John’s writing style is, as we would expect, quite different from that of James and different again from Peter and Paul. Paul had a legal frame of mind and logically constructed his proposals by making a statement, anticipating objections to that statement, and building a logical set of deductions so as to refute objections and work things through to a conclusion. Paul used lots of words like ‘if, ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘then’, ‘therefore’ and ‘because’ to logically lead his readers to certain practical conclusions.
Although John is no less logical than Paul in his reasoning, his writing style is different. John makes a proposal and then explains his reasons for stating it. Then he makes another proposal and explains the reasons for this new proposal. Then he returns to his first proposal and adds the second one to it so as to create a richer, more detailed compound statement. He then explains and fills out the reasons for this new more complex statement. As John continues with this approach the effect is that he seems to keep referring back to and repeating themes that he has already looked at, but he is adding elements all the time to make more complete, richer and fuller doctrinal statements along with their practical implications. Thus it is that John now returns to one of his earlier themes – the Christian’s unique enlightened perception and persuasion that Jesus is the Messiah – as he brings together and adds to it the subsequent themes that he has introduced.
True faith, true entrustment and persuasion with regard to Jesus coming in the likeness of physical flesh as God’s anointed deliverer, leads to action: it leads to a certain kind of speech, and set of attitudes and behaviours. James even goes on to say that faith if does not lead to action then it is dead and lifeless. ‘In the same way that the body is dead apart from the breath, so also persuasion is dead apart from actions’ (James 2 v 26). The relationship between actions – behaviours, attitudes and speech – and faith or persuasion, is this:
Faith is made complete in actions
Faith, persuasion or entrustment in the Messiah is situated within the Christian, within their heart at the foundation of their thoughts, affections and inclinations. Faith is not situated in their mind as an intellectual set of ideas, or as cognitive assent to a precise set of doctrines or a systematic theology. Such enlightened and illuminated knowledge and understanding is very important, indeed, it is essential, but the mind does not constitute the Ground or location of faith. The Ground, the Ultimate foundation of faith, of entrustment and persuasion, is located deeper than the mind – it is located in the Christian’s heart, the point deep inside them at which their thoughts, affections and inclinations arise and coalesce. But initially the Christian’s thoughts, affections and inclinations remain within them and therefore if they remain self-contained in this way then they are somewhat detached and incomplete. Thus Christians are exhorted to carry their entrustment over the threshold, across from within and out into their speech, attitudes and behaviours. It is in this way that their faith is made complete and brought to its end point, fulfilment and culmination. That is the relationship of actions to faith, and without this completion, faith remains not just incomplete – it is in fact dead. The culmination of the primary instruction of Jesus is that Christians show practical, beneficial love to their fellow brothers and sisters who have been brought forth by God. Both God the Father and Jesus are presented as exemplars of this love in the way that those whom God has selected are delivered through the actions of the Messiah.
We have seen that different groups of Christians invest varying degrees of authority in tradition. Traditions form a set of customary behaviours and beliefs and these are sometimes recorded in the Bible as being bad, and at other times as being good. Good traditional customs may serve as a commemoration or reminder of good or bad events, (Judges 11 v 39; Esther 9 v 27). The Apostle Paul passes on the tradition of covering the head, (I Corinthians 11 v 2), and a good tradition is found for example in II Chronicles 35 v 25. Good customs that are recorded in the Bible documents include Jesus teaching crowds who came to him, (Mark 10 v 10), the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, (Mark 14 v 12; Luke 2 v 42), the custom of the Law, (Luke 2 v 27), Synagogue worship, (Luke 4 v 16; Acts 17 v 2), burial customs, (John 19 v 40), the customs of Moses, (Acts 6 v 14; 15 v 1) and the customs of ancestors, (Acts 28 v 17).
By contrast, bad traditions recorded in the Bible documents include those of Ahab, (Micah 6 v 16), customs of religious leaders being put above the word of God, (Matthew 15 v 2 – 6; Mark 7 v 3 – 13), traditions of ancestors that are opposed to the gospel, (Galatians 1 v 14), and traditions taken from human ideas and values, (Colossians 2 v 8). The bad customs of Jews are forbidden, (Leviticus 18 v 30) and Jews were not to follow Gentile customs, (Leviticus 20 v 23; II Kings 17 v 23; Psalm 106 v 35, Isaiah 2 v 6). Neither were Jews to force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs, (Galatians 2 v 14). Thus we see that traditions and customs are placed into a subservient role to the Word of God.
The Self-disclosure of God
The position is this. God, in Essence, is Unknown and Unknowable. But God is also Self-disclosing or Self-revealing. The disclosures or revelations of God correspond, in a delimited way, with His Transcendent True Essence and reflect His relationship to us and to creation. God reveals Himself in an indirect way and to some extent in His material creation and provision. He does this in the same way that an artist reveals himself in his paintings, drawings or sculptures. God also Self-discloses in His Word. Words have definite form and shape, a distinctive sound and meaning. The Word of God is a perfect and complete expression of some aspect of God, such that His Word is synonymous with God Himself. It is by the means of His word that everything has been formed and shaped – nothing has been formed to exist outside of His Word. His Word, once spoken, came to exist outside of, or beside God in the unseen spiritual realm. In due course the Word became flesh in the form of Jesus the Messiah, such that Jesus is the full and complete expression of the will, purpose and values of God in human form. When Jesus taught he did not originate or create his teaching from within himself, but rather he spoke, taught and acted as God instructed him. By way of analogy we can also say that the spoken Word of God is carried or mediated in or by the Breath of God. As Pure Unspoken Breath, the Breath of God constitutes a ‘current’, ‘movement’, ‘energy’ or ‘impetus’ in the direction of complete accordance and conformity to and from God. Both the Word and the Breath proceed from God so as to have independent existence ‘outside’ of or beside God. Thus it is ‘that every written prophecy did not come to exist on the basis of one’s own appropriate and apt unravelling. Because prophecy was absolutely not ever brought forth by an act of man’s desires or wishes, but men uttered words away from God by being carried under the set-apart breath’, (II Peter 1 v 20, 21). This is in stark contrast to those who are false or pseudo-prophets. ‘How long will this exist in the deep inner core of the prophets who prophesy lies and prophets of the deceitfulness of their deep inner core’, (Jeremiah 23 v 26). The Self-revelation of God does not come by means of people engaging in various practices and techniques so as to engage with their deep inner self. Rather this unveiling comes from God by means of moving people by His Breath and/or His Words. The Breath of God constitutes the impetus or ‘current’ that moves or inclines people towards action and/or speech. Thus Jesus ‘came, with the breath working within, into the temple courts’ (Luke 2 v 27); ‘The Breath of the Lord spoke through me; his word was on my tongue’, (II Samuel 23 v 2); ‘the set apart breath spoke long ago through David concerning Judas’, (Acts 1 v 16); ‘they were all filled to capacity with the set apart Breath, speaking the word of God with bold confidence’, (Acts 4 v 31); ‘But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Breath gave him as he spoke’, (Acts 6 v 10); ‘The set apart Breath speaks the truth to your ancestors saying through Isaiah the prophet….’, (Acts 28 v 25); ‘It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the set apart Breath away from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things’, (I Peter 1 v 12).
A cloud of evidential testimonies and witnesses
We see then that Jesus, the Prophets and Apostles testify to what is true to facts regarding God and the unseen spiritual realm, and these disclosures are set down within the documents that were selected to be a suitable authoritative rule of faith and conduct. Jesus the Messiah is presented as the primary authority because he is the Word of God become flesh, (John 1 v 14; 3 v 11 – 21, 31 – 36; Acts 10 v 43). Jesus so completely manifests the will and purpose of the Father that it is said that ‘he who has seen Jesus has seen the Father’. The Prophets and appointed Apostles give further evidential testimony, (Daniel 9 v 2; Romans 1 v 2), and Christians are exhorted to test, weigh and balance what Prophets declare, so as not to be deceived, (I Corinthians 14 v 29; II Peter 1 v 20; Acts 4 v 19; 23 v 3; I Corinthians 6 v 5; 10 v 15). So when it comes to authoritative statements about God and the unseen spiritual realm, the teaching of Jesus, the Covenant Law, Prophets and their revelatory Prophecies and Visions, together with the writings of the Apostles are certainly appealed to and set out within the Bible documents. Thus we find within these documents a call to look to the Law and Testimony, (Isaiah 8 v 16, 20; Romans 3 v 21). The good news of the gospel is described as constituting evidential testimony, (Matthew 24 v 14). The disciples also carry evidential testimony, (Luke 21 v 13; John 3 v 11; John 15 v 27). The same is true of course of Jesus, (John 3 v 32), not only by what he says, but also through his behaviour and actions, (John 5 v 36; 10 v 25). The set-apart sacred writings of the Jews testify about Jesus in turn, (John 5 v 39). With Jesus appointing the disciples as delegated Apostles, they too give evidential testimony about Jesus and the resurrection, (Acts 4 v 33; 10 v 42; 18 v 5; 20 v 24; 22 v 8; I Corinthians 1 v 6; 2 v 1; II Thessalonians 1 v 10; I John 1 v 2; 4 v 14; 5 v 10, 11). The martyrs who were put to death for their persuasion concerning the unseen realm give evidential testimony, (Revelation 6 v 9; 11 v 7; 12 v 11, 17 v 6). Underpinning all of these the Breath of God testifies regarding Jesus, (John 15 v 26). Numerous other witnesses are also mentioned in the Bible, (Joshua 24 v 22; Isaiah 43 v 10, 12; Acts 1 v 8; 2 v 32; 3 v 15; 5 v 32; 10 v 39, 41; 13 v 31; Hebrews 12 v 1; Revelation 11 v 3). Finally, kind Providence and creation present testimony to the existence of God, (Romans 1 v 19, 20; Acts 14 v 17).
Therefore it should be of no surprise to see the phrase ‘it is written’ or some similar phrase in reference to the Law, Prophets and Apostolic writings, (II Kings 23 v 21; Nehemiah 10 v 34; Daniel 9 v 13; Matthew 4 v 4; 21 v 42; 22 v 29; 26 v 24, 31; Mark 1 v 2; 7 v 6; 12 v 10; 14 v 27; Luke 22 v 37; Luke 24 v 27, 32, 45; John 5 v 39; 6 v 45; 7 v 42; 8 v 17, 35; 10 v 35; 12 v 14, 15; 17 v 2, 11; 18 v 24, 28; 20 v 9; Acts 15 v 15; 23 v 5; Romans 1 v 2, 17; 3 v 10; 4 v 3, 17; 9 v 33, 10 v 11; 11 v 2, 8; 12 v 19; 14 v 11; 15 v 4; I Corinthians 1 v 19, 31; 2 v 9; 15 v 3, 4; II Corinthians 4 v 13; Galatians 3 v 8, 10, 22; 4 v 30; II Timothy 3 v 15; I Peter 1 v 16; 2 v 6). The set-apart sacred writings selected by Jewish and Christian delegated authorities certainly form a major authoritative reference point when it comes to knowledge about the unseen spiritual realm. Within the scope of these writings reason and logic is then applied in order to explain and further understand what God has revealed.
‘Theology’ means ‘the word concerning God’. The domain or realm of theologians is to interpret, know, understand and explain the Word of God as revealed by God through Jesus, the Prophets, Apostles and so on. The Word of God is carried by the Breath of God, and manifested by means of Jesus, his Apostles and the Prophets. Jesus officially delegated his disciples as Apostles commissioned to herald and teach the gospel as eyewitnesses giving evidential testimony to the good news of the Kingdom of God, to the teaching, actions and resurrection of Jesus. The Prophets were presented with, received and declared the Self-revelatory word of God, sometimes also receiving visions of the unseen spiritual realm. All of this now constitutes ‘the teaching of the Messiah and Apostolic teaching’, the original Apostolic tradition of God’s Self-revelation that Christians are exhorted to adhere to and maintain.
The Apostles did not dogmatically deny or negate reason, logic and analytical thought, but used these abilities and advocated that Christians use these skills within the light of the Word of God. They used reason, logic and analytical thought in order to explain the gospel and the unseen spiritual realm as revealed by God, and to herald, proclaim and explain the implications of God’s Self-revelation to humanity. They exhorted Christians of subsequent generations to maintain, remain consistent with, and defend these core unveilings of God and the spiritual realm, and to present and explain them using logic, reason and analysis to fellow Christians as authoritative and reliable teaching. This Self-revelation of God forms the foundation of the gospel and in certain senses and aspects it stands outside of and beyond the domains and realms of science, human philosophy and reason. Human reason, logic and analytical ability is not set above the Word of God so as to pick and choose from it according to the boundaries of worldly, natural values and standards. Our ability to reason, analyse and use logic is brought to serve under the plainly declared Word of God. That Word of God is traditionally found to be written and contained in the set-apart documents of the Bible that have been considered by councils of Christian leaders as being suitable for use as an authoritative rule of faith and conduct. The limit of the use of reason to interpret Scripture is that reason and logic are intended to remain consistent with the plain statements of God in Covenant Law and the word of God to the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and Jesus.
Religious pluralism and inclusivism
The gospel message and God’s Self-revelation is particular and distinctive. It does not propose that all of the world’s religions and spiritual philosophies reveal different aspects and insights that serve to lead humanity to the same God or Divine Essence. Rather it says that in this present age, humanity is under the call of the gospel, that there is no other name other than Jesus whereby a person can find deliverance from the penalty that their missing of the mark incurs. Apart from the gospel, ‘outsiders’ go their own way within their darkened understanding, the result being that they either deny the existence of God, or construct their own forms of God, gods and goddesses, such that they often worship the created rather than the Creator. ‘Outsiders’, using worldly values, consider God’s Self-revelation to be unfair and they devise various systems of logic, analysis, spiritual interpretations and constructs to propose that the reality is different. They propose that God, if He exists at all, ‘loves everyone’ and ‘in the end everyone will go to heaven’. They even distort the set-apart writings to present such an interpretation. In this way they can follow their own sensuous desires without a sense of guilt, and even believe that ultimately they may go to a heavenly paradise anyway. Similarly feminists degrade the importance of gender differences by promoting the ‘feminine’ side of God and Jesus, and so it goes on with other groups who place their worldly values and perspectives above that of the Self-disclosure of God.
Not only did the Christian leaders of the first centuries after the Messiah and the Apostles consider that a final collection of set apart writings had to be collected to provide an agreed set of approved writings that were suitable for use as a rule for faith and behaviour. In addition, such approved authoritative writings had to be interpreted and understood correctly. But from the beginning of the ministry of Jesus himself, as well as the Apostles, various interpretations of their teaching were made and came into circulation. At the time of Jesus some thought of him as a Prophet, some as a healer, some as a teacher, and some as the Messiah, whilst others considered him to be a charlatan. Some groups, such as the Christian Gnostics, appropriated the words of Jesus and interpreted his teaching within the already existing Gnostic system of spiritual beliefs. Some Jews regarded Jesus and his followers as forming and belonging to a new Jewish sect, and so they wanted male Gentiles who joined this ‘Jewish sect’ as Christians to be circumcised according to Covenant Law. Thus, from the start, different ideas emerged as to the identity and nature of Jesus, what the resurrection was, and so on. Those who followed the Apostles categorised those who disagreed with the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles as ‘heretics’, and labelled those who abandoned the teaching and practice of Jesus and the Apostles as ‘apostates’.
The Apostles had been appointed and commissioned by Jesus to herald the gospel and so on, and they declared that they were witnesses of the teaching, life, death and resurrection of Jesus and that as such they bore faithful evidential testimony to what they had seen and heard. The exception was Saul/Paul, a Jew and Roman citizen who was called by Jesus to be an Apostle to the Gentiles after Jesus had ascended to the heavenly realm and who thus described himself as ‘one born out of time’. Nevertheless, in due course, he conferred with the other Apostles in Jerusalem so as to ensure that his understanding and teaching was in agreement with theirs, and he received their approval.
When announcing the gospel to Jews, the Apostles either met in the Temple in Jerusalem, or they went to Jewish synagogues to meet with their spiritual-minded countrymen. There they referred to the Hebrew Prophets, Covenant Law, Jewish history and set-apart Hebrew writings in order to demonstrate that Jesus was indeed God’s anointed Messiah whom God had promised to the Jews. But these themes were of little or no relevance to non-Jews or Gentiles. Even so Paul also initially presented the gospel to Jews in synagogues. But he often met with a hostile reaction, and at this point Paul would then make use of his commission to be an Apostle to the Gentiles. In presenting the gospel to Gentiles, Paul did not tend to point Gentiles to the Hebrew set-apart sacred writings. Rather he initially made comments on whatever familiar Gentile religious traditions and customs that he could, and made reference to creation and providence, using all of these as a starting point and ‘springboard’ of commonality from which to announce the gospel or good news of Jesus. What we find in the gospel accounts and the letters of the Apostles is the ‘Apostolic Tradition’ of teaching and practice set down in writing.
Nevertheless, ‘heresies’ and disputes quickly emerged between Christian groups and ‘outsiders’, and also within Christian groups themselves. Could non-Jews or Gentiles be admitted to Christianity that was essentially and initially a Jewish movement? Should male Gentile Christians be circumcised? Were Christians still under Covenant Law? Did Jesus come in the flesh? Was Jesus God? Was the resurrection a physical or a spiritual event? Councils of Christian leaders were convened in order to establish correct and proper perspectives. It was out of such councils that the documents that constitute the Bible were collated and basic creeds or fundamental statements of Apostolic or Christian belief and practice were formulated. In response to such disputes and conflicts, councils like these decided for example that Christian Gnostics were in error, and teaching such as that of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus were formulated. Such decisions became orthodox belief and practice. In constructing defences against unorthodox teaching and practice, well-meaning Christian leaders began to draw on principles from outside of the Bible documents and Apostolic tradition. Concepts drawn from leading non-Christian philosophers such as Aristotle began to be used to support ‘orthodox’ concepts. Appeals to secular logical thought and reasoning began to be used in defence of orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, despite these council decisions, different opinions, perspectives and ‘heresies’ were commonplace and appeals to secular philosophies were sometimes misplaced.
If we look at the history of Christianity we see different rules regarding how to interpret Bible documents being used. Some placed great emphasis on allegorical interpretations, whilst others insisted on literal interpretations for example. We see various aspects of thought and practice coming to the fore in societies and cultures at different times, and these currents, trends, human philosophies, movements and counter-movements are sometimes seen to take precedence over Scripture when it comes to understanding God and the unseen spiritual realm. During the so-called ‘Enlightenment’, ‘rational thought’ emerged to the fore to such a degree that ‘rationalists’ divested Scripture writings of their miraculous and supernatural content because miracles are not seen as ‘rational’ and rationality took precedence over Scripture content. Divested of supernatural and miraculous content by ‘rationalist’ interpretation, Jesus came to be understood by ‘rationalists’ as being a ‘moral exemplar’. The ‘quest for the historical Jesus’ began, with the aim of seeking out the ‘real man’ that existed beneath the ‘false supernatural interpretations and overlays’ that ‘rationalists’ considered had been falsely placed on him by the Apostles. Similarly, human feelings have sometimes taken precedence in reaction to the cold detachment of logic and reason, and for such proponents Christianity became a matter of ‘personal felt experience’ as opposed to abstract theological debate. Then ‘Liberal theology’ optimistically focussed on culture and ethics. Christianity was interpreted as consisting of an ethical focus on life as it was understood in the communities of the time. Once again themes such as the resurrection and miracles were interpreted as ‘fables’ that suited those times and cultures and served to illustrate universal moral principles that are present within humanity. The horrors of World War I dented the optimism that had been placed in human morality. Various minority groups have also come to the fore and thus we see ‘Feminist Christianity’, ‘Black theology’ and ‘Liberation theology’, all of which focus on what was seen as the inadequate response of ‘colonial’ Western European Christianity and its theologians towards minorities, exploited groups and so on. Modern philosophical trends have come to the fore to take precedence over Scripture as well and thus we have had Psychological, Sociological, Secular, Humanist, Pluralist, Existentialist, ‘Modernist’ and ‘Post-modernist’ perspectives on Christianity and spiritually minded communities in general. Post modernism has even come to question the very concept of ‘objective truth’ and whether language signifies anything at all.
What happens, especially for ‘outsiders’ who are not persuaded of the existence of God and the unseen spiritual realm, or who subscribe to different spiritual belief systems, is that these various perspectives form a kind of ‘lens’ through which they evaluate and interpret Scripture. These human perspectives form a framework of presuppositions within which they perceive, interpret, understand and evaluate Scripture. This framework becomes something of a self-fulfilling perspective. If we take a ‘rationalist’ approach as an example, because ‘rationalists’ approach the Bible presupposing that miracles, the supernatural and the resurrection cannot literally exist, they interpret and evaluate such biblical references as ‘myths’ or ‘fables’. If we look at other human perspectives, supernatural events such as miracles and the resurrection are interpreted and judged to be ‘the now outdated beliefs of primitive societies’, or ‘allegorical moral exemplars’, or ‘pointers to subjective felt experience’ or ‘reflections of the existential experience of being’. In these ways the miraculous and supernatural is negated or placed into the margins. The same situation occurs when ‘science’ – especially ‘popular science’ – is placed to the fore. Passages in the bible that do not fit into the current scientific paradigm, or popular understanding of science, are in one way or another dismissed or reduced in value.
This does not mean that Christians are therefore to dismiss or negate these human philosophies, perspectives and schools of thought. But it does mean that the relationship between the interpretation of the bible and worldly or human perspectives and values, especially those that are popular and dominant at any given time, is a complex one. The insights of science, psychology, archaeology, philosophy, Feminism, critiques of colonialism and so on cannot simply be dismissed or summarily ignored. But even the so-called facts of ‘science’ do not speak for themselves. Rather, ‘facts’ require interpretation and evaluation and this is once again done through the ‘lens’ of the current scientific paradigm. This means that the dogmatic and bold assertions of the scientific community of yesteryear sometimes come to be rejected and superseded by the equally confident scientific theories and hypotheses of today. It is important for Christians to note that this is an accepted process. It is seen as ‘progress’. When a scientific perspective is at some point shown to be wrong, ‘Science’ as a discipline is not thrown out of the window and rejected because these changes of opinion take place. At the time prior to the first moon landings, there was much speculation as to how deep the layer of moon dust was going to be. The long period of time with regard to the age of the moon, and the assumed constant rate of dust that was falling on the moon suggested that the soft dust on the surface of the moon might be very deep indeed. When this proved not to be the case, ‘science’ was not dismissed. The ‘baby’ was not thrown out with the ‘bath water’. Rather, different interpretations and theories were constructed to explain this finding.
I say that it is important for Christians to note this process because the same has to be true when it comes to the discipline of theology and the interpretation of Scripture. The orthodox theological interpretation which says that there was a literal seven day creation of the universe about 6,000 years ago made sense in the Middle Ages and in the period prior to it. The fact that this particular interpretation has been seriously brought into question as the result of more recent discoveries does not mean that the Bible and the discipline of theology must therefore be rejected and dismissed, any more than the discipline of science must be rejected and dismissed because of the emergence of new discoveries. Rather, such new discoveries sometimes require theologians to construct a new interpretation of Scripture that is both consistent with Scripture itself as well as any such unquestionable discoveries – just as happens within the scientific community.
It may seem to be advantageous to us if we could remove the ‘lens’ of presuppositions and assumptions of current world views and values and put them aside, but this is not possible. We all live within the context of our time and culture, and these shape and inform our perspective. With regard to spirituality and the spiritual realm we see obscurely, as if looking at a poorly polished and distorting mirror. All that Christians can do is to try to give the Word of God priority with regard to spiritual themes. Each of the approaches, movements and trends that I have just been looking at has its own domain, its own bounded sphere of reference, focus, speciality and influence. In relation to the unseen spiritual realm, worldly, human theories, trends, perspectives and values do not override or take priority over the disclosures of God revealed in Scripture. Yet at the same time, it is important that Christians remain open to the fact that some traditional and long-held orthodox interpretations of Scripture, including the decisions made, and interpretations promoted, by councils of Christian leaders, may be mistaken and require re-evaluation in the light of new evidence. But this is a very complex process and relationship. These various schools of thought, human philosophies and disciplines have their own limited domains. The domain of science, in its more strict definition, is factual evidence and replicable results obtained through careful experimentation, observation and measurement. Its domain is the objective, measurable, observable, material or tangible realm, not the unseen intangible spiritual realm, or the realm of ethics and morals. When scientific endeavour and its proponents pontificate about the unseen intangible spiritual realm and God they often step outside of the proper realm or domain of science.
The result of all of the influences of these philosophies and disciplines over the past two millennia has been to add to the emergence of a multifaceted, confusing and contradictory set of interpretations of and within Christianity. Any attempt by Christians to maintain pure orthodoxy or one right teaching, let alone orthopraxy or one right practice, has proved to be futile. The wheat grows alongside the weeds. Attempts by Christians to impose orthodoxy in movements such as the Spanish Inquisition result in authoritarian oppression and an approach not advocated in Scripture. In any case, Christians do not agree on such uniformity and singleness of belief and practice. Thus the Christian Church is not a unified monolithic organisation or institution. Attempts to ‘ring fence’ the authority the Bible, or the traditional decisions of Christian councils, or the theological decisions of the Pope, in the face of such diversity and internal division constitute a resort to increasingly dogmatic – even bigoted – assertions that are to say least, dubious. There is absolutely no doubt that it is possible to interpret Scripture in different ways, and even in a distorted, unbalanced and twisted way, and that some people do this to suit their own aims and goals. ‘Our beloved brother Paul, writing to you down from the wisdom given to him, as in the manner within all his letters, speaks within them around these things, among which some things are difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist and distort even as also they do the remaining writings, moving towards their own cutting off’, (II Peter 3 v 15b, 16).
The emergence, growing popularity and increasing influence of Protestant movements, and leaders such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, demanded a response from Roman Catholic leaders. Initially it was Martin Luther and his ideas that formed the prime focus of their attention. The Council of Trent was convened to produce a response, and indeed, some changes were made. But with regard to Scripture and the Bible, the Council re-affirmed Roman Catholic use of the Latin Vulgate translation, the continued inclusion of the Apocrypha, and the importance and authority of Church Tradition including the oral tradition handed down within the Church from the Apostles. One of their criticisms was that the Protestant leaders were ‘judging Scripture’ and that in their arrogance these leaders were setting themselves up above God as the arbiters of Scripture and Apostolic tradition.
I propose that this criticism falls into a trap and is mistaken. The core of the problem is the confusion that often exists between Scripture, the Bible and oral Apostolic tradition. From the Roman Catholic viewpoint all of these are seen as the authoritative ‘Word of God’ and therefore beyond question or human criticism. But earlier in this study I have already pointed out that the Word of God, Scripture, the Bible and tradition each have different definitions and different scopes of meaning. Fallible leaders within the Christian Church agreed upon the documents that have been included or excluded from the Bible. These leaders, in their councils, made human judgements – judicial decisions – with regard to which documents did or did not merit being part of an acceptable, authoritative Christian ‘canon’ or ‘rule of faith and conduct’. When the Protestant leaders inquired into these decisions they were in many ways continuing the work and spirit of these early councils. They were not arrogantly setting themselves above God or the Word of God. Rather, they were weighing up the validity of what these Councils had decided as well as weighing up the merits of the documents that were included in the Bible. The Apostle Paul endorses this kind of process. When a prophet speaks, when someone says, ‘Thus says the Lord…’ then other prophets should carefully weigh what is said’, (I Corinthians 14 v 29). The Apostle John says the same: ‘Dear friends, do not believe every breath, but test the breaths to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world’, (I John 4 v 1). Similarly in Deuteronomy 13 v 1 – 3 the Jews were given marks or tests whereby they could judge, weigh or assess whether a prophet or dreamer was from God or not. Martin Luther questioned the validity of the letter to the Hebrews and Book of Revelation as to whether they should be included in the ‘rule of faith’. This was a valid weighing up as to what was to be included in the Bible, but his view to exclude them was a minority one and other leaders were happy to include these documents. In later generations, John Wesley would also undertake similar evaluations.
The point that I am concerned to make is that the boundaries of the Bible are based on human judgements and these judgements have varied throughout church history. Such evaluative weighing up by responsible, appointed leaders is not to arrogantly question God or the word of God – it is a principle laid down in commonly accepted documents that constitute part of the Christian ‘rule of faith and conduct’, it is part of Apostolic teaching.
However, as part of the defence of the collection of documents that constitute the Bible as an authority for Christian faith and conduct, we have seen a merging and confusion of the definitions of ‘Scripture’ and the ‘Bible’. For many Christians and their leaders of different denominations, these have come to mean the same thing, namely ‘the Word of God’. Defining the Bible as Scripture and as the ‘Word of God’ seems to bolster what is proposed to be the Bible’s unquestionable authority – to question the Bible and its contents is to arrogantly question or oppose the Word of God and therefore God Himself. This confusion of definitions brings with it some important implications. They boil down to something like this. The proposition is that God is Perfect. God is Truth and cannot lie. God is consistent with Himself. The Bible is equivalent to Scripture and the Word of God therefore the Bible is perfect truth and completely consistent within itself. There can be no errors or contradictions within and between its statements either with regard to God and the spiritual realm, or with regard to the historical events that these documents describe and portray. That is the proposition of Christian Fundamentalism. Thus the common watchword of today’s conservative Christians, and particularly Protestant Fundamentalists is not only their appeal to ‘Scripture alone’, but to also closely follow this assertion with a quote from II Timothy. Here is the popular quote from the NIV translation: ‘from infancy you have known the set-apart Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, (II Timothy 3 v 15 – 17). Translated in this way from the Greek text, some Christians make the implication that the Bible is the God-breathed, inspired word of God. If challenged with the fact that the ‘canon’ or rule of faith of the New Testament had not yet been determined when these verses were written, then they propose that the ‘set apart Scriptures’ is a reference to the Old Testament. But exactly when the Old Testament ‘canon’ was formed is a matter of debate, and in any case the number of writings included in the Hebrew ‘canon’ varies from one group of Jews to another.
Here is the amplified quote of II Timothy from the Greek text. ‘You know the, set apart writings from infancy, which continue to have the power to make you wise within the sphere of deliverance through obedient persuasion within Jesus the Messiah, 16 each and every writing breathed out by God, useful and advantageous, leading towards instruction, leading towards persuasion, moving towards correction, moving towards training, education and instruction within judicial approval, 17 in order that the man of God may be thoroughly prepared, moving towards every kind of intrinsically good action, fully equipped’. This amplified translation, which has been established by reference to various expert translators, gives a better sense of these verses. The Greek word for ‘writings’ is ‘gramma’, derived from ‘grapho’, meaning ‘that which is drawn or written’. Once again this word has a wide range of applications, but here the reference is to ‘set apart writings’ which the Jews generally considered to be equivalent to Covenant Law or the written Law of Moses. Christians agree that it was not Moses who thought up or originated Covenant Law, but rather that it was YHVH Who was the source of these laws. As such YHVH breathed out the writings of Covenant Law and therefore they are profitable for instructing those who seek to serve God faithfully. We can say the same about those who experienced prophecies and visions. There is a similar sense in which God also breathed out these experiences of prophecies and visions and the recipients were ‘caught up’ in this breath. Thus the watchword was not ‘Scripture alone’, but rather, ‘to the Law, to the testimony or evidential witness, to the prophets’. This is somewhat different from saying that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore without error.
The Reformation leaders, amongst other things, faced corrupt teaching, superstition and an emphasis on miracles. It was and is perhaps typical that there was sometimes an over reaction on both sides. The Reformers declared the Pope to be the ‘antichrist’ and so on. As part of the Reformer’s opposition to miracles and the profitable trade in relics, many of the Reformation leaders concluded that extraordinary miraculous gifts had ceased at about the time that the Twelve Apostles or their immediate successors had died. They brought certain propositions to bear based on Bible verses to this effect. As part of this proposition they also determined that what they classed as extraordinary roles of service within the church had also ceased, namely those of Apostles, Evangelists and Prophets. By means of this conclusion, what had become a prominent and profitable reliance on miracles, visions and personal words and callings from God were closed off. In my opinion, this proposition of the Reformers was incorrect and they used mistaken interpretations of Bible texts.
The Reformers placed their emphasis on the Bible instead. It was the Bible that came to be exclusively defined as the ‘Word of God’. Both Roman Catholics and Protestant Reformers defined the Bible in this way and in doing so they implied that the Bible was set apart as the ultimate written authority with regard to God and the unseen spiritual realm, and that as such, what it declared was beyond question. For a person to question, oppose or doubt the Bible meant that they were questioning, opposing or doubting God Himself. Roman Catholics continued to place emphasis on tradition, but for many Protestant Reformers the Bible came to be the exclusive authoritative rule of Christian faith and practice. The image of a Protestant preacher holding aloft a copy of the Bible whilst declaring it to be the sole authoritative Word of God is a familiar one. We can still see this pose being adopted down to this day, as a portrayal of faithfulness to the written spiritual authority of God.
In due course subsequent challenges arose from the Roman Catholic ‘counter reformation’, the ‘Enlightenment’ and emerging disciplines such as ‘science’, as seen with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, all of which meant that increasing challenges were presented to the sole authority and the authenticity of the Bible. In an attempt to counter these trends, some Protestant leaders developed the ‘Christian Fundamentalist’ movement in the early twentieth century in which they sought to maintain and defend the spiritual authority of Scripture alone. Protestant Reformed leaders such as B. B. Warfield and others developed systems of logic that seemed to effectively ‘ring fence’ Scripture from such scientific and philosophical ‘attacks’. Thus, a hundred years later, we still have ‘Fundamentalist Christians’ who vigorously maintain the authority of the Bible alone as the sole authoritative rule for Christian faith and conduct. When faced with opposition they summon ‘proof texts’ as their defence, passionately maintaining their allegiance to such key texts, and by implication, their allegiance to God and His Messiah. In fact, within this kind of group, a form of ‘Protestant tradition’ has emerged which they adhere to with as much passion as their Roman Catholic counterparts do to their traditions.
The questions I am asking are these: Is the Protestant Reformer’s and Christian Fundamentalist’s position of ‘Scripture alone’ tenable? Indeed, is it Scriptural? Is the ‘ring-fencing’ of Scripture by Fundamentalist theologians as watertight as it seems? What is the role, if any, of ‘Christian tradition’ and how does it relate to Scripture? These important questions concern what a Christian’s faith is grounded upon. For many Protestant Reformed Christians the foundation of their faith is maintained by repeating the phrase ‘Scripture alone’ coupled with the addition of a few related ‘proof texts’ as though the matter is thereby settled without further question. I will now explore the theme of ‘Scripture alone’ and look at some of its related sub themes.
Defining Scripture
It is important to define what we mean by ‘Scripture’. The word ‘Scripture’ simply means ‘that which is written’, or ‘writing’, but the reference to such writing is particularly with regard to writings related to God and the unseen spiritual realm. On a couple of occasions within the Bible, reference is made to ‘Holy Scriptures’, (Romans 1 v 2; II Timothy 3 v 15). These are writings about God and unseen spiritual realm that are ‘set apart’ from other writings that reflect the corrupt values and errors of the thinking and reasoning of the world.
The word ‘Scripture’ is not used in the Old Testament. The translators of the NIV and some other translations use the word ‘scripture’ in Daniel 9 v 2, but the Hebrew word used here is ‘sepher’ meaning ‘book’, ‘evidence’, ‘register’ or ‘scroll’. This word has a wide range of references, such as a written order, usually from a King; a legal document, such as a certificate of divorce; a register of names; God’s record book of the living; or simply to that which is written. Its precise meaning is determined by its context. More importantly for our theme, it can also refer to a book of law, including Covenant Law, or a book of prophesies, or a book from a prophet, a book of visions, or a book or scroll in which something is written so as to preserve it for future use.
By way of contrast, the New Testament sees the word ‘Scripture’ used over fifty times. The Greek word is ‘graphe’ meaning ‘writing’ and it is used to denote a Hebrew book, or passage from a Hebrew book that had been set apart in connection with Hebrew religion and history.
Scripture is not the same as the ‘Bible’. The Bible is a collection and collation of different writings that Hebrew and Christian leaders judged to be set-apart Scriptures and that different people wrote at different times. As such the Bible has no view of itself. When the Apostle Paul refers to the ‘set apart Scriptures’ he is not referring the Bible. Whilst he may have been referring to some, all, or even to more of the Hebrew writings that we now find in the Old Testament, he was certainly not referring to the New Testament because these Christian documents would not finally be collated until a few centuries after his death. Nowhere do any of the authors of the writings included in the collection of Bible documents declare which documents are to constitute ‘the Bible’. God has not given a word to any Prophet or Apostle that precisely defines which sacred writings are to be included in the Bible or which are to be excluded.
This means that which writings are, or are not, set apart and included in the Bible is a matter of debate. Historically speaking, Roman Catholic leaders of the Western Church included a set of writings known as the ‘Apocrypha’. These were written after the Babylonian Captivity but before the birth of Jesus, and include documents such as I and II Maccabees. There are also other writings that are referred to or quoted in Bible documents but which are not included in the final collection of Bible documents. This is because some of these writings are now ‘lost’ such that there is no known copy remaining in existence, whilst others were simply not included in the collection of Bible writings for various reasons.
The need to collect and define what leaders considered to be set apart sacred writings became an important issue in the early centuries of Christianity. This was because a number of religious writings began to emerge that used Christian themes but that were not consistent with the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles. One of the primary trends of this kind were the writings of Christian Gnostics who advocated a form of inner spiritual experience and secret teachings leading towards spiritual liberation. Their teaching incorporated ideas about Jesus and salvation. The early leaders within Christianity who sought to remain faithful to the teaching of the Apostles became concerned that these ‘spurious’ and erroneous writings and the teaching that they contained were leading people astray. So various councils of Christian Elders convened with regard to this matter and in due course a set of collated writings were brought together as a Council approved set of documents that they proposed constituted an ‘authoritative rule’ or ‘canon’ for Christian beliefs and behaviour.
A similar process and set of debates took place with regard Hebrew religious documents. Some Jews only accepted the first five books of what we know as the Old Testament. Others accepted a wider range of literature that included the Prophets such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah. Yet others accepted an even wider range of documents. It would seem that around the same time that Christian debates were taking place, Hebrew leaders engaged in a similar debate to form the Hebrew ‘canon’ of sacred, set apart writings. Christian leaders involved in the debate about a Christian ‘canon’ included a Hebrew ‘canon’ of documents as the ‘Old Testament’ of the Bible. Thus, in the early centuries following the Messiah, the Biblical ‘canon’ of collected documents was formed to constitute and authoritative rule of Christian faith and conduct.
During the Reformation period with its emphasis away from corrupt church traditions and its focus on a return to Scripture in the original languages rather than translations as a basis for faith, the theme of the nature and extent of the Biblical ‘canon’ arose once more. Roman Catholic leaders continued to rely on the Latin Vulgate translation and maintained their inclusion of the apocryphal documents. The Reformers rejected the Vulgate as a flawed and inferior translation and they also excluded the apocrypha, partly perhaps because Roman Catholic leaders referred to it to promote ideas such as purgatory and praying for the dead. The whole of the ‘canon’ came up for re-assessment and prominent Reformer Martin Luther rejected some writings that Christian Councils had previously included in the ‘canon’, such as the letter to the Hebrews, but his views remained on the margins. Even in the eighteenth century, John Wesley returned to this theme once again. However, the leaders of the Protestant Reformations also wanted to retain a sense of continuity with church history, especially with the early church fathers that had helped to define the ‘canon’ in the first place.
So let’s be clear. The collection of set-apart sacred writings is a human project borne out of circumstantial necessity. Defining what is and what is not included in the Bible so as to form an acceptable set of documents that act as a reliable guide for Christian faith and conduct is a human construct, not a divine one. The leaders who helped to make these decisions were delegated and appointed leaders of Jews with regard to Hebrew or Old Testament writings, and Christian elders with regard to New Testament writings. Various principles and standards were used. None of these leaders were infallible. Even when brought together as a group or Council they were not beyond making mistakes. But their decisions were made and these decisions became the ‘orthodox’ or single authoritative ruling of the delegated and appointed leaders of the Church. As such they became part of the Church tradition that the Western Roman Catholic Church valued so highly.
One of the fundamental themes of the Protestant Reformers in Europe in the sixteenth century was that of ‘sola scriptura’ – Scripture alone. This ‘watchword of the Reformation’ constituted an appeal for Christians to return to core sources of Christianity by establishing their beliefs and behaviours only from Scripture, from the Bible. This was part of their protest – hence the name ‘Protestant’ – against what these leaders saw as the error and corruption that had come to pervade the Roman Catholic Church. Errors had emerged through the Church’s emphasis on tradition and through the Bible only being available in Latin to priests who had ten misinterpreted it to the people it in many ways. Thus there was a movement to make the Bible available to people in their own language. The idea was that if any teaching or practice could not be found expressed in, or could not be logically deduced from Scripture, then such teaching and practice had no divine authority. In other words Christians were not under obligation to submit to such teaching and practices, such as for example the sale of indulgences. The aim if their protest against corrupt teaching and practice was to reform – to change the shape of – teaching and practice within the Roman Catholic Church so that its teaching and practice was more honouring to God. This call to return to Biblical sources alone was not was originated by the Reformation leaders, but rather was a movement that had already emerged in some sections of the Roman Catholic Church and Christian thought. This movement led to an emphasis on the Hebrew and Greek texts, and in the process, the Latin Vulgate translation of these texts on which the Roman Catholic Church had founded its teaching and practice, was found to be wanting. In places it was in error and this in turn meant that some Roman Catholic teaching and practice was considered to be in error.
The Reformer’s protest was in part against certain traditions and customs that the Roman Catholic Church leaders had sanctioned or adopted. For the Reformers, Roman Catholic leaders lay great stress not only on an inadequate translation of Scripture, but on human and sometimes erroneous traditions. Roman Catholic authorities argued that there was an ‘oral tradition’ within Christianity – a body of teaching and practices handed down by word of mouth from the Apostles through successive generations of appointed church leaders.
The Apostles remain important to both Catholics and Protestant Reformers, but who or what are ‘Apostles’? An Apostle is someone who is appointed and delegated for some specific service. Following the betrayal by and death of Judas Iscariot, Jesus appointed the remaining eleven closest disciples as Apostles, sending them out to declare the gospel not only to Jews but also to Gentiles, teaching and baptising those who were persuaded to the point of obedience. A line of succession is implied because Jesus promised to be with them until the consummation of the present age. (Matthew 28 v 19, 20). However, Jesus was not the only one who commissioned Apostles. In the first chapter of Acts, Peter, quoting from Psalm 109 v 8, proposes that someone must be chosen to take the place of Judas. ‘“Therefore what must happen, the men coming together with us within all the time that the Lord Jesus was coming in and going out upon us, beginning away from John’s baptism until the day in which he continued to be taken up from us, one of these is to become a witness of the resurrection with us.” And two were caused to stand, Joseph called Barsabbas, (also known as Justus), and Matthias. And praying, they said “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Indicate which one of these two you select to be taking hold of the place of this, the service and sending away, away from which Judas went contrary to, to travel to his own place.” 26 Then they offered lots for them and the lot fell on the basis of Matthias, and he was counted in company with the commissioned eleven’, (Acts 1 v 21 – 26). The commissioned disciples were eyewitnesses who were sent away in service to give evidential testimony to the resurrection of Jesus, so it was important that they had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, that they knew and witnessed that it was Jesus who had been resurrected.
But then we also have Paul, who did not meet this qualification. Paul was a Jew who originally saw Christianity as a blasphemous sect that was corrupting Judaism and needed to be stamped out. Thus, until his conversion on the Damascus Road he was intent on persecuting Christians, especially Hebrew Christians. In his first letter to the Corinthians he describes himself in this way. ‘Because I delivered to you within first importance what I also continue receiving. That the Messiah died on behalf of our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen by Peter, and furthermore, the Twelve. After that he was seen by more than five hundred brothers at the same time, of whom most abide until now, but some have fallen asleep. Then James saw him, then all the apostles. Then last of all, as if it were an untimely miscarriage, I also saw him. Because I am the least of the apostles, the commissioned delegates, who exists inadequate to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the assembly of God. But, gift of God, I am what I am, and his free gift toward me has not been empty. But on the contrary, I worked harder than all of them, yet not I, on the contrary, the grace of God that was with me’, (I Corinthians 15 v 3 – 10).
The ‘Twelve’ are distinguished as disciples who were with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry until his death, and who subsequently saw him resurrected. These are the twelve Apostles. Eleven of them were commissioned and sent out by Jesus as eyewitnesses to herald the gospel. Matthias was put forward by Christians along with Joseph, and it was Matthias who was indicated by the casting of lots during prayer to replace Judas Iscariot. However it is clear from verse 7 that the Apostles were not limited to being twelve in number. Commentators agree that Scripture portrays others as being apostles also. In Acts 14 v 14, Barnabas is called an apostle, and in I Thessalonians 2 v 7, Timothy and Silvanus are also designated in the same way. In Romans 16 v 7 we read, ‘Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles’.
In its broadest terms an apostle is a commissioned delegate, messenger or herald, who is sent out with orders. In the narrower sense, Jesus commissioned the ‘Twelve’ himself, but others, such as Matthias, Barnabas, Timothy and others were in many ways commissioned as delegated authorities by fellow Christians and their leaders. The purpose of the delegation or commission may vary, and as commissioned delegates the role of apostles is seen as being distinct from that of elders or leaders in the assembly, (Acts 15 v 22). Thus there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, deacons, pastors, teachers and so on.
The idea of ‘Apostolic Succession’ is that the Twelve Apostles officially established and anointed leaders in Christian communities by laying their hands on the heads of leaders. In turn and in due course, these leaders established their approved successors. In terms of teaching and practice, it is to the Twelve apostles in particular that reference is made. It is their teaching and practice that is to be preserved and maintained by subsequent generations of Christians leaders or elders, and evangelists, heralds or missionaries.
When it came to establishing set apart writing that was considered to be authoritative and suitable for use for teaching, especially in the face of increasing errors and wayward deviations, the leaders of the early Christian assemblies focussed on the apostles and what they considered to be their authentic writings. These writings included those of Paul, as one called ‘out of time’. This meant that the letter to Hebrews was included in the approved selection of texts because many leaders considered, though it would seem mistakenly, that Paul was the author of this letter. Many of the Twelve Apostles have left us with no writings at all. Possibly the writings of some of their successors have been included in the Bible, perhaps such as II Peter. But early Christian writings such as Didache, or the writings of Paul’s associates, such as Barnabas or Clement, are not included.
Roman Catholic leaders pointed out that various Councils of appointed church leaders had at certain times made important decisions with regard to Christian themes. These included establishing the concept of the Trinity and the use (or not) of icons. Catholic Church leaders argued that these decisions formed part of the formal established traditional beliefs and practice of the Church. To question or oppose these formal aspects of Christian tradition established by delegated leaders was to be in danger of ‘heresy’ or ‘apostasy’, of falling away from or opposing God and His appointed leaders. Such traditional decisions and practices were seen to constitute part of the historical continuity of Christianity.
The Reformers were also concerned with historical continuity and heritage within Christianity. What they were protesting about were beliefs, practices and traditions that had no basis in, or that contradicted Scripture, and they considered that these ‘impurities’ had emerged particularly during the Middle Ages or Medieval period. So in their concern to maintain historical continuity and to draw from and value Christian heritage, they sought for unity with earlier Christian generations that were not stained by these impurities, particularly Christian leaders such as Augustine and some of the patristic or early church ‘fathers’. To demonstrate the inner coherence of their reformed beliefs and practices, they began to formulate ‘confessions of faith’, ‘catechisms’ and systematic theologies’ such as John Calvin’s ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion’. These served to explain, educate and consolidate the Reformer’s teaching and practice and they quoted extensively from Scripture and from the writings of these earlier Christian leaders.
Christian 2 Christians 