Text: I Tim 5:1-2
1 REBUKE not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
Some theologians & scholars (post-Bower, Ehrman , Brown et. al.) argue that Paul can not possibly be the author of I & II Timothy or Titus since all these "Pastoral Epistles" mention "elders." They attribute these works to a later period & label the author as "DeuteroPaul" ie "Second Paul."
The argument goes that the New Testament churches were Spirit-driven anarchistic entities that did not use elders. Later, post-Clement of Rome & onward, a more monarchical, authoritarian structure developed. Therefore, these three letters must be from that later period, not from Paul. The problem with this argument is that it begs the question ie it assumes its answer in its premise. It is invalid to use the New Testament as evidence of a theory then use that same theory to invalidate part of the New Testament! Doing so makes the argument invalidate its own proof!
Other weak argument has been offered in the form of vocabulary analysis observing that "Paul" uses different words than he does in his other letters. This is very weak because, as Paul is addressing very different issues in Romans, Corinthians, etc. than he is in these three letters. By way of example, if you were writing a letter to the editor about prostitution downtown, you would use very different vocabulary from when you write your little brother or sister about getting their first job (unless of course, it is as a prostitute!). This is very parallel to Paul's situation: the other epistles are for a general audience; these are personal. The others address problems to be corrected in society or in the church; these are to exhort individuals. The list of differences continues & greatly weakens this argument, too.
All in all, the arguments for "DeuteroPaul" are very, very weak & can probably be ignored as generated by an a priori agenda that does not include honestly evaluating the integrity of the New Testament. Up against 2000 years of textual pedigree, style examination, contemporary correspondence & many other tests by which we can analyze these letters, the "Second Paul" arguments are less than second rate.
Showing posts with label canonical history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canonical history. Show all posts
Monday, September 13, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Church Bureaucracy & the Individual Believer
TEXT: Matt 18:20
“20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them.“
Protestantism relies very heavily (some might say too heavily) upon this promise. Reading the writings of the Church Fathers from the generation immediately following the time of the apostles, it seems at first glance that many, even revered, names in the early church too often to forget this promise. This in not the case. Their interpretation was that as Christ sent the Holy Ghost to comfort believers (John 14:16), so did He ordain bishops for the church to stand in His stead. Thus, the presence of the bishop was seen as the fulfillment of this promise. Protestants who seek to return to the practices of the "early church" must recognize that this movement toward a formal ecclesiastical structure modeled on monarchy was a strong & relatively early development within the church. It cannot be easily dismissed that many early church leaders, some personal students of the 12 directly, approved of & strongly championed the institution of a formal church structure utilizing little, if any, democratic input from the laity.
For instance, the aged & revered martyr, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, saw the person of the bishop as this promised presence of Christ Himself, reasoning that one must have as much respect for the messenger as one has for the One that sent him. Therefore, he saw it as unlawful for anyone to baptize or "make love" (in the Greek it's not as kinky as it seems in English!) ie hold a "love feast"1 without the bishop present else, as Ignatius sees it, Christ is not present.2
Firstly, it should be observed that being "early" is not an automatic correlation to being "right." At first, Christians under the direction of the apostles practiced a form of communism that Karl Marx would have readily recognized, where all property, food & assets were held in common & work was volunteered by the able (Acts 2:44-47). Predictably, everybody ate heartily but no one wanted to work to grow more food (2 Thess 3:10 & 12)! Eventually, Paul would dispense with this communist schema declaring, "if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thess 3:11) & that each should "eat their own bread" (2 Thess 3:12). Suddenly, there was an eager workforce enough to grow plenty of food for all. There is hardly a Christian today who would advocate communism & yet, such was the practice of the Biblical early church. This, then, is the classic example of "early" not being "right."
Secondly, it must be recognized that how much formal structure should be attached to the Church has been a plaguing issue since the departure of the apostles. It is a subject fraught with the allure of power, the trap of excess riches & ultimately a responsibility to God which, in the snare of worldly temptation, can be too easily dismissed & forgotten. In the final analysis, Luther observed, it is the individual "sheep" that is responsible for recognizing, discerning & responding to the voice of the true "Shepherd" (John Ch 10; see blog post on 10:1-5, "Emergence of the Individual"). How the bureaucracy of any given church organization argues for its preference would seem to be a more worldly matter than an individual believer need internalize for such arguments are all but irrelevant. For the individual, Ignatius notwithstanding, there is this promise from the Lord of all creation, that even if all one can do is find fellowship with but one other believer, the King of the Universe is with them in spirit, but as a body ie the Body of Christ ie The Church.
1 probably a reference to Holy Communion aka the Lord's Supper or Lord's Table
2 Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 8; St. Ignatius of Antioch, (c.AD110); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm accessed 8/9/10
“20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them.“
Protestantism relies very heavily (some might say too heavily) upon this promise. Reading the writings of the Church Fathers from the generation immediately following the time of the apostles, it seems at first glance that many, even revered, names in the early church too often to forget this promise. This in not the case. Their interpretation was that as Christ sent the Holy Ghost to comfort believers (John 14:16), so did He ordain bishops for the church to stand in His stead. Thus, the presence of the bishop was seen as the fulfillment of this promise. Protestants who seek to return to the practices of the "early church" must recognize that this movement toward a formal ecclesiastical structure modeled on monarchy was a strong & relatively early development within the church. It cannot be easily dismissed that many early church leaders, some personal students of the 12 directly, approved of & strongly championed the institution of a formal church structure utilizing little, if any, democratic input from the laity.
For instance, the aged & revered martyr, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, saw the person of the bishop as this promised presence of Christ Himself, reasoning that one must have as much respect for the messenger as one has for the One that sent him. Therefore, he saw it as unlawful for anyone to baptize or "make love" (in the Greek it's not as kinky as it seems in English!) ie hold a "love feast"1 without the bishop present else, as Ignatius sees it, Christ is not present.2
Firstly, it should be observed that being "early" is not an automatic correlation to being "right." At first, Christians under the direction of the apostles practiced a form of communism that Karl Marx would have readily recognized, where all property, food & assets were held in common & work was volunteered by the able (Acts 2:44-47). Predictably, everybody ate heartily but no one wanted to work to grow more food (2 Thess 3:10 & 12)! Eventually, Paul would dispense with this communist schema declaring, "if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thess 3:11) & that each should "eat their own bread" (2 Thess 3:12). Suddenly, there was an eager workforce enough to grow plenty of food for all. There is hardly a Christian today who would advocate communism & yet, such was the practice of the Biblical early church. This, then, is the classic example of "early" not being "right."
Secondly, it must be recognized that how much formal structure should be attached to the Church has been a plaguing issue since the departure of the apostles. It is a subject fraught with the allure of power, the trap of excess riches & ultimately a responsibility to God which, in the snare of worldly temptation, can be too easily dismissed & forgotten. In the final analysis, Luther observed, it is the individual "sheep" that is responsible for recognizing, discerning & responding to the voice of the true "Shepherd" (John Ch 10; see blog post on 10:1-5, "Emergence of the Individual"). How the bureaucracy of any given church organization argues for its preference would seem to be a more worldly matter than an individual believer need internalize for such arguments are all but irrelevant. For the individual, Ignatius notwithstanding, there is this promise from the Lord of all creation, that even if all one can do is find fellowship with but one other believer, the King of the Universe is with them in spirit, but as a body ie the Body of Christ ie The Church.
1 probably a reference to Holy Communion aka the Lord's Supper or Lord's Table
2 Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 8; St. Ignatius of Antioch, (c.AD110); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm accessed 8/9/10
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Christian Development of "Self" in Western Tradition
Text: John Chapter 10
The development of the "self" as we understand it in western society is principally the Christian notion of "self." It does not extend back into the pagan philosophers preceding the Christian era nor is it the outgrowth of the European Enlightenment. Rather it was appropriated by Enlightenment thinkers trading on the collateral handed to them by Christian humanism. Nor is the notion of self to be found in any other religious or philosophical tradition outside of where it has been imported from the west. We shall endeavor in this article to survey the development of the western self both historically and philosophically, seeing such roots firmly entrenched in the Christian tradition. We will conclude with a brief examination of whether the self as we know it can survive being untethered from those Christian roots.
Our first order of business must be to define what we mean by "the western self" and how it is to be distinguished from the self found in other cultures and derived from other philosophies. The western self as we know it today is a deeply personal concept derived from the inner workings of an individual human being. It has value, musings, development and stature over, above, and independent of the society and culture around it. This is not to say that it is not influenced or shaped by the culture of which it is a part. Rather it transcends or at least has the ability to transcend any cultural or societal pressures exerted upon it.
Indeed, properly understood in western tradition, the self is seen as the very engine and generator of culture and society. Thus the self forms the kernel of western society artistically, politically, in fact in all ways endemic and necessary to the development of civilization. Civilization is seen as the expression of self collectively.
Thus in this definition, we can see how the western concept of self differs greatly from that of ancient society and cultures outside of the Christian tradition. In all cultures outside a western influence, both ancient or modern, the self is always seen in a relational attitude not as an independent entity. The self as a module of society or the self as a module of culture or of the family or of the tribe. The self is never seen nor developed as an independent entity, one capable of expression in decent society. The self always exists in the service of another entity be it the tribe, or the religion, or the state. This, then, helps the westerner to understand what informs the concept of the individual seen as honored by human sacrifice. We see as barbaric what the Aztecs did to their citizens --cutting their hearts out sometimes by the thousands and throwing them often still beating down the steps of their sacred Temples. Yet, one must see it from the viewpoint of an individual indoctrinated into this other concept of self --the self as existing for the purposes of the religion, existing to please the gods, existing for the sole purpose of feeding the society. Personal fulfillment is seen exclusively within this framework. Thus, what greater honor than to have one's heart given to the gods and, that heart seen as worthy sacrifice, bringing peace or bounty or victory in war two one's people?
There was a game played by south American Indians in pre-Colombian days. It was something of a cross between soccer and basketball except instead of a soccer ball, the head of a slain enemy was used. Stone hoops were built high into the stadium walls and, as best as we can tell, the "ball" was kicked around with points scored by getting it into the hoops. Here, however, is the salient point for our purposes: the winning team had their heads chopped off as a sacrifice to the gods.
That bears repeating for the western reader: the winners got their heads chopped off as a sacrifice. We would wonder, "Who the heck would want to win this game? Why enter into such competition? And why are on the earth would you attempt to win!?" And yet they did! With enthusiasm! No one had to force them into the competition. And each side eagerly and fiercely competed to win on no less a level than is seen in any of today's most professional team sport. Why? Because the self was in complete subjugation and derived its sole purpose for existence from the collective. Society gave the individual worth. There was no other reason for existence independent of one's relationships. Thus, those socialist proponents who wish to see the self as deriving value from its service to the greater whole are actually advocating a return to an ancient and primitive concept of self. Far from being "progressive," they are regressive to the concept of "self"; something with which we will deal later.
There are those who would like to see the western self as extending from the Greek philosophers raised in the first democracies. This is a failure to read the work of those philosophers and history together. It is true that Greek democracy utilized the individual vote as its basis for making the decisions of the whole. However the vote was not extended by any means to all members of society. Fully half of that society was excluded by failure to extend a vote to women. Neither were slaves nor free immigrants given the vote. When actually totaled, an extremely small minority were given suffrage. The concept of self in these societies was still seen as in service to the greater whole. To this end, the majority of individuals could be excluded from determining their fate or status in society. These things were determined by a majority vote of a non-Republican, non-representative minority.
One need only read Plato's concept of the ideal society as expressed in his quintessential work The Republic. In this detailed recitation of how the ideal society should function, Plato demonstrates and rationalizes how it is the state's responsibility to determine the vocation of individuals from birth. Children born of warriors who in their youth demonstrate an aptitude for being a warrior are chosen by the state to be soldiers. Those born of academics who in their youth demonstrate an aptitude for academics are assigned to be teachers, and so on. An individual who rebels against the state's decision on their choice of career is banished; if the rebellion is deemed criminal, the offender is executed. Thus all disagreements with the state on this and many other points are deemed in and of themselves to be subversive to the interest of the state, an interest which in all cases trumps the needs and desires of the individual who is but a module with which to build the state.
Marriage, too, was seen as an instrument of, for and therefore to be exercised by the state. As the state required strong soldiers, strong women were to be married to strong men. As the state required teachers for its youth, smart women were to be married to smart men. In fact, in an age before genetics, operating on its own pre-Darwinian notion of social evolution, Plato does not seem all that far from Hitler. He has more in common with Nazi concepts of racial purity than with those of the Western self. Indeed, as in Nazi Germany, marriage was an institution granted as a privilege by the state. One could not be married without license from the state after the proper officials had determined the proposed union's benefit to the state. Marriage for love or individual preference was seen as a vile expression subversive to the interests of the state. This concept of marriage is almost universal in the ancient world. Arranged marriages are still the norm in many cultures that have resisted influence from the west. In western society, it was this crisis between individual duty to the state and the "zeal of the organs" in the service of the individual that formed the basis of the tragedy of Tristan and Isolde, probably the first expression of this conflict in world literature.
This brings us to another point, namely from whence do these dynamic shifts in thinking within western society come? Rarely do they spring from philosophers or academicians. Rather, they flow from the minds and pens, the hands, eyes and brushes of artists, poets, and writers of both fiction and popularized nonfiction. Neither Leonardo nor Hume were academics nor were Hemingway or Picasso philosophers. Yet each had profound impact on the popular conception of the self in western society in their respective times. The late philosopher Joseph Campbell, expert in mythology and comparative religion, correctly identified the artist, poet, storyteller as the root of all social and philosophical change within a culture. While academics and philosophers study and expound upon change, it always seems to be the cultural black sheep that is the dynamic engine of change and progress. This accounts for the explosion of change and progress seen in western society as opposed to others. Thus, those who would see western progress as the result of economic disparity with the west reaping the natural resources of others worldwide have got it all wrong. It is not economic disparity but spiritual disparity that has marked the upward trend of western society. Our spiritual base has promoted the value of the self.
Having dissected off from whence the self did not come, in my next entry I will present the seed from which it did spring and provide discourse on the cradle in which it was nurtured.
The development of the "self" as we understand it in western society is principally the Christian notion of "self." It does not extend back into the pagan philosophers preceding the Christian era nor is it the outgrowth of the European Enlightenment. Rather it was appropriated by Enlightenment thinkers trading on the collateral handed to them by Christian humanism. Nor is the notion of self to be found in any other religious or philosophical tradition outside of where it has been imported from the west. We shall endeavor in this article to survey the development of the western self both historically and philosophically, seeing such roots firmly entrenched in the Christian tradition. We will conclude with a brief examination of whether the self as we know it can survive being untethered from those Christian roots.
Our first order of business must be to define what we mean by "the western self" and how it is to be distinguished from the self found in other cultures and derived from other philosophies. The western self as we know it today is a deeply personal concept derived from the inner workings of an individual human being. It has value, musings, development and stature over, above, and independent of the society and culture around it. This is not to say that it is not influenced or shaped by the culture of which it is a part. Rather it transcends or at least has the ability to transcend any cultural or societal pressures exerted upon it.
Indeed, properly understood in western tradition, the self is seen as the very engine and generator of culture and society. Thus the self forms the kernel of western society artistically, politically, in fact in all ways endemic and necessary to the development of civilization. Civilization is seen as the expression of self collectively.
Thus in this definition, we can see how the western concept of self differs greatly from that of ancient society and cultures outside of the Christian tradition. In all cultures outside a western influence, both ancient or modern, the self is always seen in a relational attitude not as an independent entity. The self as a module of society or the self as a module of culture or of the family or of the tribe. The self is never seen nor developed as an independent entity, one capable of expression in decent society. The self always exists in the service of another entity be it the tribe, or the religion, or the state. This, then, helps the westerner to understand what informs the concept of the individual seen as honored by human sacrifice. We see as barbaric what the Aztecs did to their citizens --cutting their hearts out sometimes by the thousands and throwing them often still beating down the steps of their sacred Temples. Yet, one must see it from the viewpoint of an individual indoctrinated into this other concept of self --the self as existing for the purposes of the religion, existing to please the gods, existing for the sole purpose of feeding the society. Personal fulfillment is seen exclusively within this framework. Thus, what greater honor than to have one's heart given to the gods and, that heart seen as worthy sacrifice, bringing peace or bounty or victory in war two one's people?
There was a game played by south American Indians in pre-Colombian days. It was something of a cross between soccer and basketball except instead of a soccer ball, the head of a slain enemy was used. Stone hoops were built high into the stadium walls and, as best as we can tell, the "ball" was kicked around with points scored by getting it into the hoops. Here, however, is the salient point for our purposes: the winning team had their heads chopped off as a sacrifice to the gods.
That bears repeating for the western reader: the winners got their heads chopped off as a sacrifice. We would wonder, "Who the heck would want to win this game? Why enter into such competition? And why are on the earth would you attempt to win!?" And yet they did! With enthusiasm! No one had to force them into the competition. And each side eagerly and fiercely competed to win on no less a level than is seen in any of today's most professional team sport. Why? Because the self was in complete subjugation and derived its sole purpose for existence from the collective. Society gave the individual worth. There was no other reason for existence independent of one's relationships. Thus, those socialist proponents who wish to see the self as deriving value from its service to the greater whole are actually advocating a return to an ancient and primitive concept of self. Far from being "progressive," they are regressive to the concept of "self"; something with which we will deal later.
There are those who would like to see the western self as extending from the Greek philosophers raised in the first democracies. This is a failure to read the work of those philosophers and history together. It is true that Greek democracy utilized the individual vote as its basis for making the decisions of the whole. However the vote was not extended by any means to all members of society. Fully half of that society was excluded by failure to extend a vote to women. Neither were slaves nor free immigrants given the vote. When actually totaled, an extremely small minority were given suffrage. The concept of self in these societies was still seen as in service to the greater whole. To this end, the majority of individuals could be excluded from determining their fate or status in society. These things were determined by a majority vote of a non-Republican, non-representative minority.
One need only read Plato's concept of the ideal society as expressed in his quintessential work The Republic. In this detailed recitation of how the ideal society should function, Plato demonstrates and rationalizes how it is the state's responsibility to determine the vocation of individuals from birth. Children born of warriors who in their youth demonstrate an aptitude for being a warrior are chosen by the state to be soldiers. Those born of academics who in their youth demonstrate an aptitude for academics are assigned to be teachers, and so on. An individual who rebels against the state's decision on their choice of career is banished; if the rebellion is deemed criminal, the offender is executed. Thus all disagreements with the state on this and many other points are deemed in and of themselves to be subversive to the interest of the state, an interest which in all cases trumps the needs and desires of the individual who is but a module with which to build the state.
Marriage, too, was seen as an instrument of, for and therefore to be exercised by the state. As the state required strong soldiers, strong women were to be married to strong men. As the state required teachers for its youth, smart women were to be married to smart men. In fact, in an age before genetics, operating on its own pre-Darwinian notion of social evolution, Plato does not seem all that far from Hitler. He has more in common with Nazi concepts of racial purity than with those of the Western self. Indeed, as in Nazi Germany, marriage was an institution granted as a privilege by the state. One could not be married without license from the state after the proper officials had determined the proposed union's benefit to the state. Marriage for love or individual preference was seen as a vile expression subversive to the interests of the state. This concept of marriage is almost universal in the ancient world. Arranged marriages are still the norm in many cultures that have resisted influence from the west. In western society, it was this crisis between individual duty to the state and the "zeal of the organs" in the service of the individual that formed the basis of the tragedy of Tristan and Isolde, probably the first expression of this conflict in world literature.
This brings us to another point, namely from whence do these dynamic shifts in thinking within western society come? Rarely do they spring from philosophers or academicians. Rather, they flow from the minds and pens, the hands, eyes and brushes of artists, poets, and writers of both fiction and popularized nonfiction. Neither Leonardo nor Hume were academics nor were Hemingway or Picasso philosophers. Yet each had profound impact on the popular conception of the self in western society in their respective times. The late philosopher Joseph Campbell, expert in mythology and comparative religion, correctly identified the artist, poet, storyteller as the root of all social and philosophical change within a culture. While academics and philosophers study and expound upon change, it always seems to be the cultural black sheep that is the dynamic engine of change and progress. This accounts for the explosion of change and progress seen in western society as opposed to others. Thus, those who would see western progress as the result of economic disparity with the west reaping the natural resources of others worldwide have got it all wrong. It is not economic disparity but spiritual disparity that has marked the upward trend of western society. Our spiritual base has promoted the value of the self.
Having dissected off from whence the self did not come, in my next entry I will present the seed from which it did spring and provide discourse on the cradle in which it was nurtured.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Emergence of the Individual
TEXT: John 10: 1-5
" VERILY, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the
sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth
his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the
sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know
not the voice of strangers. "
Martin Luther turned this into a powerful argument for Protestantism. His grasping of this passage in part was that the sheep must judge whether or not the voice they follow is that of their Good Shepherd. Luther's reasoning was that this being the case, every man must have the right to read the Bible for themselves, decide & pass judgment upon the edicts of pope & church, the voice of the Shepherd being the higher authority. If such edicts be from that higher authority, then they should follow; if they be the voice of strangers, then flee. "For a hat of pearls & a staff of silver does not make a shepherd or a bishop, but his office does depend on his care of the sheep," ie the rights of government are derived from the authority of the governed. He saw this authority of the individual to "knock all edicts of all the papists & all the councils to the ground" as divinely bestowed, never to be rescinded. He saw it also in Christ's warning in Mt 7:15 to beware wolves in sheep's clothing ie we, the people, have the right to judge our leaders, spiritual or otherwise. If we are obliged to follow whatever authority would pretend to lead us, be they shepherd or wolf, then we have not the authority to judge & Christ's warning would be in vain for we would have no option to act upon our judgment.
This is a hard argument to break. It formed one of the cornerstones for recognition of each individual's right to pass such judgments as "endowed by their Creator." Though Martin Luther explicitly stated that removal of this "sword" from the papacy by the people must not be by force, by its full flowering in the 18th century, the concept of the individual under God would overturn the interests of states with revolutions in the America's & Europe. Human society would be forever changed by a whole strain of thought extending from the acts initiated by one man's interpretation of one Bible verse.
So must it ever be, for without this kind of fundamental, over riding foundation of higher authority, there can be no human rights.
" VERILY, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the
sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth
his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the
sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know
not the voice of strangers. "
Martin Luther turned this into a powerful argument for Protestantism. His grasping of this passage in part was that the sheep must judge whether or not the voice they follow is that of their Good Shepherd. Luther's reasoning was that this being the case, every man must have the right to read the Bible for themselves, decide & pass judgment upon the edicts of pope & church, the voice of the Shepherd being the higher authority. If such edicts be from that higher authority, then they should follow; if they be the voice of strangers, then flee. "For a hat of pearls & a staff of silver does not make a shepherd or a bishop, but his office does depend on his care of the sheep," ie the rights of government are derived from the authority of the governed. He saw this authority of the individual to "knock all edicts of all the papists & all the councils to the ground" as divinely bestowed, never to be rescinded. He saw it also in Christ's warning in Mt 7:15 to beware wolves in sheep's clothing ie we, the people, have the right to judge our leaders, spiritual or otherwise. If we are obliged to follow whatever authority would pretend to lead us, be they shepherd or wolf, then we have not the authority to judge & Christ's warning would be in vain for we would have no option to act upon our judgment.
This is a hard argument to break. It formed one of the cornerstones for recognition of each individual's right to pass such judgments as "endowed by their Creator." Though Martin Luther explicitly stated that removal of this "sword" from the papacy by the people must not be by force, by its full flowering in the 18th century, the concept of the individual under God would overturn the interests of states with revolutions in the America's & Europe. Human society would be forever changed by a whole strain of thought extending from the acts initiated by one man's interpretation of one Bible verse.
So must it ever be, for without this kind of fundamental, over riding foundation of higher authority, there can be no human rights.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Defending the Protestant Canon
Luke Ch.11:47-51 : text is in verse 51
“47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.”
Christ recognizes the Old Testament canon as running from Abel in Genesis to Zacharia, whose book does not appear last in the Protestant canon order though he is known to be the latest writer in that canon chronologically. This answers two major questions concerning canon by the Lord's decree, not by man's.
Firstly, Christ verifies the authenticity of the Genesis account. By citing Abel as a prophet, Christ is acknowledging that Moses' account in Genesis is real history at least as far as Jesus is concerned (which should be as much evidence any Christian needs). His statement here means that Abel was a real person, not some mythical invention of later tradition. In fact, it is tradition vs the Word of God that is the subject of this very debate. Christ is saying to the Pharisees that they must reference real history, God's real Word, not their traditions when giving guidance or being guided as how to live. Christ includes Abel (thereby incorporating the Genesis account) as part of that real history. Thus, if the book of Genesis is actually metaphor, Christ's whole argument falls apart meaning He was in error which means He was not God. Chuck Genesis from real history & you chuck Christianity out the same window.
Secondly, Christ affirms that the extra books included in the Catholic canon are, in fact by His decree, not authentically canonical. Christ here Himself closes the canon chronologically at Zacharia. This is why books such as Maccabees & Jubilees are not included in the Protestant canon. Christ in advance confirms the writings of the apostles as canon (see Jn 16:14 note "Christ Verifies the NT"), but excludes all books in the so called 400 year "Silent Era." Any debate over canon must center on this verse, a proclamation from the Lord Himself, which can not be denied, altered or refuted. Certainly we can look to these books as probable historical accounts in the same way as we might consult the Autobiography of Ben Franklin to understand life in colonial America. However, we would never call Ben Franklin's work "inspired" just because it is historically accurate. "Inspiration" implies & must demonstrate more than historical accuracy (though that is a vital requisite component). Thus, if the Lord Himself did not see these as books worthy to live by, then neither should we.
“47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.”
Christ recognizes the Old Testament canon as running from Abel in Genesis to Zacharia, whose book does not appear last in the Protestant canon order though he is known to be the latest writer in that canon chronologically. This answers two major questions concerning canon by the Lord's decree, not by man's.
Firstly, Christ verifies the authenticity of the Genesis account. By citing Abel as a prophet, Christ is acknowledging that Moses' account in Genesis is real history at least as far as Jesus is concerned (which should be as much evidence any Christian needs). His statement here means that Abel was a real person, not some mythical invention of later tradition. In fact, it is tradition vs the Word of God that is the subject of this very debate. Christ is saying to the Pharisees that they must reference real history, God's real Word, not their traditions when giving guidance or being guided as how to live. Christ includes Abel (thereby incorporating the Genesis account) as part of that real history. Thus, if the book of Genesis is actually metaphor, Christ's whole argument falls apart meaning He was in error which means He was not God. Chuck Genesis from real history & you chuck Christianity out the same window.
Secondly, Christ affirms that the extra books included in the Catholic canon are, in fact by His decree, not authentically canonical. Christ here Himself closes the canon chronologically at Zacharia. This is why books such as Maccabees & Jubilees are not included in the Protestant canon. Christ in advance confirms the writings of the apostles as canon (see Jn 16:14 note "Christ Verifies the NT"), but excludes all books in the so called 400 year "Silent Era." Any debate over canon must center on this verse, a proclamation from the Lord Himself, which can not be denied, altered or refuted. Certainly we can look to these books as probable historical accounts in the same way as we might consult the Autobiography of Ben Franklin to understand life in colonial America. However, we would never call Ben Franklin's work "inspired" just because it is historically accurate. "Inspiration" implies & must demonstrate more than historical accuracy (though that is a vital requisite component). Thus, if the Lord Himself did not see these as books worthy to live by, then neither should we.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)