Is the scripture the word of God and word of truth? A repost of three previous blog articles from 2009

Jesus and his followers redefined the term’s word of God, word of Truth and, Word with a capital letter, to mean either the gospel or, Jesus, the living gospel. This is a subtle nuance that has been overlooked for centuries by theologians but, I think it makes a very big difference in the doctrine of scripture that one holds. This is a combination of three posts that were posted in December of 2009. I will apologize for the length here but I think it is necessary to combine these post to see the case clearly. I ask that you take the time to read this and decide for yourself.

When you look at the various creeds written over the years, they most often, if not always begin with a section on the scripture. This is true of systematic theology books also. They generally begin with the scripture or the concept of divine revelation. The reason is simple. The section on divine revelation and scripture establishes the foundation for all of the doctrinal points that follow. Most statements of faith include a position on the scripture. It is only natural that this discussion of my paradigm shift should begin with the scripture. Is it accurate to call it the Word of God? And, if it isn’t, what difference does it make? In my view, it makes a very big difference and I think that the subtle, nuanced truth will point to a major shift.

First of all, Jesus himself referred to the scripture twenty-four times in the four gospels. In other instances, he called it either, the law or, the law and the prophets. He did not call the scripture the word of God with one possible exception in John 10:34-35 and, we will deal with that in a later post individually. However, he did call it the scripture 24 times and he referred to it as either the law or, the law and the prophets 25 times for a total of 49 times. Here is what I find most interesting. He defined the word of God as the gospel of the kingdom in Luke 8:11. If you look at the parallel verse in Matthew 13:19 he defines the seed as the word or message of the kingdom… in other words… the gospel.

In fact, as these posts progress, you will find that overwhelmingly and, even exclusively, Jesus and his apostles define the word of God, the word of truth or, the Word, as either, the living Word Jesus himself or, the gospel, the word or message of the kingdom of God. It is my plan to do an exhaustive analysis of this throughout the entire New Testament scripture. I will use many illustrations in subsequent posts but for now let me end this post with an example for you. 

I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.  (Rev 1:9)

Now here is the question that you should ask yourself. Was John banished to the Isle of Patmos for the scripture? Of course not. It was very legal for Jews to have the Torah or the scriptures. Rome had decided to let that go long before Jesus came on the scene. The fact is that John was on Patmos for the gospel and Jesus. It was the gospel of the kingdom of Jesus that caused Rome to persecute the Christians. So, we see that the gospel and the incarnation are very important to the story of the New Covenant. It will become more and more clear that in reality, at least according to Jesus and his contemporaries, that it was the only focus.

We have looked at what Jesus said in the four gospels about scripture, the law and prophets and, the word of God; Specifically, his definition of the term word of God in Luke 8:11. Let’s move on to how the Book of Acts uses the phrase word of God. 

First, the phrase is used in twelve verses. And, when you read the verses in context, in each of them, the phrase only makes sense when the meaning of the phrase is gospel. In other words, if you try to replace the phrase with scripture it does not make sense but, if you replace the phrase with the gospel, it is obvious that gospel was the intended meaning. And yet, to the average evangelical, the first connotative meaning attached to the phrase is scripture. Here are a few examples of the apostolic meaning:

And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.  (Act 4:31)

In the above verse, the clause, they spoke the gospel with boldness makes perfect sense but it does not make sense to say that they were speaking the scripture with boldness because all of the Jews spoke the scripture and it did not take boldness to speak the scripture. They memorized scripture from the time that they were small children on.

Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.  (Act 6:7)

In Acts six they were only speaking to Jews because the Gentiles were not included in the evangelizing until Acts chapter 10 so, when you read Acts 6:7, it only makes sense when you see the word of God as the gospel….the gospel spread and the number of disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem …and conversely it would not make sense to say that the scripture spread

Here are all of the scripture passages that have the phrase the word of God in them in the book of Acts: (Act_4:31; Act_6:2; Act_6:7; Act_8:14; Act_11:1; Act_12:24; Act_13:5; Act_13:7; Act_13:44; Act_13:46; Act_17:13; Act_18:11;) In each of them, the only term that makes sense when substituted, is the gospel. Using the word scripture will not work in any of them. Check it out for yourself.

By the same token, the word scripture is used seven times in the book of acts to describe what was written their sacred scripture and, the Law… or, the Law and the Prophets… are mentioned in 20 verses. It is clear that the apostles and, contemporaries of Jesus saw the difference between the scripture and the word of God. As we move forward with this blog, it will become obvious that the first century saints never referred to the scripture as the word of God. 

Again you may ask, “so what?”

Well, for one thing, you should ask yourself “why did they make the distinction and how did we end up changing this meaning?”

We have covered the use and meaning of the phrase the word of God in the book of Acts. Now we will shift to the phrase the word of truth. This phrase is most familiar from the often quoted and preached on verse, 2Tim 2:15. So the question once again is what is meant by Paul and others when they use the phrase word of truth? And again, the most widely accepted evangelical meaning is scripture. When anyone discusses rightly dividing or correctly handling the word of truth, they invariably mean the scripture. But is that what was meant by the phrase in the first century writings?

First off, the phrase is used four times in the New Testament writings three times by Paul and once by James; (2Co_6:7; Eph_1:13; 2Ti_2:15; Jas_1:18;) Interestingly, Paul actually defines the term in Ephesians:

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,  (Eph 1:13)

Notice that Paul outright states that the word of truth is the gospel of your salvation. There can be little room for debate about what he meant in his writing and he would not have been confusing with his terms; therefore, we can believe that the meaning that he attached to the phrase in Ephesians 1:13, is the same meaning that he gave it in 2Tim 2:15 and, thereby we can reasonably assume that he meant that the man/woman of God should rightly divide and, correctly handle the gospel of salvation.

Does James back this up? The answer is a resounding yes. Look at the passage from James:

Jas 1:17-18  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.  (18)  Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

In the above passage James is speaking of being brought forth as a kind of firstfruit. This is description of being born again by the word of truth, Jesus and/or, the gospel. In any instance, you can be sure that he is not saying that he or, the other believing saints were being brought forth by the scripture.

So, what is the reason for this gospel focus? The answer is simply that Jesus taught his disciples a totally redemptive view of scripture that pointed to him and, the redemption he brought. The earlier focus of the word of truth, Psalm 119:43 was supplanted by this use of the phrase. The first century Jews, especially the Pharisees, saw the Torah as the word of God based upon the 119th Psalm and Jesus and his disciples are replacing the meaning in an overwhelmingly forceful way and, they are careful not to refer to the Torah as the word of God. Now before you jump to conclusions about how I view the scripture I will begin to get at that next. We will come back to the word of God a few posts down the road however.

As usual, if you have comments or questions feel free to share them. And I would strongly suggest that you go back and read the posts that come before this so you can see how the logic is built on the evidence.

Contending for the faith II

There is a discussion going on over at Jonathan Brinks Blog. He has been singled out by self-appointed heresy hunter Ken Silva for stating that he (Jonathan Brink) hoped that God was bigger than his theology or anyone’s and, asked what others thought.  Ken wants to confine God to scripture saying that what God has revealed is all he wants anyone to know. Ken’s blog is a classic example of those who would contend for the faith.

The question remains… is he right about scripture and his idea of what it means to contend for the faith? I don’t think so for the following reasons. I think that the evangelical fundamentalists have a hermeneutic lens that is similar to that of the first century scribes and Pharisees.  They see the entire scripture as the word of God. I, on the other hand have pointed out in several posts that Jesus and his followers corrected that idea and redefined the term. Here are a few of the posts.

Scripture and the word of God I

Scripture and the word of God II

Scripture and the word of truth

What about 2Tim 3:16

What did Jesus teach his followers about scripture?

It seems to me that contending for the faith ought to be about contending for what Jesus and his followers taught. This would mean that one would contend for a redemptive view of scripture and would contend for the gospel being the word of God. Instead, the loudest contenders contend for the bible to be the word of God; They contend for a hermeneutic lens that is similar to that of the scribes and Pharisees. When I use the word scribes I am referring to the first century rabbis… teachers of the law.

I just wish that some main stream theologians would acknowledge that Jesus and his followers redefined the word of God to be the gospel and, Jesus the living gospel. I think that they cannot do that because they fear that if they admitted this truth their theological house of cards would tumble down. They would have to change their view of scripture. I don’t think this is the case at all. I think that it could create a Christianity that would appeal to more individuals and truly reach more people for Christ.

Contending for the faith

There seems to be a lot of contention and strife in theological circles these days. The blogosphere is replete with blogs that contend with various doctrinal positions and persons. Some of them are quite heated and unkind in language. I suppose that this blog falls into that category however I try not to be really nasty…. Well, maybe sometimes I am too blunt but, offending is not my intent… well, maybe I have intended to offend some as I think back but, I can honestly state that being nasty and offensive to people has never been my goal. The phrase, contending for the faith, comes from Jude 1:3. The author writes that he had hoped to encourage them about their common salvation but, found it necessary to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. It is assumed that he meant the gospel and story as it was told by Jesus and his apostles. Actually, this is a safe assumption.

I just did a Google search and there is 172,000 sites that are listed by the keywords *contending for the faith.* Interestingly, on the first results page there are sites that claim the phrase but do not agree. Surprise!!! Right! So, you might ask what is your take on this phrase? Well, I am thinking about a couple of different issues. Which faith is contended for and, should we contend for the faith at all?  There is a lot of contention between what I will call the evangelical/fundamental/orthodox wing of Christianity and, what has become known as the emergent conversation or emergent Christianity.

There is a large segment of the later that questions that one should contend at all. Their view is that Jesus calls us to love and turn the other cheek. They see contending as unloving and distracting. I am not sure how I feel about this idea since I am still processing it. This much is certain; Jesus was very contentious on various occasions when dealing with the Pharisees and their theology.

There is a phrase used often in presidential politics… bully pulpit. Interesting choice of words bully pulpit and yet, there are literally hundreds of thousands of pulpits around the world that are routinely used for bullying. I personally do not think that this is a proper use of the pulpit but sadly it is a fact.

Back to the meaning of contending for the faith; what should be the meaning and what is worth contending for? It seems to me that anyone naming the name of Jesus Christ or connecting faith in him to their faith and practice should be very interested in the teachings of Jesus. So then, the emergent believers are right… it should be about love and loving. But, I think that at the very least it ought to include some of the theological teachings of Jesus as well; Especially his view of scripture. Jesus was most certainly not a sola scriptura person and he did not see the scripture as the word of God. He revered the scripture… he spoke of its faithfulness and inspiration but, he defined the word of God as the gospel and himself. I am not sure that contending is necessary but I would say that vigorous debate and discussion is called for.

Could theologians get it wrong for 1800+ years?

I have raised several issues over the last year on this blog that would point to the fact that theologians actually got a lot wrong since the second century. This would raise the question found in the title line. Is that a reasonable question or, should the question really be…. Why would we think that theologians got it right? This is the point of this article.

Let’s look at it throughout the history of the biblical narrative. The history of the story is about six thousand years. For the first two thousand years people got it wrong. They chose idolatry. In fact, according to Jewish Tradition, Abraham was the son of a wicked priest and idol maker. Abraham’s call was evidence of the fact that for two thousand years of the biblical narrative men got it wrong.

The narrative continues with the family of Abraham culminating in the calling of Jacob/Israel.  The two hundred seventy year period of the active writing of the Prophets demonstrates that over time, Israel did not get it right. This is followed by John the Baptist and the Lord himself. Jesus taught his followers many corrective ideas from, who the Messiah was, what he would do, what his purpose was etc. He then inspired Paul et. al., to continue to correct ideas. He redefined the phrase word of God from Torah to himself and the gospel. The history is replete with theologians getting it wrong.  The scribes and Pharisees were some of the most learned, studious theologians that ever lived. Theology was their life from early childhood on.

Finally, we have prophecies that speak of the last days and the error that will ensue. Clearly, when the New Testament writers spoke of the last days and, the end of the age they were speaking and, writing of the times in which they lived. After all, they had been taught by the Pharisees that the end of the age and the age to come (Olam Ha Bah) was imminent.

Now when we fast forward to the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, it seems rather arrogant to believe that we somehow have it all right. Yet, this is the attitude of most evangelical leaning denominations and, while there is room for disagreement on what is called the non-essentials there is absolutely no room for disagreement on what has become known as orthodoxy. There are many things that could be debated and need to be explored with open honesty. Here are a few:

• The definition of the word of God
• Atonement theory
• Purpose of scripture
• Meaning of the end of the age
• Nature of the fall
• Humanities root problem
• The purpose of the cross
• God’s reason for creation

Opening up dialogue in these areas could be very beneficial to the future of Christianity.

The TLC special; Ted Haggard: Scandalous

I just watched the TLC special on Ted Haggard and his founding of St. James Church in Colorado Springs. From my view it was a really warm redemption story that was quite well done and I wish all the best to the Haggards and their new congregation. Anyone who has read this blog realizes that I advocate a solely redemptive purpose for the scripture; that I believe church doctrine and dogma is off base and, that I see loving transformation as the goal of redemption.

Ted and the St James Church appear to be striving to prove the love of God with their ministry and I am all for that. In watching this special I was freshly reminded of one of the major problems that Christianity faces today. There was a segment that showed Ted and Gayle going to Denver… I believe to be on the Joy Behar show by satellite. Joy ask Ted the following question; “where do you get the moral authority to preach?” This single question shows the glaring problem with Christianity as a whole. No one…. Let me repeat NO ONE except Jesus, has the moral authority to preach. Interestingly, he chose to love unconditionally and only preached at the self-righteous religious leaders.

I want to emphasize here that preach has a connotation today that was not included in the original mandate to proclaim/preach the gospel. Today the word preach evokes a thought of confronting and berating. The idea is that how can someone preach, encourage personal moral reformation when they exhibit that they lack it themselves?

In reality, those who would proclaim/preach the gospel should really be telling people that God is not angry. They should emphasize that He chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world Ephesians 1:4-6. This was God’s sole purpose in creation. He created humanity knowing that he would redeem them in Christ. This speaks of the great love that God has for people. This is where the emphasis should be placed.

We have shown over and over again with the posts of this blog that current Christian doctrine and dogma is way off the mark. It is really the leaven of the Pharisees; it is the strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2. This is precisely the reason that those outside of the church are as loving or more loving and tolerant than church members. I would argue that one of the reasons that so many from outside the church have been critical of Ted is based upon their erroneous view that was articulated by Joy Behar. They have bought into the idea that one who is to proclaim the gospel of Christ must have moral authority. I say that this flies in the face of the gospel message.

The one thing that I am pretty sure of is that Ted and Gayle will remember the judgmental hatred that they experienced by the church and will think good and long before acting in the same way. They will truly be able to treat others as they wished that they would have been treated.

The Wisdom of the world and the knowledge of good and evil

This blog project began in December of 2009 so a year has passed and the New Year is a blank page to be written on and, a blank canvas awaiting paint. The blog began as a result of a trip back to a Bible-Belt funeral. I was saddened by what I found to be the position of many of the attendees and speakers. I will write a blog post explaining exactly what saddens me later on this year. For the time however, I will simply recall that over the year I wrote many posts that fit into several different categories. The categories provided an alternate way; and equally valid way to look at the biblical narrative. In fact, I presented strong evidence that this was in fact the way that Jesus looked at the biblical narrative and likewise, the way that he taught his followers to look at it.

The categories are as follows:

• The scripture has a solely redemptive purpose
• The word of God was redefined to mean Jesus or the gospel
• The little apocalypses (Matt 24, Luke 21 and, Mark 13) were fulfilled in the first century
• The period between the cross and the destruction of the temple was the total transition from old covenant to new covenant
• The New Heaven and Earth are completely available now by faith
• Current church doctrine is the strong delusion of 2Thess 2

The beginning of this year will open the door for looking at how the knowledge of good and evil and, what Paul called the “wisdom of the world” are synonymous. One of the major problems that humanity faces is grounded in the knowledge of good and evil… the ability to judge. The problem resides in the fact that humans do not really know good from evil only God does.

Along the way last year, I stumbled on to a book called Discovering the God Imagination by Jonathan Brink which, provided an alternate atonement theory. This atonement theory fit very nicely with my paradigm shift. His premise is that at the time of creation God declared that humanity was good… in fact… very good (Gen 1:31.) When Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil they judged themselves evil and reasoned that God did not think they were good; in other words, they did not believe God’s original decree. Brink reasoned and, quite rightly, that with the knowledge of good and evil humanity chose to reason that it was evil. Use of the knowledge of good and evil drove a wedge between Adam and Eve and God. They could not be sure that God thought that they were good and therefore they reasoned that they were evil. This is the exact cause of the chasm between God and humanity and is thereby the root problem.

When speaking of humanities downward spiral, the Apostle Paul said that humanity, claiming to be wise became fools (Romans 1:22.) Original sin was in fact the act of not believing God in his proclamation that humanity was good. This is why sin is not acts per se but rather, unbelief and, likewise why faith is obedience. The obedience of faith is found throughout the entire biblical narrative.

The book every thoughtful Christian should read; Discovering the God Imagination by Jonathan Brink.

Seldom have I found a book that I would say everyone should read. After all, we are inundated with all kinds of books these days. People are busy with social media, blogs, podcasts and YouTube. Still, Discovering the God Imagination by Jonathan Brink is just such a book. The main reason that I think this book is so important is that it articulates an alternate atonement therory with cohesive precision. If you have ever been even slightly dissatisfied with the ransom theory, the penal substitution theory or, even the Christus Victor theory, this book is for you. Brink explains the source of the root problem of humanity; explains how it causes a downward spiral in human behavior and, exposes the lie that feeds the ego and, holds us captive to it. He demonstrates that redemption and the gospel is really good news indeed.

At every point, Brink shows an alterative way to understand the biblical narrative. In fact, he quotes more biblical passages than any book I have read in a long time and, helps make sense of the redemptive missio dei (mission of God.) He asks and answers the question what is the root problem being solved by the cross. His answer is that it is a lie we have told ourselves since the garden. God declared that we were created very good and, we allowed our use of the knowledge of good and evil to convince us that we are not as God sees us. The chasm is caused within each human being... we end up asking the basic question are we good or evil?

He writes...

“The root problem is located in us, as if this isn’t obvious by now. We are captive to the lie because we have agreed to it. I f we locate the problem in humanity, everything shifts. Everything changes. We can begin to describe the problem for what it is, a lie that captivates the human mind.

If we locate the problem in humanity, it liberates God from being deceptive or requiring violent responses. It liberates us from a victimization that allow us to sit on the sidelines, watching and waiting for God to respond. If we locate the problem in humanity it opens our eyes to the fact that we are the ones making the violent demands. We are the ones requiring the proof. The cross becomes a means to prove what always has and always will be true—humanity is qualitatively good regardless of our subjective judgments.”

In his view and, in mine also, the cross is necessary for us and not God. God created us good, declared it and we have used the knowledge of good and evil to contradict what God said. We therefore are the ones in need of redemption. We are the ones who need to have faith in the cure of the root problem. In other words, we are the ones who need to have our consciences cleansed once for all.

I have given but a small taste of what this book entails. As I stated it takes the entire biblical narrative and through examples offers a different (I think more correct) context. Read this book and get back to me. :)