First, the word ‘bible’ is from the Greek biblos. Biblos originally was the word used to describe that part of the
papyrus reed used to make the rolls for writing on. Our English word paper stems from the old
word papyrus. Biblos later came to mean the end result of the writing process, a finished
scroll or roll. When what we know as
books replaced the rolls, they became known as biblos. And since a whole
work of writing would often take several scrolls or books (or ‘chapters’), biblos came to mean a collection of
books. Hence our Biblos (Bible) is a collection of books. It is not an “inspired” word; our bible
nowhere refers to itself as a “bible”, let alone a “holy bible”. That title was given to our collection of
writings by man, without reference to the writers of the original works that
appear in the bible. God may have
breathed (the meaning of ‘inspired’) the content of our bible books, but man
called it a bible and man called it holy simply because it refers to God.
Second, our bibles do in fact refer to writings that are
“God-breathed” (what some call inspired).
In Latin, the word is scriptura;
in Greek, the word is graphe. It
means ‘the writings’ or ‘that which is written’. When Paul wrote to Timothy that “all
scripture is inspired by God…” (2 Timothy 3:16), he was not saying “the bible
is inspired by God”: that is an inference made by man, and in particular by
people who want to control other people by keeping them ignorant and in bondage
to a religious system. When Paul wrote
that, much of the New Testament was still future; probably the only post-Jesus
writings accepted as scripture at that time would have been, at most, one maybe
two of the gospel accounts.
Think about the New
Testament writer Luke for a moment. It
is generally understood that Luke wrote both the gospel account that bears his
name and the book of Acts. They were apparently
written as a set of two biblos for a
friend of Luke whose name is Theophilus (which name means ‘lover of God’ or
‘loved by God’). But it becomes evident
when you read Acts that Luke travelled with Paul on his journeys with the good
news of Jesus. He appears to be in part
a writer of eyewitness accounts. The
story of Paul ends not long before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in
AD 70, so Luke’s second book could not have been completed much before
that. And Paul wrote his letters to
Timothy while on the road – quite possibly with
Luke!
If you mull over that
and then put Paul in his context, it is very probable that Paul was writing to
Timothy something quite different in fundamental meaning from the meaning we
impute to it today.
Paul fought a long
and hard battle (most of his post-conversion life in fact) to defend the purity
of the good news of Jesus from Jewish religious incursions. Remember, before his conversion, Paul was a
Pharisee, born into a Pharisee family.
He was a contemporary of Jesus, and so it is likely that he was among
those who lobbied for Jesus’ death.
When the ascended
Jesus got Paul’s attention and knocked him off his horse while he was on his
way to persecute more Jesus-followers, Luke records that Jesus asked Paul
(named Saul at the time), “why are you persecuting me?” Paul is a wonderful example of a full 180°
repentance conversion. Those whom he
once sought to persecute, jail or kill, he now sought to love and serve as Christ
himself would. Jesus took Paul out for
several years and, in that time, God gave him the job of custodian of the
revelation of the administration of the new covenant and the ecclesia. And that revelation left no room – none
whatsoever – for a Jewish interpretation of the good news for non-Jews or for
the addition of Jewish practices to that good news. The fight wore on for his entire life, at
times leading to violent assaults and even to being left for dead.
Read Acts 15 and his
letter to the Galatians (particularly chapters 2 and 5). Paul would not accept any additions to the
good news of the kingdom of God as Jesus taught it and as the Holy Spirit
revealed it to him in his time in the wilderness. The Jews said that when Gentiles come to
Christ, they must accept the Law of Moses and they must accept
circumcision. In other words, converts
to Christ had to become Jews to be acceptable.
Paul would under no circumstances accept that. No Gentile need become a Jew to have Jesus;
in fact, he taught that “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly” [that is of
circumcision and the Law of Moses] (Romans 2:28) and that Gentiles who fully
accept Jesus according to Jesus’ own terms are the ‘new true Jews’. In other words, there is ‘old Israel’ under
the old covenant, and there is ‘new Israel’ or “the Israel of God” (Galatians
6:16) under the new covenant. And in new
Israel, there is “neither Jew nor Greek; neither slave nor free; neither male
nor female; but all one in Christ.” (Galatians 3:28)
So what was Paul
saying to Timothy in 3:16? Given this
background and the fact that Paul was adamant about the ecclesias he worked
with being exclusively new covenant fellowships, I believe his meaning was
something like this:
The Torah (roughly our Old Testament scriptures) is a)
God-breathed and b) profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness – so that the man of God
may be adequate, equipped for every good work; but it is definitely not your
“holy book” like the stone tablets and the scrolls of “the law and the
prophets” (see Romans 3:21). Don’t be
tempted to take the Jewish line [remember Timothy had a Jewish mother and a Greek father] and put the old writings (scriptura) in place of the Holy Spirit
and the freedom of the good news of the kingdom of God in Christ. Those old writings were for Jews under the
old covenant, and you are under the new covenant not the old, and many are not
Jews – not even half-Jews as you are.
Cheers,
Kevin.
No comments:
Post a Comment