ARE THE WORDS OF THE APOSTLES AS INSPIRED AS THE WORDS OF JESUS?

Are Paul’s writings just as infallible and authoritative as the Gospels containing the teachings of Jesus? Should we regard both sets of writings equally as Scripture? Some argue that we should not. They cite this passage to support their claim:

·       To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. (1 Corinthians 7:10-12; ESV)

Some interpret Paul words, “I, not the Lord,” as an admission that he is not writing by divine inspiration but his own. If this is true, perhaps only where Paul has written “not I, but the Lord” should be regarded as fully inspired. This would mean that almost everything that Paul had written could possibly be regarded as simply his own judgments rather than Scripture. However, this clearly was not Paul’s intent. Instead, he regarded the entirety of his writings as Scripture:

·       And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

Paul elsewhere claimed that “Christ is speaking in me” (2 Corinthians 13:3). In many other places, he declared his teachings as authoritative:

·       Therefore whoever disregards this [what Paul had just written], disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. (1 Thessalonians 4:8)

He claimed that He was teaching the infallible Gospel, which he had received “through a revelation of Jesus Christ”:

·       But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed…For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:8-12)

Nor should we regard the Gospel that Paul had been given supernaturally as just a minor aspect of everything Paul had taught. Instead, it seems that in Paul’s mind, everything, even judgment, was part of the Gospel:

·       on that day [of judgment] when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:16)

Because Paul realized that his Gospel came from God, he did not hesitate to proclaim to dismiss those who were teaching a different gospel:

·       If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth... (1 Timothy 6:3-5)

Paul never gave any indication that any of his teachings could be set aside. He consistently claimed, even in the letter in question, that his teaching was of the Spirit:

·       My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. (1 Corinthians 2:4)

·       Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. (1 Corinthians 2:6-7)

Paul claimed that he taught a wisdom that could only come from God. Consequently, since his teachings were of God, he expected others to submit to it, presumably even to the passage in which he acknowledges that his teaching didn’t come directly from Jesus:

·       If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:37)

He also claimed that, even in regards to the verses in question, his teaching was of the “Spirit of God”:

·       Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 7:40)

We should not suppose that since Paul used “I think” rather than “I know” that this implied any uncertainty on his part, as we usually associate with “I think”. Instead, his teachings did not seem to leave any wiggle-room for anyone to conclude, “Well Paul, since it is just your opinion, this is not the Lord’s command, and I am free to do what I want.”

Even though Paul claimed that this teaching was a matter of “my judgment,” it was a judgment based upon the “Spirit of God” and therefore inspired:

·       Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. (1 Corinthians 7:25)

His judgment is “trustworthy,” because “by the Lord’s mercy [it] is trustworthy.” Clearly, this doesn’t imply that Paul was making a judgment independent of divine inspiration.

Even though Peter had clashed with Paul, nevertheless, he too regarded Paul’s writings as “Scripture”:

·       And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Peter equated Paul’s writings with Scripture. In the same way that people could twist Scripture to their destruction, they could also twist Paul’s writings to their destruction.

Based upon the above evidence, there is no biblical basis to regard Paul’s writings as less than authoritative. In fact, God even placed His seal-of-approval upon Paul’s ministry, as Paul often acknowledged:

·       The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. (2 Corinthians 12:12)

Did the Other Apostles also Regard their Writings as Scripture?

Evidently! Peter equated the writings of the Apostles with the writings of the Hebrew Prophets:

·       that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. (2 Peter 3:2)

John had equated his writing with those of Moses in another way. He claimed that what he had written was just as inviolable as the writings of Moses:

·       I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

This is the same warning that Moses had issued against tampering with what he had written (Deut. 4:2; 12:32). Clearly, John realized that he was writing the Word of God.

Jesus equated His own teachings with Scripture (Matthew 24:35; 28:19-20). He also reassured His Apostles that the Spirit was able to give them His words as they needed them (Matthew 10:20). It seems that they understood this. We should understand likewise.

Knowing God vs. Experiencing God

In our mad dash to enjoy the things of the world, we have embraced an assortment of new theologies – for instance, feeling-based theologies as opposed to Scripture-based theologies - that make this accommodation easy. One early casualty is the doctrine of Scripture itself – the belief that Scripture is completely authoritative and God-breathed.

As with any innovation, it is hard to fathom the price attached to this accommodation, at least in the short-run. Theologian R.C. Sproul thinks that the price is enormous:

• History has demonstrated again and again that all too often there is a close relationship between rejection of inerrancy [that in its original form, Scripture is without error and completely God-breathed] and subsequent defections from matters of the Christian faith that are essential to salvation. When the church loses in the authority of sacred Scripture, it inevitably looks to human opinion as its guiding light. When this happens, the purity of the church is direly threatened. (Can I Trust the Bible, 65)

Unfortunately, we don’t even need history to affirm this truth. It is obvious and ubiquitous. Many two-legged examples of this are inescapable. It seems that whenever we begin to reject the doctrine of the full authority of Scripture, we compromise and ultimately become indistinguishable from the prevailing culture. This is because Scripture, along with the Spirit illuminating it for us, is foundational for the entire Christian life.

Therefore, if we lack the assurance that Scripture is fully divine, there is little to prevent us from absorbing the surrounding influences, and this is exactly what we do.

To defend the departure from the authority of Scripture, many justifications are offered:

1. Scripture is invented by us in an attempt to explain our religious experience.
2. Scripture is the word of man and not of God.
3. God has changed his mind, and so too should we.
4. Scripture contains many errors, so we have to be careful about what we believe.
5. Jesus never expected us to regard his teachings as unchanging and absolute.

Okay, let’s start with the teachings of Jesus on the subject of Scripture! He regarded Scripture as absolutely authoritative. When the devil challenged him, after 40 days of fasting, to change a rock into food if He is truly the Son of God, Jesus responded:

•  “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Mat. 4:4)

According to Jesus, life is a matter of feasting upon every word of Scripture. As such, Scripture had to judge us and not we standing above Scripture to judge it by deciding which verses were inspired and which aren’t. Instead, every word was unchangingly divine.

Jesus even set the example for us, demonstrating how we are to live by Scripture. In His response to the Devil, He Himself quoted Scripture (Deut. 8:3). Consequently, if He resorted to Scripture – and as the Son, He didn’t need to do this – how much more must we resort to Scripture!

In fact, whenever Jesus quoted Scripture - and He did this often – it always displayed the fact that He regarded it as fully authoritative. When His disciples failed to believe in the Scriptures, He castigated them for this failure. For instance, when, after His resurrection, He encountered His two despairing and unbelieving disciples on the Emmaus room:

• He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

Scripture was supposed to be believed unchangingly in its entirety, and His disciples were remiss. Instead of merely correcting them, He led them back into Scripture to demonstrate how it was fulfilled. Likewise, when He appeared to His disciples hiding behind closed doors

• He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead. (Luke 24:44-46)

Everything in Scripture is inerrant, because Scripture comes from God, and consequently, “Everything must be fulfilled.” Rather than simply giving them an ecstatic experience, “He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures” – the very thing He continues to do for us today through His Spirit. He could have opened our minds to an experience of God, but instead, He opened them to Scripture, thereby demonstrating its centrality! Besides, nothing is more important than this, as Peter affirmed:

• Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (2 Peter 1:2-3)

Scripture is so foundational to the Christian life, that all spiritual blessings are imparted “through our knowledge of Him.” Likewise, Jesus prayed that we would be filled with God’s love, and this too would be granted through our knowledge of Him and not a mountain-top ecstatic experience:

•   “I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.” (John 17:26)

Our experience of the love of God has to rest upon the knowledge of God. Did Jesus know that His own words were equivalent to Scripture? When He sent His disciples out into the world, He instructed them to preach His own words:

•  “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Mat. 28:19-20)

He had instituted the promised New Covenant with His blood, and now it was His words of Scripture that they were to bear throughout the world. Nor were these new teachings, as if God had changed. Rather, these were teachings that found their roots in the Hebrew Scriptures.

If we are His disciples, we must also carry forth His words! We are not free to pick-and-choose among them. One who insists that we can depart from His Word is not truly His disciple. Faithfulness to our Master means faithfulness to all of His words (John 15:7-10).  

There is nothing in Scripture that would suggest that it is man-made. Peter claimed that:

•  For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21)

Paul claimed that, although Scripture came through mere humans, it was also the Word of God, fully inspired:

• All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

As God’s Word, Scripture is fully trustworthy to thoroughly equip us. Instead, if Scripture contained errors, we could not be “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The errors or uninspired material would prevent us from being “thoroughly equipped.” Rather, Paul regarded his teachings as fully inspired - “the Word of God”:

• And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. (1 Thess. 2:13)

Paul added that the Word is not stale or sterile head knowledge. Instead, he claimed that it is “at work in you who believe.” This is what I had discovered.

For decades, I had been plagued with severe depression. I won’t call them “bouts” of depression, because it had been more like an unending winter. Then it was joined by panic attacks which deprived me of the possible luxury of staying in bed. The agony was so great that I could find little rest, let alone peace. I didn’t know if I could survive from one day to the next. I tried to read the Bible, but my mind was usually too tormented to even get through a verse. However, there were times when a phrase – like “And God heard him” - would suddenly spring to life.

It was like an explosion of intense light but just for a brief moment. However, that was enough! It totally drove all the darkness – the depression and panic – away. I looked for them, but I couldn’t find them. They were gone, driven away by a greater force.

However, the next day they had returned, but the light had left me with something – the indelible impression and conviction that my God had heard me. And He would remain with me and eventually bring me through my hell.

This same experience visited me on numerous occasions but always in conjunction with the Word. And on each occasion it seemed to deepen my conviction that God was my Savior and that He would never leave me. However, the last time it visited me was perhaps 25 years ago.

I am still inspired, convicted, guided and encouraged by Scripture, albeit without such intensity. However, these powerful visitations left this diehard skeptic with a special inheritance – a conviction that faith in God is faith in His Word and a confirmation that the Word is true, as it has proclaimed.

Scripture, Inerrancy, and its Detractors

The doctrine of the “Inerrancy of Scripture” claims that in their original writing, Scripture was fully God-breathed and without error, as many verses affirm:

• All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

• Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

However, many have faulted this doctrine, claiming that we can’t even begin to talk about inerrancy without the original writings in hand. New Testament Critic Bart Ehrman is one of them:

• What good is it to say that the autographs [the originals] were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies. And the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them…(Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue: The Reliability of the NT, 86)

Does the fact that we do not have the originals present an insurmountable obstacle? I don’t think so. For one thing, we have the overwhelming affirmation of Scripture that it is all God-breathed. We also have reason.

When we look at a sunset, we also do not see (or have) the “originals.” We do not see directly what we are looking at. Instead, we “see” an electro-chemical mental reproduction – a “copy” – of the “original.” Our eyes break down the incoming light – and the light is not even the seen objects – into millions of simultaneous electro-chemical reactions that are transported into the depths of our brain, and immediately we have a trustworthy series of images of the external world.

Although we cannot literally see the external world, we have a trustworthy facsimile of it. This facsimile or “copy” enables us to drive our cars and make thousands of appropriate decisions every minute.

Can we therefore say that there exists a stable, fully reliable and believable external reality, even though we cannot directly apprehend it? Certainly! Likewise, can we say that there exist fully reliable and believable inerrant originals, even though we don’t possess them?  Why not?

Ehrman might challenge the analogy in this manner:

• When it comes to the Scriptures, we have thousands of textual variants among the 5,800 NT manuscripts and fragments. There are no “variants” when it comes to the external world.

However, such a response misses the point of the analogy. Ehrman’s point had been that “We don’t have the originals.” Therefore, it is not possible to talk about inerrant originals. However, we can talk about a totally reliable external reality even though we can’t directly see it. Even though we don’t directly have the originals, we can still assert that they are/were fully reliable.

Besides, we see reality in “variant” ways. However, despite this very obvious fact, we should not conclude that reality is “variant.” Nor should we conclude that our textual variants in any way undermines the doctrine of “inerrancy.”

Of course this raises another question:

• Even if the originals are inerrant, in light of the many textual variants, can we say with any confidence what the originals looked like?

While the radical critic Ehrman would answer “no,” the faith of many has only been reaffirmed through the study of the variants. NT scholar William Warren writes:

• I would say that our [present composite NT] text almost certainly represents a form that is almost identical to the original documents. (122)

Another NT scholar, Craig Evans, affirms the same thing:

• Given the evidence, we have every reason to have confidence in the text of Scripture. This does not mean that we possess 100% certainty that we have the exact wording in every case, but we have good reason to believe that what we have preserved in the several hundred manuscripts of the first millennium is the text that the writers of Scripture penned.

Similarly, NT textual critic Silvie Raquel writes:

• I also have studied New Testament textual criticism and, by contrast with Ehrman, have found confirmation about the validity of the text…by defective reasoning, misuse of the evidence, and a misconception of inerrancy, Ehrman fails to build a case for the unreliability of the New Testament text as a sacred and inspired text. (173, 185)

Don’t think that this question of “inerrancy” is just a stale and irrelevant academic disagreement. It is essential to our lives. If we are convinced that the Bible isn’t entirely trustworthy, then we are doomed to always have to decide what parts of Scripture we are to trust and what to discard as untrustworthy. Consequently, instead of Scripture judging us, we are judging Scripture. Instead of Scripture reigning over us, it is our judgment that reigns over Scripture. And if our judgment is more reliable than Scripture, well, we might as well just read the New York Times!

However, all of the books of Scripture regard Scripture as supreme and authoritative.  Isaiah would certainly agree:

• The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8)

Only God’s Word can stand forever, despite Bart Ehrman’s protestations

(My thanks to W. Gary Crampton’s review of the Ehrman-Wallace dialogue in The Trinity Review)