God Breathed, You Read
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 2 Timothy 3:16 NASB
Profitable– It goes without saying that Paul’s use of “Scripture” means the Tanakh. No “letter to the Romans,” no Galatians’ missive or James’ castigations. Just the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. That was enough for Paul to say, “It’s all profitable.” The Greek is ōphelimos, “what is useful, beneficial.” We agree. The Tanakh is all this, and more. Not just the commandments but the stories. Not just the stories but the poetry. Not just the poetry but the history, the anecdotes, the plots, the pithy professions.
Unfortunately, Christianity usually takes Paul’s words to mean that his letters and the accompanying apostolic material is the really important stuff. Most Christian history views the Jewish part is antiquated, perhaps even obsolete. We know better—until we come to the interpretative effort. Then suddenly we’re back proclaiming, “This is the inspired meaning, and the rest of you are just mistaken.” Funny. Jewish views of Scripture don’t seem to need that declaration of absolutes. Nahum Sarna makes a telling remark:
“For nearly two millennia and a half, the exposition of Scripture has been the subject of intense preoccupation on the part of Jewish scholars. In fact, Jewish intellectual and spiritual history may be said to be essentially the record of the variegated attempts to unfold the sense, meanings, purposes, intents, and application of the biblical texts. The multiple sense of Scripture has even been a cardinal principle of rabbinic Judaism: ‘Just as a hammer shatters rock and generates numerous splinters, so may a single verse yield a multiplicity of meanings.’ Put otherwise, the Hebrew Bible is a prism that refracts varieties of truth. Characteristically, Jewish tradition has always refused to absolutize any single approach or stance.”[1]
If Scripture is ōphelimos, is it ōphelimos in only one way? Is there really only one right answer to the meaning of the text? These questions are particularly uncomfortable for Westerners. We have been trained since before birth to think that the real answer is the one right answer, that there really is only one way to do things properly and that truth is a matter of one declaration of the real facts. We squirm intensely when we are confronted with the idea that our understanding of the biblical text might just be only our understanding, and there just might be other equally valid ways of reading what God told us. This is especially true for a language like Hebrew because without vowels and punctuation, you need to know what it says before you can read it. That might sound a bit paradoxical, but think of this: nwsthtmfrllgdmntrs. Let’s add the vowels: “now is the time for all good men to arise.” But, of course, you might have added different vowels.
What’s the lesson here? Ah, don’t be so hasty to think that you have the right reading of the text. Maybe you need to listen to another way and see if it also makes sense.
Topical Index: ōphelimos, profitable, interpretation, reading, 1 Timothy 3:16
“Maybe you need to listen to another way and see if it also makes sense.” I have noticed that false religions don’t make a whole lot of sense. In that sense (sic) the texts of the Koran or the Buddha, etc. take a lot more ‘faith’ that they are true. They contradict reality; other spiritual understandings – even themselves (particularly the Koran, which is notorious for saying something for anyone, any way they like it). I have noticed that, along with the ambiguity, people seem to feel compelled to mandate unreasoning ‘faith’ to make up for the lack of sense, but I have never found true faith ever asking us to use it to excuse nonsense. The Bible not only appeals to our reason, it discourages any practice that leaves reason behind. Even true faith is a reasonable future proposition, based upon the experience we have had of God in the past. I believe truth is reasonable also: reason, in fact, was the gift I believe we were created with to be able to discern it.
Order, Biblically, does not arise out of disorder: on the contrary, disorder happens only when order is ignored. In reality, order (goodness) generously scoots over to give disorder (evil) a fair shot, for it has faith in itself (I think Chaos Theory may be exhibit A of the faith order has in itself – the faith that even here order can prevail!). I think God created the opportunity for unreasonableness to take a crack at reason (necessary basis for free will), but I think even the noblesse oblige of reason does not ‘make’ a platform for unreason; nor does it excuse nonsense. (I have noticed that faith never asks us to leave our reason behind, either.) We may all have differing, as well as unique, experiences to bring to our understanding of the Bible, but I think it will always be intelligible to that experience. Truth is like that.
However, I think the Bible has something even more potent than being able to align itself with reality and our experience of what it means to be human (as well as validating our experience of the divine): it agrees with itself. That, as far as I have been able to tell, is something no other ‘scripture’ can boast. It may appear to contradict itself in places, but on deeper reading, those are superficial discrepancies. Nobody has ever found any thing of substance that negates any other part. Further, it repeats itself: if you find a statement of truth in it, there will be corroboration somewhere else that will not only explain (or even deepen) the meaning, but will state it again. The Bible is the only piece of literature we have that explains itself: nor does it need anybody else to explain it. The Bible speaks directly to each one of us. Truth is like that, you know.
Skip, I believe you are an advocate that the page between the OT and the NT should be “torn out” and if that is the case, what are we to make of, “Just the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. That was enough for Paul to say, “It’s all profitable.”
Where does that leave us?
It leaves us with the apostolic writings about the Messiah and the first Messianic communities, commentaries on the teachings of the Messiah and stories to help us remember him. Just like the letter of Clement were once considered sacred by some believing communities, we who follow Yeshua believe that these letters and gospels are sacred for our communities. Clearly the men who wrote them were influenced by God’s words in the Tanakh and by the leading of the Spirit in their writings. But just as clearly, they don’t indicate that they think of their work as on par with the Tanakh, except the last book which John specifically was a vision from the Lord.
The Messiah said that Moses was writing about Him, and Hebrews 3:3 states emphatically that Messiah is “greater than Moses”, but you seem to be saying that the oral (later, written) Tanakh community, who lived and taught the teachings of the Messiah, did not consider what they lived and taught on par with Torah? The Living Torah’s words and life? I think I may be beginning to see where and why you might be getting lost. There are too many statements Yeshua made about Himself that would refute your statement to comment on, and Paul, too, said he threw out what he thought he knew about Torah and started over. I think we CANNOT KNOW what Torah actually means without it’s Expositor and Exposer. The NT community lived Torah because they saw Torah in action. The BC Israelites not once ‘got it’; much less lived it. If it walks like Torah, looks like Torah, and writes like Torah, well… antitype will always trump type.
Yeshua and His Body showed the world what Torah had been trying to tell it all along, and the world got it, too. For the very first time, Torah exploded out of Palestine. The Tanakh is the footprint of that explosion. These people ‘got’ Torah, so everybody around them got it, too. When I read Torah, I go to the Tanakh to see what it looks like in action. I think the OT is a long record of those who did not know how to practice what they heard/read, but who can miss telling/writing about what they saw in practice?
I’m with Laurita (March 3, 2019 9:26 am) on this. I’ll briefly add:
The Gospels (except Mark) and Paul’s writings are all about the Messiah and the importance of His resurrection and how that relates to us (see Daniel 7 & 12:1-2). Implicit in John’s Logos is Wisdom, Torah, and a number of other motifs in the Tanakh, and this same Logos “became flesh”. John’s stated purpose for writing his Gospel is so that “you may believe that the Messiah, the Son of God, is Jesus and that by believing you may life in His name”. In whose name is life? Given that the Messiah is not even specifically named in the Tanakh–never mind the fact that many Jews didn’t even recognize Yeshua as the Messiah anyway–how can the NT be envisioned as less inspired than the Tanakh?
Yes, Paul is referring to the Tanakh in 1 Tim 3:16, however Peter affirms Paul’s writings as being distorted by some as they do “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16).
All of the Tanakh AND the B’rit Chadashah were testimonies or witnesses meant to affirm and confirm faith, were they not? In this sense of meaning they ALL maintained and spoke of a particular “foundation” or “substance” and “evidence” or “conviction” that ultimately maintain and sustain hope that is genuine and consistent with the reality that “really is”. I’m not certain that any of the human authors involved believed they were writing “scripture” in the sense that the Christian community has come to understand what constitutes “scripture”.
Richard, I suspect we could probably say the same for the writers of, say, Esther or Jonah or the Chronicles of the Kings, too. What they may or may not have been thinking is not the point. I think Scripture is determined by how it is used. The standards of the Canon are pretty clear and most of them are about the usage of those writings that is employed by the readers: not necessarily about the conviction of the author(s). If the NT has been demonstrably used for millennia by its readers in the same way and for the same reasons that they have used the OT, then couldn’t we say that they are, functionally speaking, pieces of the same cloth? The writings that did not make the cut did not make it because they could not be used in the same ways.
It seems that Skip thinks we cannot use the NT in the same way we can use the Tanakh, but I want to ask him, “why not?” A whole lot of the writings committed to Moses by angels were specific to place and time, just as a whole lot of the instruction in the NT is, but that does not make it any less inspired, does it?
Agree with your comment, Laurita…except that I think Skip should speak for himself if he decides to clarify. It does seem, Skip, that you are allowing for the conclusion that the Apostolic writings (including the gospels?) except the Apocalypse, are not necessarily to be included in what Paul was describing as “inspired”.
I hope that he does, too, Richard, because he usually can explain himself where I can understand him, anyway (which I really want to do).
Okay, I’ll clarify. There is little doubt that the apostles considered the present state of the Jewish Tanakh as authoritative. In this regard, they considered these writings to be God’s words and, therefore, inspired and sacred for the believing community. This is a fundamental tenet of their paradigm, as it is with the early Messianic community. There are, of course, other writings that circulated at that time that also were consider authoritative but perhaps not equal to the weight of the Tanakh. It should be noted, however, that some of the books that later became part of the “Old Testament” and the Hebrew Bible were in flux at the time of Paul’s writing. Those books were not “canonized” until much later.
So much for the Torah. Now what about the apostolic writings? It seems impossible that Paul considered his own letters as theopneutos. While they had the authority of a rabbi to individual communities, I don’t think Paul considered himself a “prophet speaking for God.” The fact that the community quickly adopted these letters as guides to living says that they met a need among the various groups. Clearly, the same is true for the rest of the apostolic material except (and this is a big one) the words of Yeshua, who was considered the final authority on interpretation of the text of the Tanakh.
All of these are “inspired.” But here we must be careful. Inspired takes on heavy theological overtones after the formation of the Church, and especially after Luther. It’s simple definition is “what moves me” and here all these books fit. “Sacred” is yet another category (see McDonald), followed eventually by “canon.” But the words are NOT the same. Much depends on the community that accepts them as such. Today we often treat anything in the canon as inspired (by our theological definition) and anything NOT in the canon as “not inspired,” but this was not the case in the first century. Jude’s references to other works outside the canon suggests that other material was also considered inspired. It just didn’t make it past the authorities who eventually determined what went into the canon.
Skip,
As I recall, a somewhat recent TW asserted that a verse or two of the Tanakh had been influenced by Egyptian writings. Also as I recall, you did not hint that the Egyptian writing itself was to be considered canonical. In the same way, we certainly would not think that the Greek poets Paul partially quotes (Acts 17:28-29; 1 Cor 15:33; Tit 1:12) deem them Scripture. Similarly, I don’t think we’d consider the Jewish apocalyptic work The Assumption of Moses referenced in Jude as anything approaching a canonical writing. And, lastly, Jude citing a small part of 1 Enoch in a slightly different manner to make a theological point—changing “God” (theos) to “Lord” (kurios)—should not be construed as affirming its authority. 1 Enoch is known to have multiple authors, and it’s likely the Similitudes section is a late 1st century Christian interpolation, anyway.
As you state, the canonization of the Tanakh didn’t occur till later. It follows that the even later apostolic writings would have to go through some sort of process for canonization, doesn’t it? But here’s the rub: if you concede that the Tanakh was in a state of flux and was later canonized (by whose authority was it canonized?), then it makes it difficult to imply that the NT writings somehow went through an inferior canonization process.
(Side note: part of the understanding of what constituted authoritative texts in the first century came from Yeshua’s references to those texts, yet some are not referenced by Jesus at all.)
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that we didn’t have a canon before 397AD. Just because these writings were not ‘officially’ canonized till that time does not erode their authority beforehand [same with the writings of the Tanakh, of course]. In fact, most of the writings were recognized as authoritative by around 200, though, interestingly, Revelation was not one of them.
You wrote: It seems impossible that Paul considered his own letters as theopneutos.
Perhaps no less so than any of the individual writers in the Tanakh. I’d think Paul’s commissioning by Yeshua (Acts 9) would seem to elevate his authority, especially given Jesus’ words in Acts 9:15-16. I think we ought to factor in the content of 2 Cor 12:1-6 and what that entails, as well.
Yes . . . but, we weren’t talking about canonization. That was done for both Jews and Christians by other authority bodies in recognition of what was already in practice. We were speaking about inspiration, and for that I would continue to maintain that what is considered inspired is a function of the paradigm of the believing community, as we see today with Islam. We who follow Yeshua happen to believe that his words and the “Bible” he cited is inspired, sacred and canon, but the words were certainly in flux during the first century. No one is debating that some “inspired” works never became canon. Obviously. I thought the question was, “Did Paul consider his letter inspired?” The answer could be YES without suggesting that he thought of those letters as “sacred” or potentially “canon.” If it’s just a matter of authority, then any rabbi who acts as the authority in a community would be considered inspired, like today in certain sects of modern Judaism.
OK, instead of getting bogged down in terminology, and to alleviate any confusion, let’s stick with “holy writ”. But without some sort of consensus my holy writ is just as good as your holy writ. We know for sure that the Saduccees only accepted the Pentateuch, for example. Obviously, they would have had difficulty with Jesus’ resurrection unless and until they accepted the Book of Daniel, e.g. Hence, some sort of ‘canonization’ was needed.
It’s this later ‘canonization’ that casts doubt on your opening statement [t]here is little doubt that the apostles considered the present state of the Jewish Tanakh as authoritative, for Judaism was not monolithic in the 1st century. What are we to make of those extra writings in the LXX? Can I know for certain if Paul, e.g., accepted Canticles, or that he didn’t accept Wisdom of Solomon as holy writ? As a former Pharisee his view of holy writ was more expansive that any Saducceean for sure, but can we really know his definition of holy writ? (If there’s some work that spells out exactly which books the Pharisees at that time accepted as “holy writ”, I’m unaware.)
Because some sort of method of standardizing holy writ was more or less required for the Tanakh, the same should apply to the apostolic writings. We would like to think God’s Spirit was present during those proceedings—whether or not other goings-on at said gatherings were superintended by His Spirit.
Now, did Paul consider his letter(s) to be holy writ? No more or less so than any writer of the Tanakh, I’d suppose. But this hardly impacts whether or not Paul’s works are indeed holy writ. Though I wouldn’t, one could argue that your standard for judging Revelation as holy writ is insufficient, for it could be said that this ‘John the Revelator’ guy was an imbalanced individual who had some fantastic visions yet was not a ‘real’ prophet—not unlike those ‘prophetesses’ in the Montanist movement of the late 2nd century (or those in what I call the hyper-charismatic movement today).
hi Craig. why do you say “As a former Pharisee ” when Paul himself says in Acts 23:6 (after his three missionary journeys) “I am a Pharisee”? I checked that in over 10 translations, they all say the same thing. Clearly at this point in time at his final Jewish trial in Jerusalem, and I suspect for the rest of his life, Paul was a card carrying Pharisee. I know lots of pastors and Bible teachers who would prefer Paul to have said “As a former Pharisee”… just asking
HSB,
I’m basing my comment in part on Philippians 3:2-11 and in part on some of his other statements. As for Acts 23:6, it could be that Paul sees a way to extricate himself from a bad situation by dividing the assembly between the Pharisees and the Saduccees. See 1 Cor 9:20-22.
Craig: we know from Acts 23:6 that Paul was playing the factions off against each other. But you duck my question? Why can’t you agree with the fact that Paul was a Pharisee. There was a broad spectrum in the movement (Nichodemus, Joseph of Aramathea and others were believers in Messiah Jesus). I remain amazed that serious Bible students like yourself cannot admit that in fact Paul remained a Pharisee… as well as a Roman citizen. He played that card a few times too.
HSB,
I didn’t duck your question, I answered it. Did you read 1 Cor 9:20-22? If not, start there, then read Phil 3:2-11.
Craig: thanks for the response. I think this is an important point. I am a Canadian citizen. I am not an American however some of my family members are American. I am not a “former Canadian”. To become a “former Canadian” I would have to renounce my citizenship. Paul never renounced his Roman citizenship. We know on occasion he actually used that citizenship to his advantage. In Acts 16:37-38 we encounter Paul demanding the leaders of the city come and release him. He was beaten and imprisoned without trial (to which he was entitled as a Roman citizen). Likewise in Acts 22:25-28 we find the story of him asking if it was legal to flog a Roman citizen. When asked by the commander “Are you a Roman citizen?” he replied “Yes I am!” Finally in Acts 25:11 he avoids being brought back to Jerusalem from Caesarea. Paul states “I appeal to Caesar (for trial)” This request is granted.
In the same way he never renounced his Pharisee membership. We learn from Josephus that there were only a few thousand Pharisees in the country. Paul was one of them. He had earned that status through his diligent studies. In Acts 23:6 he states clearly “I am a Pharisee”. Why is it so difficult to simply take that at face value? I have learned that a significant percentage of Pharisees actually supported Yeshua, although most did not. Even much of the debate between Yeshua and the Pharisees seems to be an “in house” fight. His teaching was much closer to that of the Pharisees than the Sadducees who had control of the priesthood and Temple (and Sanhedrin).
So I go back to my questions. At the time of the trial before the Sanhedrin outlined in Acts 23:6 was Paul at that very moment still a Roman citizen? Yes or no. Was he still a Pharisee? Yes or no. Ten translations I have checked all indicate that Paul actually said “I am a Pharisee”. Is there one that says “I am a former Pharisee (but renounced that association some time ago upon my conversion)”
HSB,
Paul never formally renounces being a Pharisee. Yet was he a Pharisee as, say, Gamaliel in his post-Messianic conversion? Could he be a Pharisee in that sense and yet be a Messiah-follower? That answer would have to be unqualified “nope”. This is the point he is making in Philippians 3:2-11 and implicitly in 1 Cor 9:19-23.
Craig: With respect I disagree. Many of the early believers in Messiah were in fact Pharisees, and continued to be after their coming to faith in Messiah Yeshua. Same can be said for the priests, many of whom became believers. If your answer of “nope” is correct then I conclude that Paul misled, some would say lied to, the Sanhedrin when he claimed he was in fact a Pharisee but didn’t really mean it. That troubles me! When Paul says he is a Jew to the Jews etc. I take that to mean he understands and can connect with them. Growing up in Tarsus then teaching Gentiles in Antioch gave him a real sensitivity to Gentile issues as well. Paul is not pretending. Many, many years ago I served as a Captain in the armed forces. I never resigned my commission so I remain classed as a “vet” but my service was many decades ago. Some time ago I was in Ottawa and the grandkids wanted to visit the War Museum. So we all showed up. There was a sign that said “vets” so I simply inquired of the receptionist. She checked my record and said “You are admitted without any fee… and so is your family”. What a pleasant surprise. Paul did not overplay his Roman citizenship or his registration as a Pharisee, but that does not mean that he never resorted to either of these when it helped. My point is that Pharisees are stuck with so much mud over the years that almost all Christians cannot even comprehend how Paul could still be a Pharisee at the trial in Jerusalem in Acts 26… and a Roman citizen to boot. Yet even Yeshua had Pharisee friends.
HSB,
In my initial draft of the my first comment in this particular vein I put quotes around “former Pharisee”. I removed them before posting. Like you, I am a vet (though only four years, many years ago). I don’t say I was a vet, even though my service was quite a while ago. Could this be what is at play in Acts 23?
My point was that Paul was no longer doing everything a typical first century Pharisee would do. For example, this Jewish sect held to an overly restrictive view of the Sabbath (e.g. John 5:18; 9:16), and it seems doubtful Paul would maintain that. But, more importantly, affirming Jesus as Messiah could get one thrown out of the synagogue by the Pharisees (John 9:22, 34; 12:42; 16:2 | cf. Phil 3:3, 7-9).
Craig;- you say “My point was that Paul was no longer doing everything a typical first century Pharisee would do. For example, this Jewish sect held to an overly restrictive view of the Sabbath.”
I don’t buy that Pharisees were circumscribed by unanimity on anything “typical”. Hillel and Shammai supporters were liberal and conservative in their day, or by today’s standards, but they were both Pharisees. Just as Yeshua learned about life skills and language, someone taught Yeshua the Torah as a youth, first his parents, then others, probably Pharisees of some ilk as they were the predominant party of the day in that era. Given Yeshua’s liberal bent they were more likely of the Hillel camp but maybe also influenced by the Essenes and undoubtedly his radical cousin John the Baptist.
Too much of a “typical” Christian bible response for my liking.
George,
Point taken. The Pharisees may not have been a monolithic group, yet the Gospel of John makes no bones about overly-zealous Sabbath observance: the now-healed paralytic was scolded by Pharisees for carrying his mat on the Sabbath (5:10); the narrator relates that “the Jews” (Pharisees) wanted to kill Jesus for healing on the Sabbath (5:18); the now-healed blind man’s parents were concerned about being thrown out of the synagogue, for being construed as Jesus-followers (9:22); and their son was indeed excommunicated because he was (a) healed on the Sabbath (9:13-16: “some of the Pharisees”) and (b) affirmed Jesus as being “from God” (9:34). Apparently, it was the leadership that held to these standards. Would Paul, a leader of the Messiah-followers, bow down to their demands and/or would the leaders yield to Paul’s leadership? I’d think not. Then, we have Paul’s own words denigrating many of the things that made him a Pharisee (Phil 3:2-11) in favor of being a Christ-follower. The text here is not ambiguous.
This conversation has been extremely interesting to me. Good job, both of you, for educating me! So, was Paul a Pharisee by what he said, or by what the Pharisees said? Who gets to determine this? God? Us? I am dying, here!
HI Laurita, I am not sure where I read it but Shaul ostensibly was a student in the “house of Hillel” and as such he would have had a more liberal bent to his studies of Torah. Hillel and Shammai were both at times the President of the Sandhedrin. Shammai was much more conservative and they were on opposite sides of issues many times. Shammai was President in the Messianic era but it was a majority rule on things brought to the Sanhedrin for adjudication so isssues could go either way, just like today.
I cannot tell you both, George, how much I have appreciated this discussion! Thanks to Skip who provides the space and puts up with it, too.
Paul studied under Gamaliel I (Acts 22:3; cf. 5:34-40), who is from the Hillel school. The newer ISBE (not the one in the public domain) has an entry for Gamaliel, in which it is asserted by the author, R. F. Youngblood, that Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel, according to the Talmud.
Agreed Craig, just a finer and more accurate description of what I said. Paul was a “liberal” interpreter of Torah. Thanks for the additional detail which I do not have access to under my particular circumstances at the moment.
George,
I wasn’t debating anything you said, if that’s what you meant by “just a finer and more accurate description of what I said.” I was merely adding to it.
Paul certainly would have been a ‘liberal interpreter of Torah’, because of his Hillel schooling. But the overriding point I attempted to make yesterday is that, given that it was, generally, “the Pharisees” as the ones denigrated by Jesus (though the Sadducees had their share), and that Paul was a Pharisee zealously persecuting Christians pre-Way, it is most likely that, just as zealously, he observed the Sabbath as per the accounts in the NT pre-Way. In other words, he would have found healing on the Sabbath and carrying one’s mat, e.g., as violations of the Sabbath pre-Way, but certainly wouldn’t have post-Way.
I really didn’t think that idea was all that controversial, though I do understand the initial counters by HSB to my calling Paul a “former Pharisee”.
Craig, we live in interesting times as a Chinese philosopher once said and your analogy of “leadership” does the same. You say, “Apparently, it was the leadership that held to these standards.” Interesting.
So who were the leaders in the times of Yeshua? What determined leadership? The Sanhedrin of course. Who led the Sanhedrin? Depends. Sometimes the “house” of Hillel (liberal); sometimes the “house’ of Shammai (conservative). So who was right? Whoever was in power controlled the Presidency. Just like today 2000 years later. Does mean that Hillel or Shammai was correct in their interpretation? No! Just that that party had control of the arguments as presented to the court. Think USA Supreme Court today. No different. Conservatives will typically win, AT THE MOMENT. So Yeshua was presenting a more “liberal” interpretation of what the biblical “Pharisees” (conservatives) were saying.
But like Harry Truman used to say, the right thing to do is always the right thing to do. And I think that is the essence of the Yeshua Messianic message. DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE RIGHT REASON as per Torah. It might seem complicated but it is not, unless WE make it complicated.
You also say, “the narrator relates that “the Jews” (Pharisees) wanted to kill Jesus for healing on the Sabbath.” You define “the Jews” as being “Pharisees”.
Who are Pharisees? Every person associated with “Pharisaic” interpretation? I think not. Too “Christian Biblical” interpretation for me. Too much whitewash I can’t buy. Sorry. Fake news.
George,
Interesting. I find it interesting that you disregarded this statement …and their son was indeed excommunicated because he was (a) healed on the Sabbath (9:13-16: “some of the Pharisees”) and (b) affirmed Jesus as being “from God” (9:34).. In that context some did, some didn’t. Thus, to your: Who are Pharisees? Every person associated with “Pharisaic” interpretation? I think my phraseology above does not assume that “every person associated with ‘Pharisaic’ interpretation” is a Pharisee. Perhaps we agree more than we disagree.
My issue with Paul is not whether he was a Pharisee or if he had tendered his resignation to the Sanhedrin or even if any of the lessons he had learned from Gamliel leeched into his Messianic practices and teachings, but rather how much were his writings influenced by his own intellectual prowess? How much did his knowledge of Babylonian mystery religions, Jewish apocalypticism, the many pagan philosophical schools of the period or Hellenism in general, influence his preaching and teaching? Did his genius guide his writing hand more than the “inspiration of the Spirit.” It seems to me that his fascination and emphasis on the philosophical and systematic theological issues such as soteriology, eschatology, apocalypticism, High Christology, while certainly the basis of the intellectual arm of Christianity, asphyxiated the elementary elements of the gospel of the kingdom as taught by the Messiah himself. All well perhaps, for the Roman audiences he evangelized, but, I fear, even as Paul himself did of those in Corinth, “that somehow your minds may be seduced away from simple and pure devotion to the Messiah.” Was it Paul’s own intellectualism that was the seductive enchantment that led Protestantism into a fascination, some would say obsession, with Gnosticism and our modern “knowing versus doing” mentality?
(not that I’d do anything about it, but I would like to know!)
Michael,
I don’t know if one can know. But, I think Paul’s extensive knowledge in those areas was well-used in various apologetic endeavors—to great effect, I’ll add. Mars Hill is one example. To the charismatically-exuberant and Hellenistically influenced Corinthians Paul used the poetry of Menander (1 Cor 15:33) in service of his counter to those who denied the resurrection. His background in the mystery religions, etc., helped him counter the Colossian heresy—whatever that was exactly.
But I think we should trust that Messiah knew how effective Paul would be or He wouldn’t have chosen him as His instrument.
Speaking for myself for the moment, after encountering errant Christology that appeared to have neo-Gnostic underpinnings, I bought a number of associated occult literature in order to see for myself if this was the case. If one were to look at one part of my personal library, one might think me a Theosophist! But reading those books (well, skimming some) really helped me in my own apologetic endeavors. When I see certain phraseology I recognize its source. I think the current lure of neo-Gnosticism has more of a spiritual source—due, in part, to my understanding of eschatology (and pneumatology).
As regards the Gospel of the Kingdom, how one views Paul’s effectiveness will be determined by how one interprets what the Gospel of the Kingdom means.
I think we should keep in mind that in many of Paul’s writings he is responding to specific issues. Even his writings on eschatology were in response to the concerns of some who feared they’d missed Jesus’ return.
I wouldn’t think of Paul as a ‘knower’ over a ‘doer’. As for his apologetics, it was his knowledge that provided the necessary background for his ‘doing’.
A bit ago I turned on local Christian radio, as it was time for Aaron Budjen of Living God Ministries. While studying to be a Rabbi, Budjen “discovered Jesus as his Messiah”, and is now a pastor. Ironically, the show had already started, and what I heard him saying as soon as I turned it on was (paraphrase) that one had to choose between observing the Sabbath as a Pharisee or as Jesus would, for the two are contradictory. Below is the entire radio segment (which is part of a larger series):
livinggodministries dot net/living_god_ministries/radio_archive/audio_files/sabbath_law_5_criteria_for_life.mp3
Craig: I listened to about half of the audio program. I stopped when I got to the statement “The Law is over!” I disagree. The commandments of God get written on our hearts… that is the New Covenant according to Jeremiah 31 as well as NT writers. Think of a country that does not need police because the laws of the land are thoroughly written on the hearts of all citizens. Let me ask you about James and the myriads (tens of thousands) of Jewish believers referenced in Acts 21:20 “all zealous for the Torah”. Were these people duped? No! Can you give me one or more examples where Paul broke the Torah requirements? He honoured the Sabbath, made sure he got back to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost etc. Anyway good discussion… and thank you for your service to country many years ago..and today as well! Shalom
HSB,
Unfortunately, we are ‘talking’ past each other, I fear. You wrote, in part “The commandments of God get written on our hearts”. On that we agree, and I do believe Budjen does as well. I never said Paul broke any of the Torah. I don’t think he did. I fully believe he continued to observe the Sabbath, but I don’t think he did so as per the strictness (over-zealousness) of the Pharisees any longer–that is, e.g., that one cannot heal on the Sabbath, walk a certain amount of steps for fear of ‘working’, etc. I mean, the now-healed paralytic was scolded for picking up his mat! (John 5:10).
What do you make of Peter’s affirmation of Paul’s writings in his statement that they are being distorted by some as they also do “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16)?
Thank you for this clear and concise clarification, Skip!
As usual, that helped me a lot, Skip. Thank you. Whew! I thought for a minute there that you were disregarding Yeshua’s words as the final authority on the Torah. As for the later letters, I think you make a good point that something can be “inspired” of God, but STILL not be applicable to all people at all times. Likewise, much of the Torah, too (big exception being what was spoken by YHVH at Sinai – just as the words of Yeshua are the big exception in the NT), is only applicable for certain people at certain times. I agree that we need to be able to separate the two, as it seems to me you are diligently trying to do (and teach us how, too). And thank you for that!
My point is that the Tanakh and the NT have the same authority–in distinction from other writings. In answer to the Devil’s commands/temptations Yeshua consistently answered with, “It is written (graphō)…”, referring to the Tanakh. In John’s Gospel, the narrator states that some of Jesus’ words spoken were to be fulfilled prophetically (18:9, 18:32; cf. 2:22). (And in 17:12 it is not clear to what Scripture Yeshua refers–the Tanakh or His own words?) Doesn’t this–and what has already been written above–imply that the two authorities, the Tanakh and the NT, have equal weight?
Craig, whenever I read the word “implied” employed, I cringe. That is what I invariably hear eventually when the Trinity is explained.
Not good enough for me.
Also, I look forward to the possibility of seeing how Jewish expositors assess the NT writings when they begin to look at them apart from their preconceptions and biases…evaluating them as they do the writings of the Tanach. I may have to wait a bit for that.
Richard,
I’m aware of at least one that attempts just that (which references another—see below). In the multi-author book New Perspectives in John (Lozada and Thatcher), Matthew Kraus’ contribution titled “New Jewish Directions in the Study of the Fourth Gospel” concludes:
Thanks, Craig!
You are all correct. However, when the NT writers spoke of the Scriptures, the only ones they had were from the Tenach. We, on the other hand, have the wonderful hindsight and added messages (inspired, I believe) of Yeshua and His disciples. Maybe Skip’s point that we tend to have tunnel vision is the problem here?
…except Peter referring to Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:15-16) and the narrator in John speaking about Yeshua prophetically fulfilling His own words (John 18:9, 18:32; cf. 2:22; 17:12).
Who cares? Much ado about nothing. Do people really think this is important? What is that about ivory towers.
I care, Marsha. Discussions like these allow us to gain perspectives that come from outside our own experiences, and that can lead to us taking a path that leads to life rather than destruction…that was my experience. I’m often confronted with perpectives and beliefs I canot abide; then I choose to respectfully disengage. But I appreciate that we must be willing to allow for the variety of thoughts and comparative value found in those thoughts, “bearing with one another in love”. Thank you for reminding us to be considerate of what we share.
Your sarcasm is misplaced. You might not care because you think you have the answers, but that only displays fideism, not exegetical investigation.
Hello Marsha … at the end of the day faith matters. At the end of the day love matters
1 Corinthians 2:4-5 … And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom [using clever rhetoric], but [they were delivered] in demonstration of the [Holy] Spirit [operating through me] and of [His] power [stirring the minds of the listeners and persuading them], so that your FAITH would not rest on the wisdom and rhetoric of men, but on the power of God.
1 Corinthians 13:1-3 … If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love [for others growing out of God’s love for me], then I have become only a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal [just an annoying distraction]. And if I have the gift of prophecy [and speak a new message from God to the people], and understand all mysteries, and [possess] all knowledge; and if I have all [sufficient] faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love [reaching out to others], I am nothing. If I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it does me no good at all.
“…What’s the lesson here? Ah, don’t be so hasty to think that you have the right reading of the text. Maybe you need to listen to another way and see if it also makes sense…”
Luke 10:25–26 (ESV):
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?”
Excellent word, thank you.
(I am just catching up on many TWs. My thanks to all contributors.)
Skip, in his first blog comment says, regarding N.T. writers, “But just as clearly, they don’t indicate that they think of their work as on par with the Tanakh”
I disagree. The first verses that come to my mind are these (KJV)
Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
God MADE Paul a minister of His WORD, and was GIVEN a dispensation. Sounds pretty authoritative to me. To FULFIL His word.
Fulfil = pleroo, Strong writes, to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction)
Not in the least am I denigrating the Tanakh, but God’s word was not yet, “pleroo”, complete, nor manifest.
Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
On whose authority would we Gentiles have ever known the secret that we are part of the Christ, (the Anointed), without Paul revealing that this was God’s declaration? Without an authoritative N.T. we Gentiles have nothing.