grasp of scripture.
It can be a failure of many churches to push those who seem spiritually "perfect" into leadership. Of course those people only seem perfect because when you speak with them they are oblivious to all the areas in which they sin and need to grow.
We all fail and all are in need of grace and growth. The awareness of sin and desire to improve is a gift from God. We cannot grow if we do not accept that we are in need of grace and that we have much need of growth.
God asks more of us than we can ever do. But he provides salvation not based on our limited efforts but freely based on the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to all who believe.
Often the reality is that spiritually new Christians quickly find just how bad their life is. It is easy to judge our living as good or okay when we compare ourselves to the world.
Once we see the reality of the world as God sees it life is radically different. I often find Christians who seem to have no sense of sin troubling.
They may be truly sincere believers who fail to understand scripture. But without a sense of personal sin they truly lack a grasp of scripture.
It can be a failure of many churches to push those who seem spiritually "perfect" into leadership. Of course those people only seem perfect because when you speak with them they are oblivious to all the areas in which they sin and need to grow.
We all fail and all are in need of grace and growth. The awareness of sin and desire to improve is a gift from God. We cannot grow if we do not accept that we are in need of grace and that we have much need of growth.
God asks more of us than we can ever do. But he provides salvation not based on our limited efforts but freely based on the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to all who believe.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Protestantism Against the Spirit of Protestantism
The spirit of Protestantism is to always go back to scripture. It is not a call to think outside the context of the church, but to always test what the church says against scripture.
Unfortunately today we find many protestant churches who are developing extensive written and verbal tradition which they hold to be unquestionable. It is not that people should immediately doubt written or verbal tradition, but all tradition is subservient to the word of God.
No tradition can be unquestionable in itself. It only stands or falls in its relation to the revelation of God.
I personally feel that traditions in churches are not a detriment and are often a help to the church as long as the church realizes the traditions cannot be held in any absolute way. The issue is that often the traditions of the church begin to become indistinguishable from the teaching of God to the leaders of churches.
I have been in a number of churches where the eldership seems to believe certain pieces of generally good advice are commandments in scripture. I often search for the biblical basis of this good advice and cannot find any absolute grounding in scripture.
We should always distinguish between what is generally good advice and what is scripture. And what is tradition that our church appreciates and tradition which is mandated by scripture (i.e. baptism and the Lord's supper).
I believe non-biblically mandated traditions and general wisdom have a place in churches, but they can never be viewed absolutely or espoused as if they are scripture. We must always distinguish between the clear teaching of scripture and our culturally conditioned applications of wisdom and worship.
Unfortunately today we find many protestant churches who are developing extensive written and verbal tradition which they hold to be unquestionable. It is not that people should immediately doubt written or verbal tradition, but all tradition is subservient to the word of God.
No tradition can be unquestionable in itself. It only stands or falls in its relation to the revelation of God.
I personally feel that traditions in churches are not a detriment and are often a help to the church as long as the church realizes the traditions cannot be held in any absolute way. The issue is that often the traditions of the church begin to become indistinguishable from the teaching of God to the leaders of churches.
I have been in a number of churches where the eldership seems to believe certain pieces of generally good advice are commandments in scripture. I often search for the biblical basis of this good advice and cannot find any absolute grounding in scripture.
We should always distinguish between what is generally good advice and what is scripture. And what is tradition that our church appreciates and tradition which is mandated by scripture (i.e. baptism and the Lord's supper).
I believe non-biblically mandated traditions and general wisdom have a place in churches, but they can never be viewed absolutely or espoused as if they are scripture. We must always distinguish between the clear teaching of scripture and our culturally conditioned applications of wisdom and worship.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Nothing New Under the Sun
Our culture today realizes that each age brings its own set of presuppositions and has its own errors. One irony of our age of course is how we see ourselves as so uniquely different from other times.
The reality is there is nothing new under the sun as scripture teaches. Relativism is not new and contextual thinking is not new. We are only different from other ages by our degree of struggle with certain issues.
We are worse on some issues than other ages and better on others. The human condition is constant. All men are born in sin and born into cultures which promote errors.
Ultimately history repeats itself because the most essential element of man. His fallen nature and estrangement and enmity with God is always unchanged.
The expression of depravity in each age shifts a bit this way or that but it is always the same. The age we are in today is never as unique as we think.
Technology and many societal structures have changed, but each man is born with the same dark heart. The central question that each man should desire to answer in each age is how to solve his enmity to God.
The answer in every age is faith in Jesus. Before Jesus' incarnation on earth it was a looking forward and trusting in the promises of God in the future. The trust was in the promise of God that he would send a Messiah. Now we look back to the Messiah.
Many people scoff that the faith is the same. The expected Messiah and the Messiah who came seem somewhat different from what much of Israel was expecting. Of course the reality is that it is the faith which is credited as righteousness.
We always see through a glass dimly. Scripture states this plainly and the fogginess with which those of faith at times see is no argument against the nature of faith.
The reality is there is nothing new under the sun as scripture teaches. Relativism is not new and contextual thinking is not new. We are only different from other ages by our degree of struggle with certain issues.
We are worse on some issues than other ages and better on others. The human condition is constant. All men are born in sin and born into cultures which promote errors.
Ultimately history repeats itself because the most essential element of man. His fallen nature and estrangement and enmity with God is always unchanged.
The expression of depravity in each age shifts a bit this way or that but it is always the same. The age we are in today is never as unique as we think.
Technology and many societal structures have changed, but each man is born with the same dark heart. The central question that each man should desire to answer in each age is how to solve his enmity to God.
The answer in every age is faith in Jesus. Before Jesus' incarnation on earth it was a looking forward and trusting in the promises of God in the future. The trust was in the promise of God that he would send a Messiah. Now we look back to the Messiah.
Many people scoff that the faith is the same. The expected Messiah and the Messiah who came seem somewhat different from what much of Israel was expecting. Of course the reality is that it is the faith which is credited as righteousness.
We always see through a glass dimly. Scripture states this plainly and the fogginess with which those of faith at times see is no argument against the nature of faith.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Theology as a Meta-Discipline
Theology speaks to all areas of life. God has spoken to man and his word has implications of all areas of life. Often we need humility to realize that we may not see the implications.
It is not always easy to see how the bible can inform our thinking in many areas. But the reality is that if we are open to the idea that the bible does have implications to all sorts of things in life we will often begin to see how the bible applies to this or that area of life.
We often push the bible too far back. Maybe we read it regularly but we do not see how it applies to hardly any area. Maybe it applies to family, friendships, and church, but nothing else. Of course we are never that crass in speech but often it is the way we live.
The reality is we often close ourselves off to the implications of the bible in all sorts of ways. By opening ourselves to the possibility that scripture informs everything we often begin to understand many things we would not understand otherwise.
It is not always easy to see how the bible can inform our thinking in many areas. But the reality is that if we are open to the idea that the bible does have implications to all sorts of things in life we will often begin to see how the bible applies to this or that area of life.
We often push the bible too far back. Maybe we read it regularly but we do not see how it applies to hardly any area. Maybe it applies to family, friendships, and church, but nothing else. Of course we are never that crass in speech but often it is the way we live.
The reality is we often close ourselves off to the implications of the bible in all sorts of ways. By opening ourselves to the possibility that scripture informs everything we often begin to understand many things we would not understand otherwise.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Guess and Check in Theology
In elementary math when solving for a variable, if a student is supposed to solve for a variable and is stumped, they can often find the answer simply by guessing numbers until one solves the equation. Even if they cannot figure out the problem simply by trail and error, the solution may be found.
Surprisingly a similar approach is helpful in scriptural interpretation. If we hear an interpretation of scripture with strong claims of a certain absolute type all we need to see if the claims are true or not true is to see if scripture supports or denies the claims. Narrative is extremely helpful in this case, especially narrative which is commented upon by God or the biblical writer as inspired by the Spirit of God.
You see many positions which are easily shown to be erroneous by simply comparing them to the very plain commentary on narrative in scripture. The story of Job shows any strong form of health and wealth gospel to be in error.
The success and failure of many of the prophets shows that it is God who brings success and not man. Jonah was not the faithful prophet/voice of God that many other figures were and yet he had more success, because ultimately God brings victory and not men.
The Old Testament frequently teaches that God is with us even when we feel he is not. It shows us that often we object to our ability to do a task. In a sense we may be right. We may not be an eloquent speaker but God may call us to speak. You see we often misunderstand the true qualifications for tasks.
Always in theology comparing theology to scripture and matching the claims of theology to the claims of scripture is of great importance.
Equally important is looking for what is missing in our theology. If our theology does not cover what scripture covers then we have a hole in our theology. If we wish to be faithful to God, omissions in theology are equally as serious at times as outright errors.
Surprisingly a similar approach is helpful in scriptural interpretation. If we hear an interpretation of scripture with strong claims of a certain absolute type all we need to see if the claims are true or not true is to see if scripture supports or denies the claims. Narrative is extremely helpful in this case, especially narrative which is commented upon by God or the biblical writer as inspired by the Spirit of God.
You see many positions which are easily shown to be erroneous by simply comparing them to the very plain commentary on narrative in scripture. The story of Job shows any strong form of health and wealth gospel to be in error.
The success and failure of many of the prophets shows that it is God who brings success and not man. Jonah was not the faithful prophet/voice of God that many other figures were and yet he had more success, because ultimately God brings victory and not men.
The Old Testament frequently teaches that God is with us even when we feel he is not. It shows us that often we object to our ability to do a task. In a sense we may be right. We may not be an eloquent speaker but God may call us to speak. You see we often misunderstand the true qualifications for tasks.
Always in theology comparing theology to scripture and matching the claims of theology to the claims of scripture is of great importance.
Equally important is looking for what is missing in our theology. If our theology does not cover what scripture covers then we have a hole in our theology. If we wish to be faithful to God, omissions in theology are equally as serious at times as outright errors.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Wisdom with Errors
It takes wisdom to deal with errors or to know how to respond or not respond to errors in the church. Always in scripture there are two principles: unity and truth.
One proverb tells us to "answer a fool according to his error or he will be wise in his own eyes" another tells us to "not answer a fool according to his folly or he will be wise in his own eyes." Which is it? Of course it is a call to wisdom.
All errors are not the same. Some errors are very dangerous and some errors are of almost no importance at all.
We need wisdom when we see errors and issues in life. Certain interpretations of passages of scripture while wrong may be of little interest in arguing over.
Often you will find a person read into a piece of scripture a point which is not in the scripture text, but found throughout scripture itself. It would be a great folly to have a large disagreement over something which is a misinterpretation of a scriptural text, but in line with the whole teaching of scripture.
Even some errors spoken which are out of accord with scripture are of little interest. Not everything is equally important.
But some errors are of great importance. Issues around the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, the trinity, grace, and gospel are very central. Everything in the bible is of importance, but not everything of importance is equally important.
One proverb tells us to "answer a fool according to his error or he will be wise in his own eyes" another tells us to "not answer a fool according to his folly or he will be wise in his own eyes." Which is it? Of course it is a call to wisdom.
All errors are not the same. Some errors are very dangerous and some errors are of almost no importance at all.
We need wisdom when we see errors and issues in life. Certain interpretations of passages of scripture while wrong may be of little interest in arguing over.
Often you will find a person read into a piece of scripture a point which is not in the scripture text, but found throughout scripture itself. It would be a great folly to have a large disagreement over something which is a misinterpretation of a scriptural text, but in line with the whole teaching of scripture.
Even some errors spoken which are out of accord with scripture are of little interest. Not everything is equally important.
But some errors are of great importance. Issues around the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, the trinity, grace, and gospel are very central. Everything in the bible is of importance, but not everything of importance is equally important.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Jewish Cannon
My most memorable old paper. It was memorable mailing for receiving over two pages of angry handwritten criticisms when I received the draft back.
In recent scholarship there has been a hot debate over dating the completion of the Jewish canon. Scholars have dated the Jewish canon’s completion anywhere in the range from of second century B.C., at the earliest, to the third century A.D, at the latest. This paper will argue for a completion date of the canon by the end of the first century B.C. This paper will limit itself to looking at several of the key arguments in support of this conclusion. The paper wishes to outline the basic reasonableness of holding to a pre-A.D. canon.
Due to the massive scope of the argument this paper will limit itself to four key arguments in favor of a pre-A.D. completion of the canon. The paper will consist of two main sections. The first section will give arguments for why the books now understood to be part of the Hebrew canon were understood to be part of the Hebrew canon by the end of the first century B.C. This section will use two main arguments. The first argument is based on Meredith Kline’s understanding of scripture as covenant. The second argument will be based on the Jewish concept that scriptural books make the hands impure. This section will not address that thesis’s assumption that apocryphal books were excluded from the canon by the end of the first century B.C.
The second section will continue the argument started in the first section and it will add evidence pointing toward the thesis that other books, such as the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, were no seriously being considered for entrance into the canon at the time period in question. This section will rely on the testimony of Josephus and also upon the evidence based upon the New Testament. Before this paper addresses these arguments it will begin with a short introduction to define what a canon is and what the three categories of Hebrew scripture are before moving on to the its arguments.
The word canon literal means “straight rod” or “bar.” The concept of canon implies a group of books that are a standard for worship. As Harris notes the Catholic and Protestant churches have always believed that the bible’s authority comes from its inspiration. (80) This view of inspiration causing scriptures recognition into the canon was also held by the Jews. The Jews frequently used the introductory words, “as it was written” to introduce the scriptures. These words denoted that the scriptures held decisive authority in the subjects they referred to. (Beckwith 70) It is important to distinguish that books became part of the canon because they were believed to be inspired. It appears many scholars assume that the Jews began to believe their scripture was inspired because their scripture become part of the canon. This is obviously not the thought pattern of the Jews at the time. Obviously they would have believed their scripture to inspired and then made it part of their canon.
The Jews considered their scriptures to fall into there categories. These categories were the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law consisted of the five books of the Pentateuch. What fell into the Prophets and Writings is far less clear. This distinction is still useful because the ancient Jews often referred to these three sets of books. What exactly fell into these three sections is beyond the scope of this paper and will not be crucial to its arguments. This three part distinction is useful because the Law, the Prophets and the Writings encompass all of the scriptures and covering Jewish statements about each set individually means covering statements about the integrity of the Jewish scriptures.
The Hebrew division of the bible into the Law, the prophets, and the writings in and of itself almost denotes the concept the idea that they are part of the canon. The Law was God’s word to Moses and the Prophets were God’s messengers to his people. The names law and prophets in of themselves nearly denote their place in the canon. One of the names for the writings in Hebrew is hagiographa which means sacred writings. That the three categories names nearly imply that their contents are part of the canon. These names for canon are far more ancient than the dates when scholars claim the canon came to exist in.
Meredith Kline argues for the thesis that all of the Hebrew Scriptures come in the form of a covenant between God and Israel. (35) The Pentateuch undisputedly is written in the form of a covenant in which God as sovereign makes know his will to Israel. Curses are found though ancient covenants and make them binding documents. Kline notes that these very curses are found all thought the Pentateuch and all the way thought the book of Revelation. Curses are what made ancient world covenants binding. Thus from the moment the Pentateuch was given it must have been viewed as part of the canon. (36)
Kline’s claim seems radical, but there is good evidence to support it. In the Pentateuch and rest of the Hebrew Scriptures we see Israelites cultic traditions absorbed many of the responsibilities typically assigned to the government. Typically secular institutions such as governance, legal disputes, and military were swallowed up into the cultic sphere. (49) This points toward a serious belief of the ancient Hebrews that the Pentateuch was a covenant and that their suzerain was God. Thought the bible failure to follow Pentateuch and Prophetic books failure to follow the law was an offence primarily against Yahweh. This points the Hebrew belief that the law was a covenant with Yahweh and as a covenant that it was authoritative from the moment it was given. Later in the paper I will show Josephus and the New Testament witnesses will paint a similar picture of scriptures authority from its creation.
Kline notes that the prophets, writings, and psalms all fit under this covenant scheme and thus they all are authoritative from their moment of creation. The office of prophet was a ordained position by the Pentateuch. (59) Thus the prophetic writings are an extension of the Mosaic covenant and must have entered the canon shortly after completion. The writings were interspersed with the law showing that they to were part of the covenant. (Kline 49) Kline notes that, “The central thesis of the wisdom books is that wisdom begins with the fear of the Lord, which is to say that the way of wisdom is the way of the covenant.” (63) Kline notes that psalms were like the Amen of the covenant in that they were sung in the temple which was the sphere of the covenant. (63)
As covenant all the writings have their origin in God. In covenants the suzerain draws the terms. Leiman notes that the Rabbis considered all inspired literature to be part of the canon. (111) It is well documented that the books of the Law, the prophets, and the writings all defile the hands. Leiman notes that this is due to their inspiration from God. And that they are part of the canon because of that inspiration. (114). According to Cohen the Jewish idea of a book that renders the hands impure is the same as the later Greek notion of a book that is part of the canon. (175) The rabbis, however, appear not to consider Ecclesiastes to have defiled the hands, however, they did consider it part of the canon. The book of Ester seems to have been in a similar category. (Leiman 112) There appears to be no scholarly consensus on when all the books that defile or do not defile the hands came into place, but Leiman notes that the Rabbi’s never question that sacred books defile the hands. (118) This indicates that the decree that sacred books defile the hands must therefore have been far more ancient than the earliest Talmudic discussion that happened in first half of the first century of the AD. This means the discussion and conclusions of the sacredness of the ancient books was quite and old one. Leiman notes that there is no evidence in the Talmudic literature that the Rabbi’s attempted to add a book to the biblical canon. (120) This points toward a very ancient canon.
Josephus wrote that the Israelites had only twenty-two sacred books. Scholars note that the number twenty-two probably comes from the fact that Josephus combined several of the books and this explains why he cites only twenty-two books instead of the Hebrew Scriptures twenty-four. Josephus claims that these books were considered part of the canon from the time of their birth. Note that this is exactly the same thesis Kline was arguing for with his arguments based on covenant. Josephus goes on to say that there was no addition to the canon in recent time periods.
Josephus opinion is weight, in that, as Ryle notes, “We must remember that Josephus writes as the spokesman of his people…. He does not merely express a personal opinion; he claims to represent his countryman.” (Green 39) Josephus was not only writing as a representative of his people he was also writing to a well informed and hostile historian. These facts make Josephus writing significantly more plausible because it would have been not hard to disprove Josephus if he had not been writing the common view of his people at the time. Josephus points in his writings toward a three part division in scriptures. This indicates that the three parts we have been discussing as sacred are the three parts Josephus calls canon.
A common objection to this is that Josephus sees prophetic power in John Hyrcanus who was high priest in B.C. 135. Green’s reply to this objection is that Josephus clearly view John Hyrcanus as not being equal to scripture and that he views Hyrcanus on a much lower plane of authority than scripture. (40) Green notes Welte who claims, “that raising opinion in the time was that with Malachi the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.” This departing was a departing in which the Holy Spirit closed the revelation of the canon explaining its closure in the time of Malachi. (Green 40) The point of this is that the Jews of the time did not expect new revelation that was on par with the old revelation they had been given.
Moses Stuart points out that there was significant rivalry between the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essences and that these three groups disagreed on practically every issue. (Beckwith 86) Beckwith points out that since there is no record of disagreement between these three groups on the contents of the canon we can assume that the canon was well established before the first century A.D. (Beckwith 86) Further evidence of a unified canon is that the Essences made no protest when the Pharisees condemned of the Essences beloved Apocalypses as being non-scriptural. (Beckwith 86) If there was on going debate over the canon one would expect a record of it especially on an issue like this. There is, however, to be no record of intense debate on the issue of scripture between these groups, who could agree on so little.
A common objection to Beckwith is that the Sadducees rejected all law accept the Pentateuch. However, scholars commonly note that the Sadducees also rejected angles which are quite common in the Pentateuch. The Sadducees rejection of the angles is probably a rejection of the new wave of angles of the time. If the Sadducees had truly rejected angles they would also have had to reject the Pentateuch. Similarly, the Sadducees rejection of law other than the law of Moses probably refers to their rejection of the widely increasing oral traditions of the Pharisees, rather than their rejection of the prophets and writings. In fact the Sadducees must have accepted books other than the Pentateuch as part of the canon. The majority of the priests after John Hyrcanus were Sadducees. The temple during the period was under their control and clearly had scriptures other than the Pentateuch that were being used in worship. It seems difficult to rectify the Sadducees control of the temple and books not part of the canon being used in worship there. (Beckwith 90) The Sadducees are also recorded in the New Testament as resenting Jesus calling himself the son of David. It seems difficult to find a good explanation for this resentment if the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch. (Beckwith 89)
The New Testament also offers much testimony pointing toward a completed canon. The New Testament is a valid representative of what the Hebrew Scriptures consisted of before the first century A.D. because Christianity arises out of the Jewish worldview and adopted on the Jewish scriptures. The New Testament also records the debates between the early Christians and the Jews. A striking feature of this heated debate is that there is no mention of resentment of each group for the books it considers authoritative. This points toward a canon that was widely know and attested to at the time. An objection to the New Testament witness is that the early Church adopted the Apocrypha and that the closure of the Jewish canon was a reaction to this. However, Green notes that the New Testament writers quote freely from the Old Testament, but never quote from the Apocrypha. He notes that all the New Testament similarities with the Apocrypha are either very vague and nothing like citations or they are also held in common with the Old Testament. (145) The Apocrypha, also, clearly does not have the status of the other books in the early church’s canon. There are numerous disputes in the early church over the books of the Apocrypha. The protestant rejection of the Apocrypha follows in the line of Jerome and his followers on the issue. Because Christianity arose out of Judaism the Apostles would be assumed to be accepting the Jewish scriptures unless they made comments to the contrary. (Green 145) In fact Christ and the apostles never make any claim that charges the Jews with corrupting the scriptures or of excluding any of the scriptures. (Green 141) The Christ and the apostles do not hint that the Jewish choice of scriptures was lacking in any way. (Beckwith 91-92)
Christ and the Apostles used the scriptures to debate with the Jews on points of contention. The gospel of Acts points to many debates between Christians and Jews where both sides shared and used the same scriptural texts to support their positions. (Beckwith 92) The apostles in fact accused the Pharisees of making void the word of God with their traditions. The position of Christ and the Apostles was, thus, one that affirmed the scriptures as being the final authority in all debates. This dialogue between the early church and the Jewish leaders should point toward a largely unified picture of the canon. One would expect there to be much record of dispute if Christ and the Apostles affirmed a different canon than the Jews.
The New Testament directly quotes from all the Old Testament books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. The lack of quoting from these books is probably due to the fact they were not needed to prove the New Testament’s points rather than a disagreement in the canon. (Green 143) Leiman notes that the New Testament frequently bears witness to the Torah and Prophets as separate units in the canon. Leiman notes that the canonicity of the writings is assumed by the New Testament. (40)
Scholars frequently sight Jesus’ words in Luke 24:44, “everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” as pointing to the complete collection of Jewish scriptures. They point toward the psalms as the completion of the Jewish scriptures and thus by the psalms Jesus is referring to the totality of the Jewish canon. Psalms is also the most quoted book of the New Testament so it seems likely that the writings were held as part of the canon by the Apostles.
The evidence presented here is a brief argument for the case for a canon set before the first century A.D. Other evidence such as the Apocryphal books could also be brought into the argument. This paper has avoided a discussion on the dating of the writing of the Jewish scriptures. Recent scholarship has tended to push the dates of authorship very close to the first century A.D. There are reasons in support of this, but this is not necessarily a correct. Until the enlightenment the date of the books authorship was considered far more ancient. This paper assumes that the canon is, likely like the church had a consensus on until the enlightenment, a more ancient canon. That discussion of course is far beyond the scope of this paper. In conclusion if one assumes that the writings of the books are more ancient than recent scholarship argues than there are many good reasons to affirm a set pre-A.D. canon. This paper has outlined four main arguments for this thesis. There is also ample evidence from the Apocrypha on the issue. This paper avoids that evidence because scholars have had much more widely ranging debates and more disunity on that subject than other issues. In summery this paper assumes that the canons completion sometime before the first century A.D. is a reasonable stance and falls better in line with the New Testament and Jewish testimony.
In recent scholarship there has been a hot debate over dating the completion of the Jewish canon. Scholars have dated the Jewish canon’s completion anywhere in the range from of second century B.C., at the earliest, to the third century A.D, at the latest. This paper will argue for a completion date of the canon by the end of the first century B.C. This paper will limit itself to looking at several of the key arguments in support of this conclusion. The paper wishes to outline the basic reasonableness of holding to a pre-A.D. canon.
Due to the massive scope of the argument this paper will limit itself to four key arguments in favor of a pre-A.D. completion of the canon. The paper will consist of two main sections. The first section will give arguments for why the books now understood to be part of the Hebrew canon were understood to be part of the Hebrew canon by the end of the first century B.C. This section will use two main arguments. The first argument is based on Meredith Kline’s understanding of scripture as covenant. The second argument will be based on the Jewish concept that scriptural books make the hands impure. This section will not address that thesis’s assumption that apocryphal books were excluded from the canon by the end of the first century B.C.
The second section will continue the argument started in the first section and it will add evidence pointing toward the thesis that other books, such as the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, were no seriously being considered for entrance into the canon at the time period in question. This section will rely on the testimony of Josephus and also upon the evidence based upon the New Testament. Before this paper addresses these arguments it will begin with a short introduction to define what a canon is and what the three categories of Hebrew scripture are before moving on to the its arguments.
The word canon literal means “straight rod” or “bar.” The concept of canon implies a group of books that are a standard for worship. As Harris notes the Catholic and Protestant churches have always believed that the bible’s authority comes from its inspiration. (80) This view of inspiration causing scriptures recognition into the canon was also held by the Jews. The Jews frequently used the introductory words, “as it was written” to introduce the scriptures. These words denoted that the scriptures held decisive authority in the subjects they referred to. (Beckwith 70) It is important to distinguish that books became part of the canon because they were believed to be inspired. It appears many scholars assume that the Jews began to believe their scripture was inspired because their scripture become part of the canon. This is obviously not the thought pattern of the Jews at the time. Obviously they would have believed their scripture to inspired and then made it part of their canon.
The Jews considered their scriptures to fall into there categories. These categories were the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law consisted of the five books of the Pentateuch. What fell into the Prophets and Writings is far less clear. This distinction is still useful because the ancient Jews often referred to these three sets of books. What exactly fell into these three sections is beyond the scope of this paper and will not be crucial to its arguments. This three part distinction is useful because the Law, the Prophets and the Writings encompass all of the scriptures and covering Jewish statements about each set individually means covering statements about the integrity of the Jewish scriptures.
The Hebrew division of the bible into the Law, the prophets, and the writings in and of itself almost denotes the concept the idea that they are part of the canon. The Law was God’s word to Moses and the Prophets were God’s messengers to his people. The names law and prophets in of themselves nearly denote their place in the canon. One of the names for the writings in Hebrew is hagiographa which means sacred writings. That the three categories names nearly imply that their contents are part of the canon. These names for canon are far more ancient than the dates when scholars claim the canon came to exist in.
Meredith Kline argues for the thesis that all of the Hebrew Scriptures come in the form of a covenant between God and Israel. (35) The Pentateuch undisputedly is written in the form of a covenant in which God as sovereign makes know his will to Israel. Curses are found though ancient covenants and make them binding documents. Kline notes that these very curses are found all thought the Pentateuch and all the way thought the book of Revelation. Curses are what made ancient world covenants binding. Thus from the moment the Pentateuch was given it must have been viewed as part of the canon. (36)
Kline’s claim seems radical, but there is good evidence to support it. In the Pentateuch and rest of the Hebrew Scriptures we see Israelites cultic traditions absorbed many of the responsibilities typically assigned to the government. Typically secular institutions such as governance, legal disputes, and military were swallowed up into the cultic sphere. (49) This points toward a serious belief of the ancient Hebrews that the Pentateuch was a covenant and that their suzerain was God. Thought the bible failure to follow Pentateuch and Prophetic books failure to follow the law was an offence primarily against Yahweh. This points the Hebrew belief that the law was a covenant with Yahweh and as a covenant that it was authoritative from the moment it was given. Later in the paper I will show Josephus and the New Testament witnesses will paint a similar picture of scriptures authority from its creation.
Kline notes that the prophets, writings, and psalms all fit under this covenant scheme and thus they all are authoritative from their moment of creation. The office of prophet was a ordained position by the Pentateuch. (59) Thus the prophetic writings are an extension of the Mosaic covenant and must have entered the canon shortly after completion. The writings were interspersed with the law showing that they to were part of the covenant. (Kline 49) Kline notes that, “The central thesis of the wisdom books is that wisdom begins with the fear of the Lord, which is to say that the way of wisdom is the way of the covenant.” (63) Kline notes that psalms were like the Amen of the covenant in that they were sung in the temple which was the sphere of the covenant. (63)
As covenant all the writings have their origin in God. In covenants the suzerain draws the terms. Leiman notes that the Rabbis considered all inspired literature to be part of the canon. (111) It is well documented that the books of the Law, the prophets, and the writings all defile the hands. Leiman notes that this is due to their inspiration from God. And that they are part of the canon because of that inspiration. (114). According to Cohen the Jewish idea of a book that renders the hands impure is the same as the later Greek notion of a book that is part of the canon. (175) The rabbis, however, appear not to consider Ecclesiastes to have defiled the hands, however, they did consider it part of the canon. The book of Ester seems to have been in a similar category. (Leiman 112) There appears to be no scholarly consensus on when all the books that defile or do not defile the hands came into place, but Leiman notes that the Rabbi’s never question that sacred books defile the hands. (118) This indicates that the decree that sacred books defile the hands must therefore have been far more ancient than the earliest Talmudic discussion that happened in first half of the first century of the AD. This means the discussion and conclusions of the sacredness of the ancient books was quite and old one. Leiman notes that there is no evidence in the Talmudic literature that the Rabbi’s attempted to add a book to the biblical canon. (120) This points toward a very ancient canon.
Josephus wrote that the Israelites had only twenty-two sacred books. Scholars note that the number twenty-two probably comes from the fact that Josephus combined several of the books and this explains why he cites only twenty-two books instead of the Hebrew Scriptures twenty-four. Josephus claims that these books were considered part of the canon from the time of their birth. Note that this is exactly the same thesis Kline was arguing for with his arguments based on covenant. Josephus goes on to say that there was no addition to the canon in recent time periods.
Josephus opinion is weight, in that, as Ryle notes, “We must remember that Josephus writes as the spokesman of his people…. He does not merely express a personal opinion; he claims to represent his countryman.” (Green 39) Josephus was not only writing as a representative of his people he was also writing to a well informed and hostile historian. These facts make Josephus writing significantly more plausible because it would have been not hard to disprove Josephus if he had not been writing the common view of his people at the time. Josephus points in his writings toward a three part division in scriptures. This indicates that the three parts we have been discussing as sacred are the three parts Josephus calls canon.
A common objection to this is that Josephus sees prophetic power in John Hyrcanus who was high priest in B.C. 135. Green’s reply to this objection is that Josephus clearly view John Hyrcanus as not being equal to scripture and that he views Hyrcanus on a much lower plane of authority than scripture. (40) Green notes Welte who claims, “that raising opinion in the time was that with Malachi the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.” This departing was a departing in which the Holy Spirit closed the revelation of the canon explaining its closure in the time of Malachi. (Green 40) The point of this is that the Jews of the time did not expect new revelation that was on par with the old revelation they had been given.
Moses Stuart points out that there was significant rivalry between the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essences and that these three groups disagreed on practically every issue. (Beckwith 86) Beckwith points out that since there is no record of disagreement between these three groups on the contents of the canon we can assume that the canon was well established before the first century A.D. (Beckwith 86) Further evidence of a unified canon is that the Essences made no protest when the Pharisees condemned of the Essences beloved Apocalypses as being non-scriptural. (Beckwith 86) If there was on going debate over the canon one would expect a record of it especially on an issue like this. There is, however, to be no record of intense debate on the issue of scripture between these groups, who could agree on so little.
A common objection to Beckwith is that the Sadducees rejected all law accept the Pentateuch. However, scholars commonly note that the Sadducees also rejected angles which are quite common in the Pentateuch. The Sadducees rejection of the angles is probably a rejection of the new wave of angles of the time. If the Sadducees had truly rejected angles they would also have had to reject the Pentateuch. Similarly, the Sadducees rejection of law other than the law of Moses probably refers to their rejection of the widely increasing oral traditions of the Pharisees, rather than their rejection of the prophets and writings. In fact the Sadducees must have accepted books other than the Pentateuch as part of the canon. The majority of the priests after John Hyrcanus were Sadducees. The temple during the period was under their control and clearly had scriptures other than the Pentateuch that were being used in worship. It seems difficult to rectify the Sadducees control of the temple and books not part of the canon being used in worship there. (Beckwith 90) The Sadducees are also recorded in the New Testament as resenting Jesus calling himself the son of David. It seems difficult to find a good explanation for this resentment if the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch. (Beckwith 89)
The New Testament also offers much testimony pointing toward a completed canon. The New Testament is a valid representative of what the Hebrew Scriptures consisted of before the first century A.D. because Christianity arises out of the Jewish worldview and adopted on the Jewish scriptures. The New Testament also records the debates between the early Christians and the Jews. A striking feature of this heated debate is that there is no mention of resentment of each group for the books it considers authoritative. This points toward a canon that was widely know and attested to at the time. An objection to the New Testament witness is that the early Church adopted the Apocrypha and that the closure of the Jewish canon was a reaction to this. However, Green notes that the New Testament writers quote freely from the Old Testament, but never quote from the Apocrypha. He notes that all the New Testament similarities with the Apocrypha are either very vague and nothing like citations or they are also held in common with the Old Testament. (145) The Apocrypha, also, clearly does not have the status of the other books in the early church’s canon. There are numerous disputes in the early church over the books of the Apocrypha. The protestant rejection of the Apocrypha follows in the line of Jerome and his followers on the issue. Because Christianity arose out of Judaism the Apostles would be assumed to be accepting the Jewish scriptures unless they made comments to the contrary. (Green 145) In fact Christ and the apostles never make any claim that charges the Jews with corrupting the scriptures or of excluding any of the scriptures. (Green 141) The Christ and the apostles do not hint that the Jewish choice of scriptures was lacking in any way. (Beckwith 91-92)
Christ and the Apostles used the scriptures to debate with the Jews on points of contention. The gospel of Acts points to many debates between Christians and Jews where both sides shared and used the same scriptural texts to support their positions. (Beckwith 92) The apostles in fact accused the Pharisees of making void the word of God with their traditions. The position of Christ and the Apostles was, thus, one that affirmed the scriptures as being the final authority in all debates. This dialogue between the early church and the Jewish leaders should point toward a largely unified picture of the canon. One would expect there to be much record of dispute if Christ and the Apostles affirmed a different canon than the Jews.
The New Testament directly quotes from all the Old Testament books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. The lack of quoting from these books is probably due to the fact they were not needed to prove the New Testament’s points rather than a disagreement in the canon. (Green 143) Leiman notes that the New Testament frequently bears witness to the Torah and Prophets as separate units in the canon. Leiman notes that the canonicity of the writings is assumed by the New Testament. (40)
Scholars frequently sight Jesus’ words in Luke 24:44, “everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” as pointing to the complete collection of Jewish scriptures. They point toward the psalms as the completion of the Jewish scriptures and thus by the psalms Jesus is referring to the totality of the Jewish canon. Psalms is also the most quoted book of the New Testament so it seems likely that the writings were held as part of the canon by the Apostles.
The evidence presented here is a brief argument for the case for a canon set before the first century A.D. Other evidence such as the Apocryphal books could also be brought into the argument. This paper has avoided a discussion on the dating of the writing of the Jewish scriptures. Recent scholarship has tended to push the dates of authorship very close to the first century A.D. There are reasons in support of this, but this is not necessarily a correct. Until the enlightenment the date of the books authorship was considered far more ancient. This paper assumes that the canon is, likely like the church had a consensus on until the enlightenment, a more ancient canon. That discussion of course is far beyond the scope of this paper. In conclusion if one assumes that the writings of the books are more ancient than recent scholarship argues than there are many good reasons to affirm a set pre-A.D. canon. This paper has outlined four main arguments for this thesis. There is also ample evidence from the Apocrypha on the issue. This paper avoids that evidence because scholars have had much more widely ranging debates and more disunity on that subject than other issues. In summery this paper assumes that the canons completion sometime before the first century A.D. is a reasonable stance and falls better in line with the New Testament and Jewish testimony.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Objecting to Scripture
Often we find in the church objections to scripture which in a sense place scripture on hold. Scripture is not wrong, but we cannot figure out how to apply scripture so we will table the thought until tomorrow. Tomorrow we forget the thought and in the end we never act on the words of scripture.
For some churches it is evangelism. They have seen evangelism done wrong and thus table the whole thing and it never happens.
For some churches helping the poor. They have seen instances which went wrong and can't figure out the right path and intend to act when the right path is found, but it never is.
You see we often meet scripture which shows us our priorities in life are off, but we don't know how to fix it. And so we wait and eventually never act.
How can we do better? At times prayer will help. Prayer often illuminates the path. At times it is simply sincerity. If we know there is an issue and truly keep the issue before us with sincerity often the answer will be found.
Often we feel we are sincere when we want to fix an issue but put it off, and often our sincerity is not so great that we ever get around to fixing the issue. It is a matter of the degree of our sincerity at times. We often place important things which are difficult at the back of a great list of projects and the last project on the list will of course never get done.
Often in life we discover our priorities by our actions. We discover we are sincere or insincere by what we actually do. At times this discovery can be disheartening. We are not always as noble as we would wish.
The grace of God is always sufficient and we live moment by moment by grace. But if we really wish to live well when the word of God speaks to us we should listen. And when the word of God convicts us to do better or fix this or that we need to not table the issue indefinitely.
For some churches it is evangelism. They have seen evangelism done wrong and thus table the whole thing and it never happens.
For some churches helping the poor. They have seen instances which went wrong and can't figure out the right path and intend to act when the right path is found, but it never is.
You see we often meet scripture which shows us our priorities in life are off, but we don't know how to fix it. And so we wait and eventually never act.
How can we do better? At times prayer will help. Prayer often illuminates the path. At times it is simply sincerity. If we know there is an issue and truly keep the issue before us with sincerity often the answer will be found.
Often we feel we are sincere when we want to fix an issue but put it off, and often our sincerity is not so great that we ever get around to fixing the issue. It is a matter of the degree of our sincerity at times. We often place important things which are difficult at the back of a great list of projects and the last project on the list will of course never get done.
Often in life we discover our priorities by our actions. We discover we are sincere or insincere by what we actually do. At times this discovery can be disheartening. We are not always as noble as we would wish.
The grace of God is always sufficient and we live moment by moment by grace. But if we really wish to live well when the word of God speaks to us we should listen. And when the word of God convicts us to do better or fix this or that we need to not table the issue indefinitely.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Being Defeated by Error
Often we are defeated by error because we avoid it too greatly. We see an error and over reach and now we are in an unbalanced position because we have moved too far from the error and our now out of balance.
You see this in many churches which perceive an issue in culture, where the church swings in opposition to the culture into a position far stronger than the Bible takes. They of course see themselves as adhering the Bible, but often the movement is too severe.
In many circles there is a mild gnosticism related to many aspects of life which is stronger than the biblical teachings on issues. The concern for being separate from the world can often push the church into a mild legalism which is not affirmed by scripture.
Scripture often offers liberty on many viewpoints which many modern churches do not allow liberty on. Often the liberty infringed upon in these churches is more subtle.
You know what the church thinks of those who would have liberty on the issue. It creates a great awkwardness in the church.
In leadership of the church it often causes many of the more spiritual infants of the church to be pushed into leadership. These Christians lack the spiritual growth to understand what liberty is and thus live in a very simple way which no one can question.
Of course they also often lack an active faith. Often the church values the faith of those who are too afraid of sin to act in the world over those who desire to both act in the world and avoid sin.
You see this in many churches which perceive an issue in culture, where the church swings in opposition to the culture into a position far stronger than the Bible takes. They of course see themselves as adhering the Bible, but often the movement is too severe.
In many circles there is a mild gnosticism related to many aspects of life which is stronger than the biblical teachings on issues. The concern for being separate from the world can often push the church into a mild legalism which is not affirmed by scripture.
Scripture often offers liberty on many viewpoints which many modern churches do not allow liberty on. Often the liberty infringed upon in these churches is more subtle.
You know what the church thinks of those who would have liberty on the issue. It creates a great awkwardness in the church.
In leadership of the church it often causes many of the more spiritual infants of the church to be pushed into leadership. These Christians lack the spiritual growth to understand what liberty is and thus live in a very simple way which no one can question.
Of course they also often lack an active faith. Often the church values the faith of those who are too afraid of sin to act in the world over those who desire to both act in the world and avoid sin.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Emphasis in Theology is Key
Emphasis makes or breaks theology. Most off balance theologies over-emphasises certain truths. Other theologies neglect and ignore or under-emphasise certain truths.
A theology with highly over-emphasised and under-emphasised elements can sometimes be more dangerous than outright theological error.
Christian faith requires balance. This is why scripture calls us to wisdom. Many things are contextual in nature. The context of biblical truth and its application in life need to be contextually appropriate.
There are many theologies built heavily around a few key passages and those passages dominate the theology. The lack of balance is hurtful to the theology.
All truth is good, but many truths have a limited scope of use. This is the great danger with overemphasis.
Truth is called upon to work in areas where it cannot work. It is like choosing to only use a hammer out of a toolkit for every home repair project that comes up.
A theology with highly over-emphasised and under-emphasised elements can sometimes be more dangerous than outright theological error.
Christian faith requires balance. This is why scripture calls us to wisdom. Many things are contextual in nature. The context of biblical truth and its application in life need to be contextually appropriate.
There are many theologies built heavily around a few key passages and those passages dominate the theology. The lack of balance is hurtful to the theology.
All truth is good, but many truths have a limited scope of use. This is the great danger with overemphasis.
Truth is called upon to work in areas where it cannot work. It is like choosing to only use a hammer out of a toolkit for every home repair project that comes up.
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Postmodernity and the Church
Often the concept of wisdom is lost in the current day. Wisdom implies that many situations in life require thought and prayer to understand ethically.
I believe at times the church is afraid to teach the concept of wisdom which pervades scripture because it feels "post modern" and the church wishes to oppose post modernity.
The reality is that wisdom and the idea that there is a great fuzziness in many situations is not post modern at all. It is not a denial of absolute truth but rather an appreciation that as people who live in a fallen world it is often difficult to know what to do.
You see wisdom and the great need to think long and hard about what is right in many situations is not at all a postmodern impulse. Few churches will overtly bash wisdom, but they will bash the idea that there are many situations which are ethically difficult to understand.
They implicitly undermine the concept of wisdom in scripture by suggesting that ethical living is easy. Often we are more prone to theological error in what we omit from our theology and life than in what is in our theology.
What is missing in a theology is often of far greater significance than what is in a theology. You see theology is supposed to be a faithful understanding of the word of God as revealed in the bible. Thus omissions in theology are often of great concern since theology should attempt to be a faithful understanding of all scripture.
I believe at times the church is afraid to teach the concept of wisdom which pervades scripture because it feels "post modern" and the church wishes to oppose post modernity.
The reality is that wisdom and the idea that there is a great fuzziness in many situations is not post modern at all. It is not a denial of absolute truth but rather an appreciation that as people who live in a fallen world it is often difficult to know what to do.
You see wisdom and the great need to think long and hard about what is right in many situations is not at all a postmodern impulse. Few churches will overtly bash wisdom, but they will bash the idea that there are many situations which are ethically difficult to understand.
They implicitly undermine the concept of wisdom in scripture by suggesting that ethical living is easy. Often we are more prone to theological error in what we omit from our theology and life than in what is in our theology.
What is missing in a theology is often of far greater significance than what is in a theology. You see theology is supposed to be a faithful understanding of the word of God as revealed in the bible. Thus omissions in theology are often of great concern since theology should attempt to be a faithful understanding of all scripture.
Friday, July 4, 2014
God Transcendent and God our Father
Scripture has two truths repeated frequently. God is transcendent; he is totally other. He is high and lifted up and he is not like us. His ways are not our ways and there is no one like him.
The other truth is that God is our Father who condescends to us. He is near to us and loves us. He beckons us to draw near without fright.
We must always see these two elements in scripture and accept both. Both are true. You see the fatherhood of God is dependent on our union with Jesus in his death.
If we have not become brother with Jesus through saving faith in Jesus than we are still enemies with God and God beckons us to draw near through Jesus' work of perfect life, substitutionary death and resurrection from the dead.
Knowing the Nature of God
The other truth is that God is our Father who condescends to us. He is near to us and loves us. He beckons us to draw near without fright.
We must always see these two elements in scripture and accept both. Both are true. You see the fatherhood of God is dependent on our union with Jesus in his death.
If we have not become brother with Jesus through saving faith in Jesus than we are still enemies with God and God beckons us to draw near through Jesus' work of perfect life, substitutionary death and resurrection from the dead.
Knowing the Nature of God
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)