WHAT IS A “BACKSTORY” AND IS IT HELPFUL FOR UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE?

When reading commentaries or books addressing social issues confronting Christianity and the church, one often encounters discussions about the historical contexts of biblical passages. This information is occasionally referred to as a specific passage’s “backstory.” It is often claimed that these backstories are essential for correctly understanding the Bible. Discovering additional relevant historical data can be beneficial when seeking to understand a biblical text, while at other times is can lead to wild speculations. Usually if a backstory is going to be of real value, then the biblical author usually provides ancillary details alluding to it within the passage (e.g., Mark 7.3-4; the maniacal practices of Pharisees concerning ritual cleansings). However, there are times in which extra-biblical research is necessary in order to discover valuable insight concerning the backstory of a biblical text. An example would be the concept of Jewish “betrothal” in Matthew 1.18-19. That Joseph might break up with Mary upon learning of her pregnancy before they were “married” would not be hard to understand for modern audiences. Of course he would break up with her!  However, in first-century Judaism there were significant moral, social, legal, and financial issues at stake. The situation was not the equivalent of a modern day breakup. Joseph and Mary’s situation was equivalent to a divorce, but there again confusion often arises for modern audiences. How can there be a divorce if a couple is not actually married or has not consummated their marriage? Consequently, research into the backstory regarding Jewish betrothal customs is necessary for a precise understanding about this event as found in Matthew’s Gospel.

Another example is Mark 3.6, in which the Pharisees began plotting “with the Herodians” concerning how to kill Jesus. If one simply assumes that the Pharisees got together with another like-minded group for the purposes of destroying Jesus and his ministry, then they would be mislead. The reality is that the Pharisees and Herodians were theological and political opposites. The Pharisees were spiritually minded religious conservatives that were looking for the Messiah that would be of pure Jewish ethnicity and a direct descendent of King David. The Herodians, on the other hand, were Jewish leaders that were the functional equivalent of Greek secularists that were happy for Judah to be ruled by Herodian Dynasty, which originated with Herod the Great. Herod the Great was Edomite by his father and Jewish through his mother. To put it bluntly, the Pharisees viewed the Herodians as a leprous blight on the purity of Judean rulers. The Herodians were not real Jews in their opinion because they did not live like them or believe in their brand of Judaism. Nevertheless, Mark documents that early in his ministry the Pharisees felt so threatened by Jesus that they ignored their differences with the Herodians in order to create an alliance with them. These are a few examples in which knowing relevant historical data can provide greater insight into a passage’s backstory and thus a better understanding of it.

Regrettably, however, there are many other examples in which people “invent” backstories to justify their erroneous interpretations of specific biblical passages. One example is that the apostle Paul was too bound to his “patriarchal culture and worldview”; consequently, he could not imagine women serving as elders in local churches. Or that he had pedophilia or temple prostitution in mind as he wrote about biblical prohibitions concerning homosexual behavior in Romans 1.26-28. Consequently, he would never prohibit monogamous marriages between loving gay couples. In cases such as these, people create incongruent backstories that are based solely upon what they believe was in the mind of the biblical author. In other cases, they create possible scenarios that a biblical text provides no allusion to in order to support their contradictory interpretations. Regrettably, anyone can invent a “backstory” that in their mind justifies their interpretation of a biblical text.

However, the essential question is whether or not a biblical text provides any details that require further investigation into its “backstory.” That being said, the reality is that if a biblical author provided no historical clues with respect to what he wrote, then whatever backstory that one might create has little value for correctly interpreting what has been written. Again, using the passages from Matthew and Mark as examples, even if one is confused about Joseph and Mary’s marital status, one can still understand the meaning of the text; specifically, that Joseph and Mary were somehow viewed as married even though they had not consummated their union until after Jesus’ birth. Similarly, in Mark one learns that the Pharisees began recruiting others for the purposes of assassinating Jesus. That they recruited political opposites only reveals their desperation; nevertheless, it does not change the reality that the Pharisees went on the offensive and began recruiting others in order to form a politically powerful alliance against the Jesus. The bottom line is that one should be mindful that backstories are only relevant if they are based upon historical data actually contained in the biblical text. Generally speaking, relevant information will be found in what the biblical author wrote, while at other times it may be found in what other authors wrote (e.g., Luke’s parable of the “Good Samaritan” and John’s explanation that “Jews had no dealings with Samaritans”; Jn 4.9). In short, we should always rely solely upon the information provided by a biblical author to guide our exposition and application of the scriptures. And we must always reject contrived backstories invented by others for the purpose of undermining what a biblical passage clearly teaches.

Copyright @ 2023 Monte Shanks

Read Full Post »

What is “Q” and What Is the “Synoptic Problem”?

Have you every wondered what “Q” is and why it is so often mentioned with respect to the New Testament Gospels? Then consider watching this brief video from ASKABIBLEPROF.COM. It explains what Q is and how it has impacted Gospel studies. Another helpful video from ASKABIBLEPROF.COM. Just look for us on YouTube, Facebook, and the web.

Read Full Post »

WHEN RAGE IS THE RAGE WHAT ARE CHRISTIANS TO DO?

One would have to be blind to not know that rage is in vogue these days. Secular society has embraced rage because it justifies their cancel culture. The logic goes as follows: if you disagree with my truth, my beliefs, my behaviors, and my values then your speech promotes violence against me. Consequently, that makes you a danger to me and the greater society; therefore, your perspective should be banned from the public square if for no other reason than to protect those that may be harmed by your speech. In other words, they feel that they have a moral imperative to suppress your views because you present a danger to the general well-being of society. And the more we object, then the more we will receive their wrath. The result is that rage is reasonable, justifiable, and now fashionable.

That being said, what are Christians to do as they attempt to promote truth, justice, and godliness among those that reject them?  Well, the scriptures explain how we are to interact with those that oppose us.  A good start is found in James 1:20, “. . . for a man’s anger does not bring about the righteousness of God.”  Whatever behavior that our greater culture is impressed by, one’s anger (i.e., aggressive behavior and vitriolic speech) is not the means by which God’s accomplishes his purposes. Given this principle, James encouraged us to be “. . . quick to hear and slow to speak and be slow to anger” (Jm 1:19).  Of course, James didn’t mean that we should never be angry. Things occur every day that generate anger within us (e.g., shootings, rape, robbery, etc.).  Nevertheless, his point is that when we lose control and lash out in anger at others, then that which is right in God’s eyes is the first victim of our behavior. Consequently, believers are called to disciplined speech. Does that mean that we will always win the day when we are debating those that disagree with us? Of course not, but if we desire to please God and accomplish his purposes, then we must check our anger at the door. Behaving in an angry manner at others who oppose us is a non-starter for those that claim Jesus as their Lord. 

Next, Jesus himself said the following: “. . . bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Lk 6:28), and “But I say to you, love your enemies . . .” (Matt 5:44a).  Even though it may be hard to remember while in an intense discussion, Jesus calls us to love and pray for those that slander us as dangerous bigots. If you think that such a request is unrealistic, then you only need to remember that Jesus loves and died for the very ones who are arguing with you. Consequently, we please Him by squelching our anger and giving ourselves to loving them and praying that the Holy Spirit will illuminate their hearts. If you don’t think that you could pray for those that slander you, then that is more of an indictment of you and your attitude about prayer.

Having learned to control our emotions, then we are to ensure that we are “. . . speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15a). Paul made this admonition after exhorting us to make sure that we are no longer childlike with respect to the issues we discuss. As a result we are immune to the “trickery” and “craftiness” of deceitful people (vs 14). This capacity requires that we do some heavy lifting to ensure that we have the facts straight about whatever we are addressing since ignorance is never attractive. That means no longer living by the sound bites of others, but finding out the truth and promoting it rather than someone else’s deficient biases.  Such a commitment is particularly important during election cycles. Thoreau wrote, “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth” (Walden, or Life in the Woods, 249). In general, people thirst for love before anything else. Nevertheless, many also have an insatiable hunger for truth, and they know it when they hear it. Which is why Jesus said that “. . . the truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32). He knew that once those who hunger for truth find it, then they are liberated from all other deceits. 

And Jesus wasn’t referring to Oprah Winfrey’s personal subjectivism, which she famously labels as “my truth.” He was referring to reality; he was referring to eternal truth. Consequently, telling genuine truth is inherently a loving act. Regrettably, however, it can be done in an unloving manner.  Therefore, how we speak the truth is as important as speaking it. Notice that Paul didn’t simply write “just love others” or “just speak the truth,” instead he exhorted us to speak the truth with love. It doesn’t matter whether we are interacting with others in person or posting something on social media, wherever and however we interact others, truth should be on our lips and genuine love and concern should be our demeanor.

Today we are plagued by a deceitful global relativism that is labeled as “truth” but in reality is anything but it. More than ever the world needs truth, whether it’s moral, social, political, or spiritual. Consequently, Christians need to be devoted anew to publicly speaking the truth in love in all forms of public dialogue. And speaking it to others will be costly. Some claim that George Orwell once said that in “a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” While the quote can’t be found in any of his writings, it’s quite appropriate for our time. More importantly, withholding truth from those who need it most for fear of self-preservation is a hateful act. That we lovingly speak the truth is no guarantee that we will be tolerated or accepted. But as stated earlier, speaking the truth with rage is a non-starter. Therefore, if we hope to win those hungering for truth, then speaking it with love can only aid in their receiving it.

So what are Christians to do when rage is the rage? They are to reject rage and embrace knowledge of the truth and love for it. We also need to love those that are seeking after truth, as well as those that oppose it and us. Does it mean that our world’s cancel culture will respect us; probably not. But when it comes to being on the side of right, it is always better to stand for the truth. W. Clement Stone is believed to have said, “Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief, or ignorance.” Jesus is the epitome and source of all truth; consequently, he calls us to lovingly promote truth wherever it is in jeopardy. For if we are faithful to the truth in general, then we may earn the trust of others and hopefully they will listen as we share the truth about Jesus.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2022

Read Full Post »

WHY DID JESUS GET BAPTIZED?

Many Christian reading the Gospels find it confusing that Jesus came to John the Baptist for baptism.  Specifically, they find it odd because if Jesus was in fact sinless, then why would he need to present himself to John since John’s baptism was for “repentance” and the “forgiveness of sins” (cf., Mk 1.3-4, Lk 3.3). John called for the Jews to repent of their sins and be baptized in preparation for the arrival of their promised Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ (Mt 3.1-11).  John himself hesitated when Jesus came to him for baptism, stating that “I need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” (Mt 3.14). Before attempting to answer this question we should first understand that there is a difference between John’s baptism and Christian baptism.  We should not think of John’s baptism as we do Christian baptism. John’s baptism was a moment of personal repentance and confession in preparation for the Messiah’s arrival. Whereas Christian baptism is performed after one has already come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and trusted him for their personal sin debt; consequently, Christians are baptized in order to publicly identify with the Lord and to proclaim that salvation is received only through faith in his name alone (cf., Mt 28.18; Jn 14.6; Acts 4.12, 8.12).  Even the apostle Paul made it clear that John’s baptism was insufficient for being identified with the Lord (cf., Acts 19.1-5).  So both baptisms were and are public identifications with the Jesus.  John’s baptism was a unique Jewish rite in preparation for the Messiah’s first advent; whereas Christian baptism is the public declaration of a repentant sinner that he or she has trusted the Lord Jesus Christ and received his gracious gift of eternal life. Nevertheless, the question still remains, since Jesus had no need of repentance, then why did he allow John to baptism him?

 

The question is an interesting one, and even John the Baptist was trouble by this very paradox, which is obvious by his statement that “I need to be baptized by You.”  Jesus assuaged John’s hesitation by saying “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Jesus’ reply makes it clear that whatever his reasons were for being, they were “necessary” to “fulfill all righteousness.” Everyone seeking to answer this question wishes that Jesus would have been more precise, but he wasn’t.  Therefore, we are left to wonder why or how does Jesus’ baptism fulfill “all righteousness.”  Jesus’ answer does provide a clue, which is that his baptism fulfilled a spectrum of concerns with respect to righteousness.  This is obvious by his use of the adjective “all.” While the words “all” and “righteousness” are both singular, Jesus’ answer implies that his baptism is not understood with a single justification, but by a multiplicity of explanations. Consequently, below is a list of some common suggestions with a brief evaluation of each.

 

• Some think that Jesus was baptized because it was the “Christian” thing to do. However, Christianity as a unique faith and movement did not commence until after Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Furthermore, at the moment of Jesus’ baptism there was no such thing as “Christianity.” As previously explained, John’s baptism was a unique Jewish ritual in preparation for the Messiah’s arrival; consequently, John’s baptism was not a “Christian” initiation ritual in the sense that we understanding it today.

 

• Some suggest that Jesus submitted to baptism in order to identify with sinners. This is not acceptable at all. Why would the sinless Messiah need to identify with sinners?  It was sinners that needed to identify with the Messiah, not the other way around.  Moreover, this ideal of the Messiah identifying with sinners didn’t even work for John, which is obviously why he balked at the very idea that Jesus needed to be baptized. Furthermore, John was convinced that Jesus was the one that should perform John’s own baptism.  Consequently, Jesus’ baptism was not a way for him to identify with sinners.

 

• A similar theory is that Jesus was in agreement with John’s message, which was a call to Israel to repent. This theory is at times put another way, which is that Jesus’ baptism was an affirmation of John’s message. Certainly Jesus would have agreed with John that the nation of Israel needed to repent, such agreement would not require Jesus to be baptized. Instead, it would again mean that John and all Jews should have presented themselves to Jesus for baptism for the same reasons as previously explained.

 

• Some have suggested that Jesus’ baptism was a way for him to identify with the new era of God’s kingdom plan for salvation. This view has some merit, but it fails under further inspection. God was fulfilling his promises to Israel concerning their hope for the Messiah through Jesus’ very arrival, as well as God’s promise to Abraham to provide the ultimate provision for universal blessings to all the earth (Gen 12.1-3; Gal 3.6-9). Therefore, the Jews needed to cleanse themselves in preparation for their Messiah—as proclaimed by John.  Thus, the problem with this theory is that the commencement of the “kingdom of God” on earth came with Jesus’ incarnation and not his baptism.  Therefore, Jesus’ didn’t need a baptism in order to prepare for his own arrival.  Consequently, Jesus was not baptized to “identify” with God’s kingdom.  Moreover, as the incarnate Son of God, Jesus was always in harmony with God and participating in his kingdom; therefore, he didn’t need baptism in order to initiate or achieve any greater harmony with God.

 

• Jesus presented himself for baptism so that John could publicly identify that Jesus was the promised Messiah. John himself explained that this was one of the primary reasons why God sent him to baptize (Jn 1.29-34). This assertion has by far the most biblical support (Jn 1.6-8). Consequently, Jesus did not participate in John’s baptism so that he would identify with sinners, but so that he would be identified to John stated that God told him precisely how he would know who the Messiah was, which was that he would see the Holy Spirit lighting upon him in the form of a dove. When John saw this “sign,” he then fulfilled an essential element of his mission, which was to publicly identify that Jesus was the “son of God.”

 

• Additionally, my personal opinion is that Jesus viewed his baptism as an opportunity to participate in an initiation rite of dedication into the ministry, similar to that which was performed upon the High Priest as commanded by God (e.g., Lev 8.1-30). Thus, the water used in John’s baptism was symbolic of Jesus leaving behind (i.e., washing away) all other secular endeavors so that he would be dedicated solely to the ministry to which God had called him. If one reviews the sacrifices required in Leviticus 8, they will note that a blood sacrifice was mandated as a covering for the High Priest’s sins. However, since Jesus was sinless, then no such sacrifice was necessary.  Therefore, Jesus was publicly dedicating himself before man and his heavenly Father to the ministry that God had called him to—i.e., preaching the message concerning repentance and the kingdom of God. Since Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, then it was not necessary for him to meet all the initiation rituals required for the High Priest as prescribed in the Mosaic Law.  Nevertheless, Jesus used John’s baptism as an opportunity to go through a washing of renewal to that which God the Father had called him since he was starting a new chapter in his life, one that required him to completely dedicate himself to the ministry of preaching and teaching that the kingdom of God had arrived. It was not as if Jesus’ previous secular endeavors were “sinful,” but only that they were no longer part of his life. The Gospel accounts make clear that neither John nor anyone else realized precisely why Jesus chose to be baptized.  Jesus explained, however, that it was necessary for him to fulfill “all righteousness.” Consequently, Jesus used John’s baptism for a purpose that was beyond John’s and everyone else’s immediate comprehension.

 

I’m sure there are other theories that attempt to answer this question; nevertheless, this blog addresses only a few of the more common ones.  The short answer is that it was God’s will for Jesus to be baptized.  Certainly God the Father’s purposes for Jesus’ baptism were not the same as those of repentant sinners.  In closing, I hope that you found this discussion helpful. Additionally, if you have trusted Jesus as your savior and Lord but have yet to be baptized as the result of your own personal decision, then please consider asking your church leadership to schedule a time for you to be baptized so that you may personally obey Lord’s commandment concerning baptism (Mt 28.19-20). Moreover, at your baptism take a moment to affirm to those present that you have already received eternal life by trusting solely in Jesus’ gracious sacrificial death and glorious resurrection, and that you are being baptized so that you may publicly declare your devotion, loyalty, and submission to his lordship over your life.

_{Copyright, © Monte Shanks 2018}

Read Full Post »

THE HOAX THAT IS “MEDICAL” MARIJUANA

Americans love myths and hoaxes.  Unicorns are very popular with small children; and even though most know that they are not real, they still love to play with them just the same. And then there are adults who believe in alien abductions. Some believe that America didn’t really put men on the moon, arguing that it was all just an elaborate hoax filmed in Hollywood using special effects.  Others think that “Piltdown Man” is real and still a link of the human evolutionary chain. And of course some believe that our own government was behind the 911 attack.  All of these are hoaxes and myths.  However, the greatest hoax promoted today is the concept of “medical marijuana.”

Now before continuing, I would first like to make an important qualification. I have no doubt that within the differing types of marijuana plants around the world that there may be chemical compounds that have legitimate medical benefits, and with thorough research they can be harnessed and standardized for productive medical usages.  But that is not what is being promoted today by the term “medical marijuana.”  This term is used as a propaganda tool in order to promote the idea throughout America that marijuana can be a good thing; consequently, recreational marijuana is not all that bad.

First, there are a few facts one should know about marijuana.  Marijuana is addictive just like morphine and cocaine.  The CDC states that 1 out of 10 adults that regularly use marijuana become addicted to it, and among teenagers that percentage rises to 1 out of 6.  Furthermore, one side effect of marijuana is that it changes a person’s personality and motivation, especially if used while a teenager.  It turns many who are transitioning from youth to adulthood from potentially functional and productive citizens, to apathetic and directionless addicts—this I have seen with my own eyes.  Secondly, marijuana is a carcinogenic, which means it can cause cancer.  In case you have never learned how one smokes marijuana, then you should know that the key to getting a high is to inhale the smoke into your lungs as deeply as possible and then hold it there for as long as possible (I know this because even though I never used marijuana, I grew up with a lot of kids that grew it for themselves).  This practice of holding smoke in one’s lungs enables THC to get into the blood stream sooner and more thoroughly, thereby receiving a greater “high.”  The problem with this practice it also embeds carcinogenic compounds more systemically throughout one’s lungs.  This issue is exacerbated when you realize after a while users begin to experience highs that are both shorter and less intense. Consequently, they begin searching for more potent strands of marijuana, and in their constant search for higher highs they not only inhale it more deeply, but they also inhale it in greater amounts as well. Consequently, marijuana is a danger to one’s emotional, physical, and psychological stability, and threatens one’s ability to think and behave in a mature and productive manner. Lastly and regrettably, for many others marijuana has been a gateway drug to more harmful and addictive drugs—the evidence for which is undisputable.

Now just a few facts about how pharmaceuticals are approved in the United States. The FDA mandates that not only must potential medications go through a strenuous multistage research process involving years or even decades, but also that the entire research methodology must meet their exacting standards.  So, the FDA not only has oversight with respect to which drugs may be approved for development, but it also demands that the research method for potential medications must produce a standardized and reproducible result, and this is done so that the results of the research can be verified through duplication. This entire process is how the FDA ensures a drug’s health benefit.  While some may criticize what the FDA requires and what it allows with respect to pharmaceutical research, the fact is that this process has produced some of the most effective and beneficial medications used throughout the world today. I know this because my father worked for several pharmaceutical companies and has even represented some of them at the FDA’s headquarters in Maryland.

So what is really happening with the concept of “medical marijuana?”  First of all, the concept of “medical marijuana” is a complete farce. FDA approved “medicines” must meet controlled standards that ensure that the proper amount of the active ingredient is actually dispensed per dosage. Receiving a safe dosage is not possible when smoking a joint purchased from a legal medical cannabis dealer (which is now legal in 32 states), or was grown in his or her backyard. And while our country is plagued with an opioid crisis, a minority of Americans is fighting for the right to use marijuana at will. Even ex-House Speaker John Boehner has become an informal spokesman for the marijuana industry.  The growing attitude towards recreational cannabis seems to be that people have a right to smoke marijuana as a part of their “pursuit of happiness.” That clause in our nation’s Declaration of Independence is not a suicide pact between the individual and America’s greater culture.  If an individual’s pursuit of happiness guarantees harm to 1000s of others, then that individual is ethically bound to find a new pursuit. For example, if the president of Ford asserts that he is happiest by producing vehicles that explode into pieces when involved in a minor fender bender, then it doesn’t matter that his happiness may be suppressed, the American government is justified in protecting the American people by not allowing Mr Ford to produce cars that are known to be dangerous.  It doesn’t matter if Mr Ford never experiences a fender bender where his car own blows up, the fact is that others will be harmed badly by his cars; consequently, he is ethically and legally prohibited from his “pursuit of happiness.” Nevertheless, while the American population is being deceived into thinking marijuana is really a good thing, our state governments are no longer interested in fighting to protect our communities from this dangerous hoax. Instead, they see commercialized marijuana as just another tax revenue stream. And there is one last consideration with respect to medical marijuana, if you think medical malpractice is a problem for the American healthcare system, how many lawyers can you imagine are waiting in the wings for the chance to file suits on behalf of patients that were either injured in accidents while under the influence of cannabis, or contracted cancer or other debilitating diseases because it was prescribed to them? If you think you are tired of class action lawsuit commercials now, then you haven’t seen anything yet.

So what is the point of this blog?  The point is that as marijuana usage increasingly becomes normalized (whether illegal, recreational, or even medical usage), then churches will need to develop a biblical position that addresses what will be acceptable behavior from their leaders, as well as what will be tolerated within their official ministries, on their properties, and at their facilities.  And if you think this is just a big to do about nothing, I actually know of an Evangelical minister that has tolerated marijuana usage in his own the home; and to my knowledge he has yet to be fired.  Regrettably, one thing I know from personal experience about marijuana users is this, they are evangelistic about marijuana!  While the church may not be concerned with promoting the benefits of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, marijuana users are never shy about what great “fun” you can have by getting stoned with them. Even though marijuana is never mentioned in the Bible, we are told that we should never be adversely influenced or controlled by any mood or mind altering substances, but instead we are to be under the constant guidance and influence of the Holy Spirit (Eph 5.15-18; Luke 21.34-36; 2 Tim 2.2). It is not well-defended suggestion to assert that although Paul and Jesus condemned drunkenness, they would have been okay with smoking an occasional joint in order to enhance one’s creativity and relaxation.  Moreover, churches need to come to grips with the fact that they will lose attendees because they take a stand on the dangers involving marijuana usage.  And don’t be surprised if they don’t leave quietly, the scriptures clearly state that they will also attempt to smear your church’s reputation before others (1 Peter 4.1-4). Do addicts and drug users need the Lord, they surely do.  Do some believers become addicts, regrettably this is also true.  Nevertheless, while Jesus may have turned water into wine, he certainly would not have rolled a joint or fired up a bong.  Consequently, the church needs to prepare itself with a well-grounded biblical perspective concerning drug abuse; as well as a compassionate and effective ministry that receives those seeking refuge from its life draining side effects. One of today’s greatest hoaxes is the concept of “medical marijuana,” and believing that drug use is not really a concern for the church is as helpful as playing with unicorns.

Copyright @ 2018 Monte Shanks

Read Full Post »

DID PAUL AND JAMES DISAGREE ON THE ISSUE OF FAITH AND WORKS?

DOES FAITH PLUS WORKS SECURE SALVATION?

One observation that is often raised when reading the Epistle of James is that James’s teaching about the relationship between works and faith seems to “contradict” what Paul taught on the subject.  One thing we should remember with respect to the Epistle of James is that in all probably it is earlier than any of Paul’s letters.  Some seemed to think that James is disagreeing with Paul.  However, with respect to chronology, if anyone is disagreeing with someone, it would have been Paul disagreeing with James, and not vice versa.  However, contrary to what some may assert, there is no real conflict between these two early church leaders, a fact which is objectively documented in Acts 15.13-29 and Galatians 2.7-9.

Nevertheless, some perceive a conflict when they attempt to understand James’s use of the word “justify” through Paul’s use of the very same word.  Before turning my attention to James’s use, an important observation should be made concerning his theology on salvation.  James never taught that a person is saved through works alone.  James mentions the word “faith” just as many times as he mentions the word “works” (actually more if one includes relative pronouns and synonyms).  For James, faith and works were different sides of the same coin rather than two separate actions or entities.  His problem, however, was with those claiming belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and yet showed little objective evidence of it in their lives.  So let’s be clear, James was not concerned with performing religious works for the sake of securing justification before God, but rather with certain types of works that reveal genuine saving faith.

Now as to James’s and Paul’s use of the word “justify.”  When Paul used the word “justify” he almost exclusively used it in the forensic sense.  In other words, he used in the context of God’s declaration of a new completed reality.  More specifically, he used it to describe what God declares as an accomplished status for sinners through their faith in Christ (Rom 5.1, 8-9; 1 Cor 6.9-11; Titus 3.5-7).  And just for the record, when God declares something accomplished, it is then a reality—it no longer should be thought of as belonging to the realm of the potential.  Generally speaking, therefore, when Paul used the word “justify,” he was predominantly describing what God has accomplished for a sinner in spite of his/her guilt.  In God’s courtroom, he declares the repentant sinner justified and thus righteous in His eyes because of Christ’s payment for his or her sin debt.

This is not what James meant as he used the word “justify.”  If this word had only one nuance or one specific meaning in which it always meant the exact same thing in every context, then unquestionably Paul and James would be in conflict.  However, it does not have the same exact meaning in every context, and even Paul and Jesus also used this very word with a very different nuance.  And what is this different meaning?  It is the meaning or sense of “vindication.”  As previously explained, Paul predominantly used the word with the meaning of God declaring a guilty but repentant sinner as “justified” through his or her acceptance of Christ as their savior, and thus he has confirmed upon them a new status.  However, in a different context, the proper understanding of this word is “to vindicate or acknowledge that the righteous were already in fact what they claimed to be, which is ‘righteous.’”  In other words, it is not a declaration of a new state of being, but a declaration that what was previously claimed was in fact true. Following are examples of where Paul and Jesus used this word with this very meaning.   The first is Romans 3.4 with respect to God’s judgments.  The question we should ask ourselves is this, are God’s declarations ever wrong or incorrect?  No, they are not.  In this passage, therefore, God’s judgments are not being declared right in spite of the fact that they were not, but rather they are being “proved right” (NIV) or vindicated as being right.   Again, in 1 Timothy 3.16 Paul stated that Jesus was “vindicated” (NASB) by the Holy Spirit during his earthly ministry.  In other words, the Holy Spirit did not declare Jesus as right in spite of himself, rather the Spirit revealed or vindicated Jesus to be what he already was, which was the righteous one sent by God.  And lastly, Jesus stated in Matthew 11:19 that “Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds” (NABS).  Did Jesus mean that wisdom needs to be declared right in spite of itself, or that wisdom is vindicated to be exactly what it is (i.e., wisdom) by her deeds?  Clearly what Jesus meant was that wisdom is always wisdom, and her deeds reveal this to be obvious, because through them the integrity of authentic wisdom is inevitably demonstrated.

And this is exactly James’s point, which is that authentic faith is vindicated as genuine saving faith because it results in a changed life that is habitually faithful, compassionate, and loving.  A mere confession of faith without any works that are the natural result of authentic faith is useless, and therefore dead.  In other words, simply saying that you “believe” in Jesus is not a “hall pass” that excuses your unbelief.  God is not fooled by anyone’s hypocrisy with respect to their relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, let’s take a deeper look at what James actually taught about the relationship of faith and works, as well as his examples of genuine faith. If we look at James’s quote of Genesis 15.6, we see that he states that Abraham’s attempted offering of Isaac “fulfilled” what God had already declared to be true concerning Abraham.  More specifically, Abraham’s actions revealed that he had already sincerely trusted God with for his life and what God had promised him concerning his descendants.  And for the record, James fully understood that God had already declared Abraham righteous well before he placed Isaac upon that alter, which is obvious by James’s quote of Genesis 15.3 (the account of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac is found in Genesis 22).  Again, Rahab’s faith was vindicated as genuine faith by her decision to hide the Israelite spies.  Consequently, her deed proved that she had already truly believed in the God of Israel.  There is something very intriguing about the specific actions of these two OT believers.  Think about them, one attempted sacrifice of a child, and the other was the treasonous act of a harlot.  In other words, they are not the types of compassionate deeds that immediately come to mind when we think of what constitutes “good works.”  When we think of “good works” we think of compassionate acts that show how good we really are, such as feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless.  That is not what Abraham’s and Rahab’s actions demonstrated, their “good deeds” revealed that they had fully trusted God instead of their own capacity to benefit themselves. Consequently, their actions revealed that they already trusted in God and that their faith in him was genuine.  More specifically, they revealed their total abandonment of all that they held dear for nothing more than a belief that God would provide for them. Such dependence is the hallmark of authentic saving faith.

And finally, Jesus as well as all of the other NT writers—including Paul—clearly taught that genuine faith produces “good works” in the lives of those who are saved (Matt 7.16-20; Eph 2.8-9; Titus 2.14; 1 Pet. 2.9-12; 1 Jn 3.13-18).  So, without question the old proverb is soundly biblical, which is as follows: “While works do not save, saving faith works.”  Consequently, James did not teach that salvation is the “reward” for those that believe and perform good works, but that good works are a birthmark of those who how have been already born again.  Our attitude, therefore, should not be that we have to believe in Jesus and do good works in order to earn or secure our salvation, but that because Jesus has already saved us, then we get to do good works that magnify the name of our wonderful savior and glorify God.

Doc

Copyright @ 2013 Monte Shanks

 

 

Read Full Post »

WHY FORM, SOURCE, AND REDACTION CRITICISMS ARE DANGEROUS TO STUDYING JESUS

Historical Criticism did not originate with biblical scholarship; nevertheless, its application to Gospel studies has produced disastrous results.  In order to understand the magnitude of this issue, it is essential to first understand the presuppositions that many liberal and/or secular scholars have about what Jesus “may have taught” and the “opinions” and “needs” of the church towards the end of the first century AD.  These scholars generally believe that the Gospel traditions originally circulated orally for a lengthy period of time after Jesus’ death (this is their “Stage 1” of the evolution of canonical Gospels), radical Form Critics would even argue this period lasted as long as 70 to 100 years.  However, toward the end of this period a number of these oral traditions began to be written down and preserved at different important churches in various regions of the Roman Empire.  Once the greater church realized that the generation responsible for orally transmitting these “traditions” was dying away, they began to congeal these materials, some of which were still oral and some of which were written, into fragmented narratives, which some scholars believe to be separate documents (this is Stage 2 of the evolution of canonical Gospels).  Some radical Source Critics refer to these materials as “Q,” “L,” “M,” and “proto-Mark.”  Furthermore, radical scholars assert that these fragmented narratives were predominately products of Christian communities instead of accurate records from actual eyewitnesses.  After another period of time, specific “redactors” (i.e., editors) gathered these materials and as used them as they composed their respective Gospels (this is Stage 3 of the evolution of canonical Gospels). Additionally, radical Redaction Critics assert that as these redactors used these anonymous sources they imposed upon them their own peculiar brand of theologies as they wrote.  I use the term “radical” for those who hold to these particular presumptions because their positions are unsupported by the historical data and because they abuse the very disciplines within which they are viewed as “experts.”  However, these disciplines are not exclusively used by liberal scholars.  There are conservative Evangelical scholars that use them to engage in constructive research of the Gospels, and they do so using a disciplined and unbiased research methodology.  The disciplines of Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism are actually neutral with respect to their specific fields of research.  The problem occurs when liberal and secular scholars abuse them to promote their own “radical” presuppositions and speculative theories about the trustworthiness of the Gospels.

And what are these dangerous presumptions of these radical scholars? As previously explained they are that the New Testament Gospels are not literary products from the eyewitnesses and immediate disciples of Jesus.  Instead, they are late compilations from multiple anonymous and fragmented sources that are more or less loosely based upon events involving an itinerant rabbi that the modern world refers to as Jesus.  Moreover, as these redactors (i.e., the authors of the canonical Gospels) composed their respective Gospels they imposed upon their sources the urgent felt needs of their Christian communities.  The Gospels are not, therefore, the accurate records of eyewitness accounts provided by Jesus’ immediate followers of what he actually taught and accomplished, but in general they are the “opinions” of regionally organized Christian communities concerning what Jesus might have said about what was really important to them during the time that the Gospels were being composed into their final form, which was almost a century later.

This model of literary development—which combines the disciplines of radical Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism—argues that the canonical Gospels are the products of oral and literary evolution.  Consequently, they suffered from serial redactions over a prolonged period of time in order to meet the ever changing and subjective felt needs of later Christian communities that were far removed from the original events that the Gospels actually document.  To liberal and/or skeptical scholars, therefore, these compositions cannot be trusted to provide any accurate historical evidence concerning the life of Jesus.  Instead, they merely reflect the “opinions” and theology of the organized church during the time in which they were composed.  Then finally, they argue, sometime in the late 4th and early 5th century the institutionalized church “christened” them with the status of “canonical.”

Some might ask, “Why would anyone promote such a ludicrous idea”?  Secular scholars make these conjectures simply because their worldview demands that everything changes and evolves, even things such as literature and religions.  Moreover, they approach all subjects such as philosophy, literature, culture, and religion with a bias against the existence of God and possibility of miracles.  They assert that since God does not exist or that He is not personal or knowable, then miracles cannot and do not occur.  There can be, therefore, only natural explanations for the origins of the Gospels found in the New Testament.  Consequently, they create evolutionary constructs consistent with their worldviews, while simultaneously ignoring all and any evidence to the contrary.  Consequently, their biases, conjectures, and conclusions are usually poorly defended.  Moreover, in many academic disciplines these types of conjectures and presuppositions are only applied to the research of religions, and especially with respect to the origin of Christianity.  For example, when reviewing copies of Chaucer poems, no competent scholar argues that the works of Chaucer have suffered from countless contaminations by the hands of multiple editors that have systemically changed or altered what the original author actually wrote—whoever he or she was.  They do, however, argue about the meaning of his poems, as do many New Testament scholars concerning the words of Jesus—and this is a legitimate endeavor.  Nevertheless, no one argues that the whole of Chaucer’s works are the literary products of serial redactors who did not actually know Chaucer, and the few that might are ultimately relegated to the trash heap of irrelevance—and rightly so.

It is important to note that Evangelical scholars do not reject the disciplines of Historical Criticism outright, but rather they reject the theoretical constructs and presuppositions that radical critics bring to their research of the Gospels.  For example, Evangelical scholars recognize that very early in church’s history there was an “oral” period of gospel proclamation, and that during this period these oral proclamations and traditions were the dominant vehicle for disseminating message and teachings of Jesus. However, this period only lasted for approximately 20 to 25 years before the first canonical Gospel was written. Moreover, this oral period continued to run concurrently as the canonical Gospels were being composed by their respective authors, two of which are literary products from Jesus’ personal disciples (e.g., Matthew and John), while other two were composed by their contemporaries, men with which the apostles were quite familiar (i.e., Mark being a disciple of the apostle Peter; and Luke being a travel companion of the apostle Paul).  Consequently, there is no hard evidence that the message that Jesus commissioned his disciples to proclaim (as documented in the Gospels), and which they faithfully disseminated during the “oral period” of the church’s history has ever suffered from constant subjective revisions or anonymous redactions. The very message that Jesus commissioned his immediate followers to preach is itself preserved and confirmed both in the book of Acts and the epistles of the New Testament. Consequently, Evangelical scholars do not reject the value of Form, Source, and Redaction Criticisms, instead they reject the speculative and undocumented late 3 stage evolutionary construct that radical Form, Source, and Redaction Critics promote while conjecturing about the development and untrustworthiness of the canonical Gospels. In short, the historical record documents that the same people who first orally proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ were also ultimately responsible for it being preserved in its current written form.

Consequently, when someone says that the Gospels are not historically reliable, then we should realize that they do not see them as we do.  Instead they are viewing them through a secular lens, whether intentionally or simply as the result of their passive education.  Regrettably, this perspective originated from the skeptical speculations contrived by radical Historical Critics.  These critics reject all objective historical evidence corroborating that the canonical Gospels are the compositions of Jesus’ immediate follows, and as such they provide eyewitness testimonies concerning him.  Consequently, the canonical Gospels are the only literary works that accurately document precisely what he taught and accomplished on our behalf, and any that reject them do so at their own peril.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2011

Read Full Post »

THE GOSPELS, HISTORICAL RESEARCH, AND THE INCARNATION OF GOD

Skeptics often enjoy comparing the canonical Gospels in an attempt to make a lot of noise about what they perceived as errors, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies contained in them.  And as we read their works it often causes us to wrestle with these differences, and more specifically the perceived differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John.  Some suggest that the major differences that exist between John’s Gospel and the Synoptics are because the Synoptics focused more on the historical events of Jesus’ life, while John was more theologically minded.  While this may be true to some degree, a closer look at all of the Gospels reveals that they all are concerned with both historical details and theological instruction with respect to Jesus’ life.  For example, there are approximately 18 parables of Jesus that are unique to Luke’s Gospel, and since parables were a primary method of theological instruction for Jesus then one should concluded that theological content was a major emphasis of Luke.  Similarly, the Gospel of Matthew contains 5 major discourses of Jesus, some material being unique to Matthew; consequently, no one can conclude that theological instruction was not also a significant focus for Matthew.  Likewise, a major emphasis in Mark’s Gospel is Jesus’ authority over the demonic realm, so how can anyone report on this topic without emphasizing the reality of the God and the spiritual realm without focusing on “theological” content and issues?  Conversely, the Gospel of John is systemic with unique historical details about Jesus’ life, his ministry, and his trial; so much so that to enumerate them all would take considerable time—so how could anyone suggest that historical accuracy was not one of his major concerns?  John himself stated that “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.  And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written” (Jn 21.24-25).  Notice John’s emphasis, he claimed that truth about what Jesus “did” was an absolute component of his Gospel; thus his Gospel was not only concerned with what Jesus taught (theological truth) but with the things that Jesus actually accomplished (historical accuracy).  He even admitted that it would not be possible to account for all the amazing historical events that occurred in the life of Jesus within a single volume.  Consequently, one can no more argue that historical accuracy was not a major emphasis in John’s Gospel than they can argue that theology was not a major theme in the Synoptic Gospels.

An unintended consequence that some may come away because of these types of discussions are that the Gospel records are actually biased because of their “theological” content; consequently, they are not objective records of Jesus’ life.  There is a significant problem with such a conclusion, which is this: Jesus is God incarnate; consequently, everything about his life and what he accomplished is by definition an event that is most essentially theological in nature.  Theology means “the study of God.”  The Greek word for God is “theo,” while in English the suffix “ology” has come to mean “the study of,” or “the science of.” The salient point is that one cannot appropriately understand the life of Jesus without necessarily engaging in a discussion of theology.  In fact, to attempt to report on the life of Jesus of Nazareth while marginalizing or ignoring its theological import does not bring greater clarity about Jesus, instead it would only generate greater ignorance with respect to what is most significant about him, what he accomplished, and what he claimed concerning himself.  Such an effort would necessarily withhold that which was most important concerning Jesus; thus shielding others from knowing that which is most essential about him.

A modern example of this type of inappropriate bias might help in illustrating this point.  What would you think if in 500 years from now, while writing about the life of Barack Hussein Obama, that historians restricted themselves only to data that dealt with where he was born, that his political career began in Illinois, that he was the 44th president of the United States, and that he served 2 terms.  However, while reporting on him they chose “for the sake of objectivity” to refrain from explaining anything about the significance of his ethnicity, his party affiliation, his approach to politics, his philosophy of governance, and his values and worldview.  Would anyone consider such a record as providing a worthwhile report about President Obama?  Of course not, so why should we accept the notion that an “objective” record concerning the life of Jesus of Nazareth must be absent of any theological discussion or content?  Such an effort should be soundly rejected simply because no one can accurately report on the events surrounding the life of Jesus Christ while redacting from it its theological nature and significance.  To put is simply, it is impossible to rationally and effectively discuss the incarnation of God and at the same time avoid engaging in theology. And attempting to do so does not make one more objective, rather it reveals their bias against the existence of divinity.  Consequently, to report anything about Jesus without addressing or discussing the theological implications of his life would be an abortion of that which is most essential about him.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2014

Read Full Post »

THE FIRST CANON OF THE CHURCH AND MARCION

Students learning about the origins of the New Testament or the church’s history occasionally get the impression that the first person to attempt to canonize the books of the New Testament (hereafter NT) was the heretic Marcion.  To be sure, with respect to canonizing “a” NT, Marcion provided the church with one of the earliest attempts to set apart a distinctly “Christian” list of authoritative books; however, this is not to prove that he was the first to have created a NT “canon.”  He certainly was not the one who invented the concept of a canon of sacred books for Christians.  It should be recognized that the church was initially born out of Judaism, and thus it received its concept of canonical literature from Judaism.  As you should know by now, the Jews already had their own canonical list of sacred books.  While differing groups within Judaism may have disagreed with which books constituted their canon, devote Jews did have the concept of a canon for their faith.  As some of us may know, the Sadducees believed that only the Pentateuch was the scared and close canon for the Jews, while the Pharisees held to the Law and the Prophets as authoritative—along with their oral traditions.  Regardless, both groups believed that a Jewish canon existed.

Jesus’ view of the OT canon was more in line with that of the Pharisees (see Matt 5.17-21; Lk 11.50-51, 24.44; which incidentally corresponds to the OT as traditionally found in Protestant Bibles).  Marcion, however, was fiercely anti-Semitic; consequently, he unilaterally rejected the entire OT.  As far as he was concerned only the writings of the apostle to the Gentiles (i.e., Paul) and the Gospel that was written for a Gentile audience ( i.e., Luke’s Gospel) should be considered authoritative for the “Gentile” church.  It should also be noted that he redacted (i.e., edited to fit his own views) these writings in order to make them anti-Semitic and more Gnostic in their teachings (which says a lot about his view of what it means to call a book “sacred”).  Regardless of his view, it is undeniable that the first canon of the early church was the OT.  Jesus and apostles regularly referred to the OT as both “scripture” and “God’s word,” not to mention viewed it as authoritative with respect to doctrine and orthodoxy.  They also only viewed books from the Hebrew Bible as authoritative; moreover, they never quoted as scripture any Apocryphal writings.  It is true that on a couple of different occasions they referred to some events contained in these secondary writings; but they never referred to these books as “scripture.”  Consequently, it is wrong to assume that the church did not have a canon until Marcion redacted and compiled his.  The first canon of the church was the OT.

The question still remains, however, was Marcion the first to compile a distinctly apostolic list of canonical books?  I would argue that he was not.  The fact that he limited his list of books to only one Gospel (Luke’s) and certain letters of Paul implies that there was in existence a larger pool of books that were viewed by others in the church as authoritative.  We know from writings of the apostolic fathers that by the early second century the church knew of the 4 canonical Gospels.  And about the same time that Marcion was arguing for only one authoritative Gospel, Tatian was using these same four Gospels as the basis for his Diatessaron.  And lest we forget, the Muratorian Canon’s list of authoritative books is also dated to the middle of the second century.  Consequently, I would argue that there is adequate proof to reject the claim that Marcion was the first to create a NT canon.  Instead, it is more probable that in different regions of the Empire regional churches had already viewed certain NT writings as authoritative (i.e., canonical) in their specific churches, and by and large they restricted their NT canon to apostolic works that they were aware of, but of course, in some locations there were also exceptions that also included some non-apostolic works as well.

The problem seems to have been that in different regions churches had different lists.  These differing lists existed because the many churches throughout the Roman Empire did not know of all the apostolic books that would inevitably be included in the final NT canon, or that they questioned certain books that other churches revered as authoritative (e.g., Hebrews, Revelation, 2 and 3 John, etc.).  Marcion, however, was a wealthy ship builder and an influential businessman among the leadership of Rome who traveled throughout the Roman Empire.  Consequently, he had a greater exposure to the different authoritative lists of the churches in the different regions.  Consequently, he saw the need for a universal authoritative list for the universal church.  However, with the rise of Gnosticism and its proponents within the church (e.g., Marcion), coupled with emergence of Montanism (beginning in the late middle second century), as well as a need to completely break from Judaism (remember, the Second Jewish Revolt occurred between AD 132-135), the church’s leadership felt the need to come together and be more proactive in recognizing what NT books were already authoritative (i.e., canonical) for the church.  Consequently, by the end of the second century most of the apostolic writings that make up the NT canon had pretty much been agreed upon, but it was not until the late 4th century that the issue was settled and all 27 books of the NT were recognized as canonical and the issue was “functionally” closed.

Some would argue for later dates, such as the fifth century, or even not until after the Reformation.  I, however, categorically reject these positions since there have been and there will always be some in the church who disagree with the current composition of the NT canon (e.g., Luther, while occasionally preaching from to the book of James, regarded it as the least canonical book, referring to it as “straw”).  Universal recognition in any era of the church’s history has never been achieved.  That does not prove, however, that the church did not come to a significant consensus in their recognition of what constituted God’s word to the church by the middle of the 4^th century AD.

Lastly, when many discuss the creation of the NT canon they have in mind the moment that the list of authoritative NT books was completed—that is officially recognized as closed.  This is why many consider Marcion the first person to have attempted the compilation of a NT canon, the rationale being that he was the first to distinguish as authoritative a set number of “Christian” books separate from the OT for use in the church.  Thus, some scholars credit him with being the first to create a NT canon.  This position is not credible when one considers his motivation.  His motivation for developing his abbreviated canon was driven out of antisemitism and his disgust of the OT.  He was not motivated out of desire to protect the church from other heretics or spurious writings.  It may very well be that Marcion is partly responsible for the NT being distinguished from the OT instead of it simply viewed as a continuation of the OT.  While it is still likely that the apostolic writings would have been seen as distinct from the OT, the point is that it was Marcion’s prejudice that drove him to separate certain apostolic writings from the OT; as well as separate some apostolic writings from other apostolic writings.  Consequently, his attempt to create a NT canon should not be viewed as a credible attempt to close the canon, but rather a dysfunctional attempt to separate the church from its Jewish origins, as well as promote certain apostolic writings above other equally valuable writings found in today’s canonical New Testament.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2012

Read Full Post »

HOW DID THE CHURCH RECOGNIZE THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON?

Have you ever wondered where the NT came from or how it became the “New Testament”?  There are a lot of explanations as to how the church came to “recognize” or “create” the Christian canon, and these different discussions provide explanations of various “criteria” that the early church used while confirming what was canonical and what was not. However, by and large the majority of explanations do not suggest that “inspiration” was a criterion that was involved in the process. Many students find it inconceivable that the early church did not specifically consider the doctrine of inspiration while determining the canonical status of books that inevitably were included in the New Testament (this blog will primarily discuss the NT canon since the early church readily received the Hebrew OT as authoritative and thus “canonical.”  To be sure, intuitively one would expect this quality to be the most important requirement for compiling an authoritative list of literature for use in the church.  It should be noted, however, that not employing the doctrine of inspiration as a test for determining the canonical status of a book is not to say that the early church did not affirm the doctrine of inspiration.  Second Timothy 3.16 clearly reveals that the apostolic church believed in the doctrine of inspiration.  Additionally, in First Clement 47 (ca. AD 96) the author wrote that “Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.”  The NT passage the author referred to as “Spirit inspired” was 1 Corinthians 1.12.  Clearly, therefore, the early church believed in this essential doctrine.  The question then becomes why didn’t it employed the test of inspiration while wrestling with the issue of canonicity.  The first reason is because that was precisely what the early church was making an effort to recognize: i.e., what writings were inspired and therefore should be recognized as “canonical.”  That being the case, you can’t use a test of “inspiration” to determine what was “inspired.”  That would be an example of employing a circular argument.  The second reason is simply that the church wanted to avoid the argument that would have surely arisen over choosing who got to decide what books were inspired and what books were not.  Think of it this way, what may be inspiring to you may not at all be inspiring to me.  Some Christians love the Psalms, while others love Paul’s letters; so as you can see the issue of determining what is inspired and what is inspiring can be a very personal preference.  And that is precisely what the early church was attempting to avoid.  Such an important decision could not be determined by the subjective evaluation of a few individuals and neither by a simply majority.  Therefore, in order to safely address this critical issue the church employed some more objective criteria in their decision making process.  For example, there were some in the early church who believed that only Paul’s letters to the churches were authoritative for the church (as opposed to his personal letters to Timothy and Titus).  Conversely, there were others who believed that First Clement was “helpful,” as well as Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermes, so why not also include these books?

These later books were not recognized as canonical precisely because they failed the other tests that were actually used by the early church.  The wisdom of the early church and the value of the tests that it did use for determining canonical status of a book are revealed by the fruit it produced.  As you may well know, the specific tests the early church used were apostolicity, universality, and test known as “the rule of faith.”  Some also refer to a “fourth” test, which is that of “antiquity.”  This, however, is rather redundant because any book that was “apostolic” (i.e., written by an apostle or the associate of an apostle) was by all qualifications “ancient.”  Consequently, this blog will simply discuss the 3 qualifications of apostolicity, universality, and the rule of faith. First let’s look at the test that had the most biblical support, which was the test of apostolicity.  This test has the most biblical support because it is observable by the church’s attempt to find a replacement for Judas.  When seeking Judas’s replacement the remaining apostles decided that one specific qualification was more important than all the rest, which was the qualification that the new 12th apostle must have participated in the ministry of Jesus from its commencement until his resurrection and ascension (Acts 1.21-22).  In other words, he must have been an associate and witness of the entire ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Unless he met this essential criteria he was not qualified to be an apostle since his most important function in the church would be to faithfully establish it upon the message and teachings of Jesus Christ (Matt 28.20, “. . . teaching them all that I have commanded you . . .”), and in order to do so he must have heard and been instructed by the Lord himself (this is the primary reason why Protestants do not recognize the institution of the papacy as holding the office of apostle).  Secondhand witnesses would not do for the office of apostle.  This is why Paul considered himself as one who was “untimely born” (1 Cor 15.8).  What Paul meant was that although he did not follow the Lord during his earthly ministry he did meet him after the resurrection and was called by him to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Although he did not walk with Jesus before the resurrection, he did personally meet him in his resurrected body and was called by him specifically for the ministry that he inevitably fulfilled (cf., Acts 23.11; 1 Cor 9.1, 15.8).  Consequently, the church rightly recognized his special place in the establishment of the church and its doctrines.  Notwithstanding the Lord’s appointment of Paul, Acts 1.21-22 demonstrates “apostolicity” is a biblical principle for determining and protecting the orthodoxy of the church; consequently, apostolicity is the most biblically defensible test of the three criteria employed by the early church.

Next let us consider the test referred to as the rule of faith.  This test makes a lot of sense because it demands that in order for a piece of literature to attain the status of canonicity it would have to explain and teach the doctrines of the Christian faith as it was received by the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Lord.  This test essentially prohibited any literature from achieving canonical status that was not completely dedicated to the truthful explanation of the faith that was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 3).  In other words, Paul’s letter to his aunt Esther wishing her a happy birthday or Peter’s “things to do” list were not considered worthy of canonical status simply because their purpose was not to explain, teach, or defend the message and teachings of Jesus.  This requirement also prohibited fictional works such as The Shepherd of Hermes from being recognized as canonical.

Lastly, let us consider the test of universality.  This test prohibited any specific church or region of the Empire from dictating this important decision over the rest of the church.  For example, it prohibited the church in Jerusalem or the church in Rome from deciding for believers everywhere what was to be recognized as authoritative in the church.  This test is especially important because it provides evidence that in the earliest period of the church’s history the church in Rome was not viewed as the titular head of the universal church.  If the church in Rome was the sole authority of the church or acted in such a manner, then we would have literary evidence indicating decisions based upon what the church at Rome had declared for the rest of the churches, or what the Pope had decided concerning this issue.  However, documents from first 3 centuries of the early church existence reveals absolutely no historical evidence of such a state of affairs during the church’s earliest history.

One important purpose of these three tests was to restrict the pool of literature that would be recognized as the foundation of orthodox Christianity.  Some believe that if was not for Spirit’s guidance these tests would have greatly expanded the pool of literature that was to be considered for canonical status.  However, taken together these tests actually greatly restricted the possible pool of literature, so much so that some apostolic books were almost withheld from being recognized as canonical; e.g., Revelation (even though historically speaking it was one of the earliest books that was used in the church), 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and James.  Consequently, given the task that the early church was faced with, these tests proved very successful in helping her correctly recognize what the Holy Spirit had already provided for her edification and protection.  These tests greatly enabled the church to correctly recognize the books that the Spirit inspired for the purpose of teaching future generations what was the true message of the Jesus Christ, what were the correct beliefs concerning him, and what the ethical practice of Christianity truly looks like.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2011

 

Read Full Post »