Inspiration of scripture

[Zach Wingo]

I'm curious as to who agrees or disagree's with this section taken from 'A view of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion" by Soame Jenyns

Others there are, who allow that a revelation from God may be both necessary, and credible, but allege that the scriptures, that is the books of the Old and New Testament, cannot be that Revelation, because in them are to be found error and inconsistencies, fabulous stories, false facts, and false philosophy, which can never be derived from the fountain of all wisdom and truth. To this I reply, that I readily acknowledge, that the scriptures are not revelations from God, but the history of them. The revelation itself is derived from God, but the history of it is the production of men, and therefore the truth of it is not in the least affected by their fallibility, but depends on the internal evidence of its own supernatural excellence. If in these books such a religion, as has been here described, actually exists, no seeming, or even real defect to be found in them can disprove the divine origin of this religion, or invalidate my argument. Let us, for instance, grand that the Mosaic history of the creation was founded on the erroneous but popular principles of those early ages, who imagined the earth to be a vast plain, and the celestial bodies no more tahn luminaries hung up in the concave firmament to enlighten it, will it from thence follow, that Moses could not be a proper instrument in the hands of Providence, to impart to the Jews a divine law, because he was not inspired with a fore-knowledge of the Copernican and Newtonian systems? or that Christ must be an impostor, because Moses was not an astronomer? Let us also ssuppose, that the accounts of Christ's temptation in the wilderness, the devils taking refuge in the herd of swine, with several other narrations in the New Testament, frequently ridiculed by unbelievers, were all but stories accommodated to the ignorance and superstitions of the times and countries in which they were written, or pious frauds intended to impress on vulgar minds a higher reverence of the power and sanctity of Christ, will this in the least impeach the excellence of his religion, or the authority of it's founder? or is Christianity answerable for all the fables of which it may have been the innocent occasion? The want of this obvious distinction has much injured the Christian cause, because on this ground it has ever been most successfully attacked, and on this ground it is not easily to be defended; for if the records of this revelation are supposed to be the revelation itself, the least defect discovered in them must be fatal to the whole. What has led many to overlook this distrinction, is the common phrase, that the scriptures are the word of God, and in one sense they certainly are, that is, they are the sacred repository of all the revelations, dispensations, promises, and precepts, which God has vouchsafed to communicate to mankind, but by this expression we are not to understand, that every part of this voluminous collection of historical, poetical, prophetical, theological, and moral writings, which we call the Bible, was dictated by immediate influence of divine inspiration; The authors of these books pretend to no such infallibility, and if they claim it not for themselves, who has authority to claim it for them? Christ required no such belief from those who were willing to be his disciples. He says, "He that believeth on me, hath eternal life; but where does he say, He that believeth not every word contained in the Old Testament, which was then extant, or ever word in the New Testament, which was to be wrote for instruction of future generations, hath not everlasting life? There are innumerable occurrences related in the scriptures, some of greater, some of less, and some of no importance at all, the truth of which we can have no reason to question, but the belief of them is surely not essential to the faith of a Christian. I have no doubt but that St. Paul was ship-wrecked, and that he left his cloak and his parchments at Troas; but the belief of these facts makes no part of Christianity, nor is the truth of them any proff of its authority. It proves only that this apostle could not in common life be under the perpetual influence of infallible inspiration; for, had he been so, he would not have put to sea before a storm, nor have forgot his cloak. These writers were undoubtedly directed by supernatural influence in all things necessary to the great work, which they were appointed to perform. At particular times, and on particular occasions, they were enabled to utter prophecies, to speak languages, and to work miracles, but in all other circumstances, they seem to have been left to the direction of their own understandings, like other men. In the sciences of history, geography, astronomy, and philosophy, they appear to have been no better instructed than others, and therefore were not less liable to be misled by the error and prejudices of the times and countries in which they lived. They related facts like honest men, to the best of their knowledge or information, and they recorded the divine lessons of their master with the utmost fidelity; but they pretended to no infallibility; but they sometimes differed in their relations, and they sometimes disagreed in their setitments. All which proves only, that they did not act, or write, in a combination to deceive, but not in the least impeaches the truth of the revelation which they published; which depends not on any external evidence whatever.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I'm curious as to who agrees or disagree's with this section taken from 'A view of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion" by Soame Jenyns

Since this was published in 1776, I would not use the same language nor make quite the same distinctions that he makes. For example, I would talk about Scripture as the "witness" or "testimony" to God's revelation rather than being the "history" of that revelation. In the late 18th century, we were just beginning to understand "history" in the modern sense of that term so it was a more positive idea when used in a Faith context. By the beginning of the 20th century, the term had become far more secular in its meaning with less positive connotations for religion.

Yet the biblical idea of "testimony" is not primarily a witness to data, but to meaning and purpose. For example, the idea of "testimony" in John's Gospel relates to the self-revelation of God in Jesus who is the Christ;

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 20:31 But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

21:24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 21:25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

I would also talk about revelation as being God's revelation of himself to which human beings bear witness. I don't think revelation is about a body of perfect data to be transcribed, but is about God and his work in human history with people (a good example of what testimony looks like in a narrative context is John 9).

Inspiration, then, in this context, is not God telling people factual truths about the world, or enabling them to have prescience, or foreknowledge, or to know secret truths (Ezekiel's "wheels in wheels" is probably not a reference to helicopters!). Rather, inspiration is the presence of God helping people understand God and how he has revealed, and is revealing, himself in the world. The purpose of the testimony, for us Scriptures, is to enable people to express what God has revealed of himself, in order to call us to believe and live as people of God. It is that sense, and that sense only, that we confess Scripture as "infallible" and "inerrantly revealing." (For a longer version of this perspective, see Revelation and Inspiration of Scripture )

So, to answer the question, I think Jenyns raises some of the key points that, cast in different language, help us avoid a purely rationalistic approach to the Faith and to Scripture. Such a rationalistic approach functionally reduces the Bible to a collection of data that must be defended as absolutely accurate in every detail, even when compared to 21st century science and knowledge, or else it is totally false in what it says about God. Some do not recognize it as such, but that is a very rationalistic and positivistic approach to God and to truth.

Sadly, that is where many are today in trying to defend absolute inerrancy, rather than accepting the classic formulation of Scripture as "revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation." It is interesting how Free Methodists state their Article on Scripture:

A/108. The Bible is God's written Word, uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit. It bears unerring witness to Jesus Christ, the living Word. As attested by the early church and subsequent councils, it is the trustworthy record of God's revelation, completely truthful in all it affirms. It has been faithfully preserved and proves itself true in human experience.

The Scriptures have come to us through human authors who wrote, as God moved them, in the languages and literary forms of their times. God continues, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, to speak through this Word to each generation and culture.

The Bible has authority over all human life. It teaches the truth about God, His creation, His people, His one and only Son, and the destiny of humankind. It also teaches the way of salvation and the life of faith. Whatever is not found in the Bible nor can be proved by it is not to be required as an article of belief or as necessary to salvation. (The Book of Discipline, "Articles of Religion," Article IV )

In several ways, this is a better statement than the CofNs Article on Scripture, since it strongly affirms the human dimension of Scripture and avoids ambiguity that might allow absolute inerrants to exegete the statement in their cause.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Zach Wingo]

I just don't think I can agree with Jenyns comments is that not all of scripture was given by inspiration of God because the writers were fallible men and therefore they sometimes made mistakes.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I just don't think I can agree with Jenyns comments is that not all of scripture was given by inspiration of God because the writers were fallible men and therefore they sometimes made mistakes.

But that was not really his point. It was not really about inspiration, but about how we deal with the reality of the biblical text in light of some of what we know now, 2,000 or 3,000 years later, about the physical world. And that is a far more acute issue now than it was in 1776.

Again, as I said, inspiration is not about having God reveal data about the physical world. If that were true, for example, it would not have taken human beings 2,500 more years to discover that germs are the cause of a great deal of human illness (1860s). Or else we have a God that reveals information and data about the physical world that is so obscure that it is of little use to us. That is a God whose revelation is pretty much worthless. That is, until human beings discover things on their own and then, behold, it was there in Scripture all along! We've got to be more realistic, and more honest, than that.

Inspiration is about God's enablement to help people understand what he has revealed in the world, in human history, about himself. That is at the heart of Old Testament covenant and the Incarnation. The Old Testament's primary faith confusion is "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one." And that was grounded in a historical experience: "Once we were slaves in Egypt . . .." The primary New Testament faith confession is "Jesus is Lord." And that is also grounded in a historical experience: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us. . . ."

If we are not willing to allow God to work through human beings, with all their infirmities, and within human history with all its uncertainty, then we have given up something important about the very nature of God, and have already begun to lose something of the power of the incarnation. The incarnation was not just an historical event in which God became human. It was another revelation, the best one, of the very nature of God in which he has chosen to use the weak things of the world to make himself known. And then he called people to proclaim who he is through the very fallibility of human testimony. And yet we believe that the testimony was faithful, not because we can prove the details accurate by modern science (which we cannot), but because across 3,800 years of human history, and across 2,000 years of the Church that testimony has proven faithful in human experience, precisely because it is a true testimony to who God is and how he works among humanity.

If we try to prove the Bible to be true by correspondence to newly discovered data, then we will lose the very testimony to God that is its purpose. It was never a testimony about data. It was a testimony about God, who is the only Truth that is enduring.

Blessings on your journey.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[David Graham]

Quote//Dennis Bratcher: "If we try to prove the Bible to be true by correspondence to newly discovered data, then we will lose the very testimony to God that is its purpose. It was never a testimony about data. It was a testimony about God, who is the only Truth that is enduring.":// Quote


Dennis, while I agree that at the very least the bible is the testimony about/of God, it was/is so much more. It is a testimony of the frailty of human nature, the tragedy of the fall, the wickedness of sin and the hope of human redemption. It is also an authoritative rule book for holy living understood against the context of its particular period, yet containing principles which are ageless. e.g. The 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. And while I don't accept that every single word or paragraph is "legally" binding upon people of every age, there are nonetheless some passages, even from the Old Testament that are binding, and at the very least we dishonour God if we disobey them or disregard them lightly. St. Paul admonishes Timothy concerning the Old Testament scripture that he had: "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God and is PROFITABLE for DOCTRINE, REPROOF, CORRECTION and INSTRUCTION in righteousness". Thus it would appear that Paul didn't regard the Old Testament as uninspired, irrelevent or of no consequence to the life and mission of the church. Later of course, the early church fathers and councils of the church regarded some of Paul's writings to be inspired and authorative.

If I had to err with regard to scripture I would much rather err on the side of its relevence and authority to and for the Christian of every age than to regard it as a mere guide book for life that we could take and leave at our pleasure.

Blessings,
Dave

[Dennis Bratcher]

"If we try to prove the Bible to be true by correspondence to newly discovered data, then we will lose the very testimony to God that is its purpose. It was never a testimony about data. It was a testimony about God, who is the only Truth that is enduring."

Dennis, while I agree that at the very least the bible is the testimony about/of God, it was/is so much more. It is a testimony of the frailty of human nature, the tragedy of the fall, the wickedness of sin and the hope of human redemption.

I did not intend that to be a comprehensive statement about the nature of Scripture. As I have said before, the Bible tell us three things: about God, about us, and about our relationship with God. That is about as comprehensive as I can get.

It is also an authoritative rule book for holy living understood against the context of its particular period, yet containing principles which are ageless. e.g. The 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.

I don't accept the legal overtones of the idea of "rule book," unless "rule" is used in the classical sense of "rule of Faith." Within the concept of "covenant," the "rule book" is not legal requirements, but rather is "instructions" for life. They are not "law" in the sense of incurring penalty, but rather instructions that we violate at our own peril.

It St. Paul admonishes Timothy concerning the Old Testament scripture that he had: "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God and is PROFITABLE for DOCTRINE, REPROOF, CORRECTION and INSTRUCTION in righteousness". Thus it would appear that Paul didn't regard the Old Testament as uninspired, irrelevent or of no consequence to the life and mission of the church.

I'm not sure how this relates to anything I said. I certainly have not suggested this. Yet, quite clearly, Paul would not consider all the Old Testament to be "binding" for Christians, especially as it was understood legally in parts of first century Judaism.

If I had to err with regard to scripture I would much rather err on the side of its relevence and authority to and for the Christian of every age than to regard it as a mere guide book for life that we could take and leave at our pleasure.

Once again, I have not suggested anything close to the Bible being "a mere guide book for life that we could take and leave at our pleasure." That is not the implication in seeing the Bible as "instruction" (which is what the Hebrew word torah means). I'm not really sure at this point to what you are responding.

I have to go to a staff meeting. Perhaps more later.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[David Graham]

I did not intend that to be a comprehensive statement about the nature of Scripture. As I have said before, the Bible tell us three things: about God, about us, and about our relationship with God. That is about as comprehensive as I can get.



I don't accept the legal overtones of the idea of "rule book," unless "rule" is used in the classical sense of "rule of Faith." Within the concept of "covenant," the "rule book" is not legal requirements, but rather is "instructions" for life. They are not "law" in the sense of incurring penalty, but rather instructions that we violate at our own peril.



I'm not sure how this relates to anything I said. I certainly have not suggested this. Yet, quite clearly, Paul would not consider all the Old Testament to be "binding" for Christians, especially as it was understood legally in parts of first century Judaism.




Once again, I have not suggested anything close to the Bible being "a mere guide book for life that we could take and leave at our pleasure." That is not the implication in seeing the Bible as "instruction" (which is what the Hebrew word torah means). I'm not really sure at this point to what you are responding.

I have to go to a staff meeting. Perhaps more later.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Dennis, I certainly agree that the bible is "instructions for life", but it is also in places, law and commandments. The 10 commandments contained within Exodus 20 are more than suggestions for happy living, they are among the requirements for holy living, and binding upon all people hence any violation of them is still sin. Of course, I recognise that we are not saved by "keeping the law", but by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ, nonetheless, we cannot disregard the law for it helps us to live in properly ordered societies. Also, remember the words of Jesus in Luke 16: 17; "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest detail of the law to fail". As for there being no penalty, apparently Paul thought that they were "profitable" for reproof, and from his own experience testified that the law made him aware of his sin (Romans 7), shattered his delusion of personal righteousness, and brought him (spiritual) death rather than the life for which he hoped. So if the law had no continuing consequence, why should we discipline ministers who commit adultery or defraud the tax department (i.e theft) or worship an idol in the place of worship of another religion in the name of religious unity? In addition of course, there are ministers in some places (thankfully not in my denomination here in my state) engaged in homosexual practice, because their leaders do not regard biblical prohibitions (law) as binding. We here in Queensland do, and prohibit the practice on that basis alone.

Yes I agree (as I have already stated) that not all old testament passages are binding, but some are and I have alluded to an example of this with regard to the 10 commandments above.

I was not responding to any specific point which you raised, but simply stating that I also believe that the scriptures are authoritative for the Christian, so that we can establish our doctrine, ethics and practice upon what they teach.

I too am very busy with my parish work and could do with an assistant Minister at times as well as a full time secretary, but finances constrain us. Nonetheless by God's grace at this stage we are still growing.

Peace and blessings,
Dave

[Dennis Bratcher]

Thanks for the response. We're not that far apart really, but are emphasizing different aspects. So let's see if I can interface some of the issues.

Dennis, I certainly agree that the bible is "instructions for life", but it is also in places, law and commandments. The 10 commandments contained within Exodus 20 are more than suggestions for happy living, they are among the requirements for holy living, and binding upon all people hence any violation of them is still sin.

"Instructions" are not the same thing as "suggestions." Recall, that I am working from the meaning of the Hebrew word torah, which means "instructions." "Law" is an English word that has much different connotations in English than torah does in Hebrew.

Also, in the Old Testament and in Jewish tradition, they are not "ten commandments" but are called simply "the ten words." Scripture does not call them "The Ten Commandments." That translation in NRSV, for example, in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13, 10:4 translates the Hebrew "ten words." In Exodus (34:28) they are specifically called "the words of the covenant."

He was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten words.

In the other two passages in which this phrase occurs the context is also covenant. While we have made these ten words larger than life in some cases, originally they defined the parameters of covenant relationship for God's people. I have said before that I think the Ten Words are the absolute moral baseline for humanity. But that is a theological conclusion not a biblical one. Yet that still does not make then "legal."

They are "binding" because they are true, reliable, and trustworthy (or authortative) not because they are legal requirements. If I see a sign near the edge of a cliff that says "Keep Back," I can read it as a legal requirement that demands obedience under threat of penalty, arrest, and a fine or imprisonment for violation (and we could talk about the theology and psychology of our human response to such legal demands). Or I can understand it as "instructions" for life, concern for my well-being and safety from someone who does not want me to be injured. If I ignore the sign, the consequences will not be legal but will affect the quality of life, most likely very drastically!

I think this is far closer to how we need to conceptualize the "Ten Words," and the other commandments, statutes, ordinances, etc., of Scripture. In fact one of the Ten Words actually states it this way (Ex 20:12). This also seems to be what Jesus is doing when he redefines external legal obedience inwardly to obedience of the heart in the Sermon on the Mount, and other places. It also seems to be what Paul has in mind as he distinguishes between "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law." It is in this sense that we can say that neither Jesus nor Paul ever changed the spirit of torah

I have concluded that torah in the Old Testament is a means of expressing an interactive relationship with God, one in which God’s role is defined by incarnational mercy and grace, and in which the faith community’s role is defined by a lifestyle that embodies a concrete response to that grace as a witness to God in the world. That lifestyle subsumes every facet of life under God, so that every detail of life is lived as a testimony to God’s grace as it reflects the character of God. However, all of life cannot be governed by fixed law, because human experience is too diverse, and the movement of history simply will not allow such rigidity. Since torah encompasses both poles of stability and change, it provides anchored guidelines, yet allows flexibility in application. A heart turned toward God will seek to learn torah as the guiding influence of God, the light God shines on the path of life, and will listen for the voice of God speaking torah in a variety of ways. . . .

The Old Testament concept of torah as a lifestyle lived out in response to God’s grace, encompassing a grounding in God Himself, yet calling for a holy lifestyle as His people in the real life experience of the world, is genuinely a torah of the heart (Deut 6:5-6). As such, I would suggest that torah, properly understood in dynamic relational terms instead of primarily legal categories, provides an appropriate biblical paradigm for what Wesleyans mean by holiness. Relationship with God and lawmaking can be held in dynamic tension with the overarching idea of torah encompassing both. With this paradigm, holiness can encompass both the focus of love, seen in relational terms (change), and the focus of obligation, seen in lawmaking (stability), without allowing either to overpower the other. If held in constructive tension, both are torah, both are holiness, and both can be described as response to divine grace. (Torah as Holiness: Old Testament 'law' as Response to Divine Grace )

Of course, I recognise that we are not saved by "keeping the law", but by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ, nonetheless, we cannot disregard the law for it helps us to live in properly ordered societies.

While they are certainly related on some level, civil law that "helps us live in ordered societies" is not the same thing as the Ten Words or biblically conceived torah. That is precisely what Jesus is getting at in the Sermon on the Mount and Paul is dealing with in Romans 1-8. God's "law" has to do with the heart and the positive motivation for actions. Law can only deal negatively with transgression and penalty after the fact. Law cannot compel obedience, it can only punish violation. This is Paul's main argument against legally conceived religion and his argument for a "more excellent way."

The biblical perspective calls us to live well by following the instructions in order to avoid the negative consequences. That is why the distinction between "obeying the law" and ""doing torah" is so crucial; it is the difference between seeing God legally and seeing him relationally, the difference between obedience out of fear of penalty, and relationship and service out of love.

Also, remember the words of Jesus in Luke 16: 17; "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest detail of the law to fail".

In the context of Luke, that is not nearly the legal statement that it sounds like. I really don't think we can use Jesus as an example of one who argued legal obedience to law. And even though the word in Luke is the Greek word nomos, which is a legal term, the concept is most likely torah, not law. Paul had to struggle in Romans with using nomos, trying to make it clear when he actually meant legal (letter of nomos) and when he meant relationship (spirit of nomos, or torah). Such are the complications of cross cultural translation.

As for there being no penalty, apparently Paul thought that they were "profitable" for reproof

Perhaps it would be helpful to see this verse:

1 Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 3:17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Note that the first word in the list is "teaching." In Hebrew, "to teach" is the root word for the noun torah, that which is taught or "instruction." This is really a statement that corresponds quite closely to the Old Testament understanding of torah, not as legal demands, but as instructions for life, how to live well, how to be "equipped for every good work." And note that here also it is a covenantal idea, for "everyone who belongs to God."

Also, I did not say there were no consequences, I only said that they do not operate as legal penalty. All sin brings consequences; that is, ignoring the sign that says "Keep Back" will likely bring, not legal penalty, but harmful consequences. Failure to honor parents does not being legal penalty, but brings consequences. Ignoring the instruction about honoring God by keeping Sabbath rest does not bring legal penalty, but brings damaging personal consequences that work out in mostly unseen ways in a person's life. Hating someone in one's heart cannot draw legal penalty, but Jesus certainly taught that it is a violation of love and brings consequences. Those kinds of "instructions" reveal a far deeper understanding of human beings than anything law could possibly demonstrate.

and from his own experience testified that the law made him aware of his sin (Romans 7), shattered his delusion of personal righteousness, and brought him (spiritual) death rather than the life for which he hoped.

Yes. And his argument in Romans is that this negative dimension is all that law can do. Law can only condemn after the fact; it can only have a negative role. And yet Paul understands the Christian Faith in positive terms.

So if the law had no continuing consequence . . .

My point has never been that there are no consequences. The point is that the concept of "law" is not a good way to conceptualize relationship with God.

. . .why should we discipline ministers who commit adultery or defraud the tax department (i.e theft) or worship an idol in the place of worship of another religion in the name of religious unity? In addition of course, there are ministers in some places (thankfully not in my denomination here in my state) engaged in homosexual practice, because their leaders do not regard biblical prohibitions (law) as binding. We here in Queensland do, and prohibit the practice on that basis alone.

Unfortunately, this mixes civil law with religious discipline, community discipline, and ethical issues. They are different topics.

Yes I agree (as I have already stated) that not all old testament passages are binding, but some are and I have alluded to an example of this with regard to the 10 commandments above.

Yes, they are valid. But it is not because they are law. Otherwise, we quickly get into trouble as Christians because very few of us, for example, keep Sabbath. If it is law from God and it is binding as law, then we had better move Sunday worship to Saturday. Or else we really only have Nine Commandments and one suggestion (just kidding!). Yet somehow, if we are arguing that the Ten Words are, indeed, legally binding, we have to deal with this glaring discrepancy. Maybe the early Church, with all its use of "law" from a Roman context, understood the concept of torah better than we do in the West today (in other cultures, "law" is understood in different ways; anyone who's driven in Seoul, Mexico City, or Rome on holiday understands!).

I was not responding to any specific point which you raised, but simply stating that I also believe that the scriptures are authoritative for the Christian, so that we can establish our doctrine, ethics and practice upon what they teach.

Absolutely. But authoritative does not necessarily mean "legal" or law. A good dictionary is authoritative, but is not law.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[David Graham]

Hi Dennis, sorry I've been slow in responding, but I was sick yesterday and today I'm working flat out as usual.

Quote// Dennis B: "Instructions" are not the same thing as "suggestions." Recall, that I am working from the meaning of the Hebrew word torah, which means "instructions." "Law" is an English word that has much different connotations in English than torah does in Hebrew.

Also, in the Old Testament and in Jewish tradition, they are not "ten commandments" but are called simply "the ten words." Scripture does not call them "The Ten Commandments." That translation in NRSV, for example, in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13, 10:4 translates the Hebrew "ten words." In Exodus (34:28) they are specifically called "the words of the covenant."// Quote

Yes I agree that we are not far apart on this, and reading your first point I am mostly in full agreement, however, I can't for the life of me call the 10 commandments "10 Instructions", because I feel that it weakens the intent of God in constructing the covenant. The covenant, was understood by the people of that region and in that age as being a legally binding agreement between two parties, one lesser dependant party and the other superior and dominant one. For the "lesser" party (usually a king) to break the covenant meant certain death when the "superior" king got hold of him. Thus in my mind the whole notion in this passage is about a law that is binding upon both parties. Israel will keep the covenant and the laws contained therein or suffer the curses thereto attached.

Quote// Dennis B. "While they are certainly related on some level, civil law that "helps us live in ordered societies" is not the same thing as the Ten Words or biblically conceived torah". // Quote

Sorry, I disagree, Israel was a theocracy, and the law of God was encompassed within the law of the nation.

Quote// Dennis B. "The biblical perspective calls us to live well by following the instructions in order to avoid the negative consequences. That is why the distinction between "obeying the law" and ""doing torah" is so crucial; it is the difference between seeing God legally and seeing him relationally, the difference between obedience out of fear of penalty, and relationship and service out of love." //Quote.

Dennis I couldn't agree more, and my reference to living in properly ordered societies was an inference from Calvin regarding the purpose of the law in scripture.

Quote// Dennis B. "In the context of Luke, that is not nearly the legal statement that it sounds like. I really don't think we can use Jesus as an example of one who argued legal obedience to law. And even though the word in Luke is the Greek word nomos, which is a legal term, the concept is most likely torah, not law. Paul had to struggle in Romans with using nomos, trying to make it clear when he actually meant legal (letter of nomos) and when he meant relationship (spirit of nomos, or torah). Such are the complications of cross cultural translation." //Quote

Sorry I'm unconvinced, but if the reference from Luke is insufficient what about Matthew 5: 17-19.

Quote// Dennis B. "Also, I did not say there were no consequences, I only said that they do not operate as legal penalty. All sin brings consequences; that is, ignoring the sign that says "Keep Back" will likely bring, not legal penalty, but harmful consequences. Failure to honor parents does not being legal penalty, but brings consequences. Ignoring the instruction about honoring God by keeping Sabbath rest does not bring legal penalty, but brings damaging personal consequences that work out in mostly unseen ways in a person's life. Hating someone in one's heart cannot draw legal penalty, but Jesus certainly taught that it is a violation of love and brings consequences. Those kinds of "instructions" reveal a far deeper understanding of human beings than anything law could possibly demonstrate."// Quote

Again I mostly agree, but God is a righteous judge, and judges according to his own law, the law that we cannot keep according to the letter, but by the grace and power of God we can keep the law in spirit because God "writes his law upon our hearts". i.e. As we love God and others we unconsciously keep the law. Yet, this does not invalidate the written law, it serves to reassure us that God gives us the means to keep it, not as our means of salvation but simply because it is the right way to live.

Quote// Dennis B. "Yes. And his argument in Romans is that this negative dimension is all that law can do. Law can only condemn after the fact; it can only have a negative role. And yet Paul understands the Christian Faith in positive terms." Quote.

Yep, no worries!

Quote// Dennis B. "Unfortunately, this mixes civil law with religious discipline, community discipline, and ethical issues. They are different topics."// Quote

No, certainly not, they are all part of our Christian witness to the world.

Quote// Dennis B. "Yes, they are valid. But it is not because they are law. Otherwise, we quickly get into trouble as Christians because very few of us, for example, keep Sabbath. If it is law from God and it is binding as law, then we had better move Sunday worship to Saturday." Quote.

Yes we all probably do sin in violation of the law of God, but we live in the grace of God by faith in Jesus Christ..... and he declares us "Not Guilty"!
Our failure to keep the law of God doesn't invalidate the law, it simply means that we cannot keep what it requires; and in this we recognise what Paul wrote about the law as being a "school master" to lead us to Christ. This at the very least supports what you were saying about the law as "instruction"..... I agree, but say that it more so that that alone.

Quote// Dennis B. "Absolutely. But authoritative does not necessarily mean "legal" or law. A good dictionary is authoritative, but is not law." Quote.
Ahhh, yes I agree, but I also said it was authoritative, which was if I remember my original point.

In dealing with the authority of scripture here, which was what my original assertion was about, I find myself in agreement with Calvin more that Barth with whom I am more akin in my beliefs. For here Calvin contended that the Spirit worked through the scripture and ascribed direct authority to them by way of inspiration, thus negating the need for any other external support for their authority, i.e the church. Thus Protestantism, particularly those churches from the reformation hold to the scriptures as being authoritative on their own. This authority is a derived authority just as the authority of the e.g. Prime Minister is derived not from him/herself but from the constitution, the parliament and ultimately from the people who elected him/her.

Yes Dennis, we are not far apart, but this is an issue which we are facing at the moment in our denomination and some of us have taken a stand for the authority of the scriptures and I am one of those.

Grace and peace,
Dave

[John Brickley]

Yes I agree that we are not far apart on this, and reading your first point I am mostly in full agreement, however, I can't for the life of me call the 10 commandments "10 Instructions", because I feel that it weakens the intent of God in constructing the covenant. The covenant, was understood by the people of that region and in that age as being a legally binding agreement between two parties, one lesser dependant party and the other superior and dominant one. For the "lesser" party (usually a king) to break the covenant meant certain death when the "superior" king got hold of him. Thus in my mind the whole notion in this passage is about a law that is binding upon both parties. Israel will keep the covenant and the laws contained therein or suffer the curses thereto attached.

Dave,

I appreciate the context from which you are writing but I am wondering if that is determining your understanding of this issue. Covenant as it was expressed and experienced in Scripture seems to me at least to be a relational reality and not a legal one. Thus it is much more akin to a marriage covenant, than to a legal contract. In both you have consequences but in the contract those consequences are of a legal nature and are determined by the stipulations in the contract and enforced by the civil law, in the covenant you have relational consequences that can be just as sever (if not more so) but it is not a matter of the civil authorities levelling the punishment but it is a damaging of the relationship.

To cast the covenant between God and man primarily in legal terms misconstrues the covenant in my opinion. The covenant was not established at Sinai. It was established long before that when God heard the cries of His people, or stretch it even before that when God chose Abraham and established a binding covenant with him and to create out of him His people. The heart of the covenant is not expressed in the Ten Commandments, it is expressed in God's oft repeated pledge throught scripture (both Old and New Testaments) "I will be their God and they will be my people." (It is not coincidental that the sublime vision of John of the New Jerusalem contains this declaration of God). It is this relational reality that binds the covenant between God and His people from their creation to their final glorification. This is the constant theme and nature of the covenant, and it is relational not legal. Note that the relationship between God and His people preceeded the giving of the law. This is significant in that it is not the law that establishes the relationship, or the covenant, they already existed. This means that the relationship is the overarching frame through which we must view the giving of the torah, therefore the torah becomes a relational instruction, in otherwords a guide as to how to live in the relationship of God's people. We have the relationship, now what does that look like in day to day expression?

This was Paul's point all along, the law is powerless to establish relationship, the relationship is established by grace, but it is also the pattern of the Old Testament as well, the establishment of the relationship always preceded the giving of "law" (never established by it) and it was always as a result of God's initiative (hence it was grace). Thus it is the prexisting relationship that shapes and frames our understanding of the torah, not the other way around.

[David Graham]

Thank you Dennis and John, at the very least I agree that the word of God comes to us in the context of our relationship with God, as does the law. I further agree that our obligation for obedience is also done against the same background of that relationship and should therefore be motivated primarily by love.
(Hence the word of God can and should be "written" upon our hearts)

Yet it is also the "school master" that impells us sometimes unwillingly into greater levels of commitment, and in the case of an unbeliever to the Saviour himself by way of the conviction for sin. Yes by all means the word of God is used by the Spirit of God (our Paternal guide) to guide us and rebuke us where necessary, yet in the end it will be used by God the Chief Justice (Our Paternal Magistrate) by which all humankind who have rejected the relational guide, as the common standard by which justice will be finally delivered. Thus as a Christian I live in the former relational authority of the word, but I am also aware of the latter..... lest I stray.

Again, blessings,
Dave

[Paul DeBaufer]

I am probably the last one to read it, but I came across this article today by N.T. Wright. How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? which I think fits well with this thread.

[Hans Deventer]

I am probably the last one to read it, but I came across this article today by N.T. Wright. How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? which I think fits well with this thread.

Well, I read it after you! Good read. Thanks for posting, Paul!

[Todd Erickson]

I think that we get into dangerous territory when we define Israel as a Theocracy. This is a case of us taking modern governmental definitions of the world and imposing them on similar content within a nation state (heh, did it again) several thousand years ago.

It's more accurate to say that Israel was a Scottland (a collection of feuding herdsmen with a penchant for battle) than a Theocracy (A state ruled by religious leaders). Also more fun. :P

You can just see King David wearing a kilt. You know you can.

The lifestyle set up by the Torah was deeply cultural, without being the law of the land itself. The land initially was ruled by different tribes and their elders, with religious matters handled by the priesthood (levites), and they eventually adopted the government of the surrounding nations, Kingship, which was more centralized. This obviously bit them rather hard.

A number of post modern writers (Boyd, Claiborne) refer to the idea that God actually prefers that people not take power beyond the initially civil, because power takes them over and makes them anti-relational. "I do this for the good of the nation state" becomes their language, rather than "and this will maintain the relationship between ourselves and God".