INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE?

[MoGrace2u]

When Matthew or the other apostles explain what fulfills what was written that the prophets said - should we think that is inspired? For example:

Mat 1:22 - Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Mat 1:23 - Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Because when Isaiah 7:14 said it, he records it as fulfilled by his own wife and child.

How did Matthew know that what he said was prophetic of Jesus' birth? Would such a revelation constitute inspiration?

[steve]

Hi MoGrace2u,
Jesus "opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45). To me that guarantees the accuracy of their understanding and recognizing the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.

Emmet,

You wrote:

Let’s consider a parallel: in traditional Jewish and Christian thought, David was anointed to be king of Israel; he was chosen by G-d, and the spirit of G-d was upon him from the day of his anointing onward.

Would questioning specific aspects of David’s conduct as king equate to treason and/or blasphemy? Would it equate to questioning his overall competence to be king? Would it equate to questioning the wisdom of G-d’s anointing him?

No. To criticize David's conduct would not be treason. But to disobey his orders would be. Likewise, we can criticize personal defects in the apostles (as Paul rebuked Peter), but we are not at liberty to overturn their authority as apostles or to rebel against their commands.

During his kingship, David probably would have issued a great many directives. Presumably these would have been authoritative until/unless he revoked them. That is, until the end of his reign. After David’s passing, his directives would not have been impervious to displacement.

Would the apostles’ authorization to lead the church have transcended their passing, any more than David’s authorization would have? Would their every directive in first-century leadership remain authoritative for the twenty-first century church, any more than David’s every directive would remain authoritative for twenty-first century Jews?

When David died, he would thereafter issue no new directives. However, the laws that he put in place would still be on the books after his death, until such a time as a successor occupying his office would come along to change them. Roman Catholics believe that the apostles actually have successors in the bishops of Rome, who have the authority to issue new (and even contrary) commands. I do not. I believe that the apostles (unlike David) hold their office in perpetuity, and are not succeeded by others who would have the authority to contradict their decisions.

In the course of his political, military, judicial, and administrative leadership, David probably would have articulated a number of principles to those under his authority, and probably would have made a vast number of decisions.

Would David’s anointing as king guarantee the impeccability – in immediate and/or subsequent contexts – of his every articulation and decision in these areas?

No, David could be wrong, and so could the apostles—and the Bible records instances of both. There is no suggestion in scripture that the apostles were either impeccable nor infallible. What we are told is that they were appointed by Christ to instruct the church in His place. The church is thus obliged to recognize the authority of Christ in their office, and to obey their commands—just as Joab was obligated to follow David's (rather sentimental and unwise) orders to not harm Absalom (which Joab violated and later was put to death for doing).

Their infallibility is not really an issue. It is a fair inference that they refrained from giving authoritative decrees about matters of which they were inadequately informed. Most of what they wrote was either 1) historical information about Christ (a subject about which they were the world's best experts); 2) interpretations of the Old Testament (which Christ specifically enlightened them about); and 3) the enunciation of Christian doctrine (which usually came from either the teachings of Christ, or from the direct revelation of the Holy Spirit).

On occasion, they may have (like Paul) disclaimed any authoritative word from the Lord on a fine point, but they were kind enough to give their wise judgments and preferences on such matters. I assume that these judgments arose from the intelligent and careful consideration of men much closer to Christ than myself, so I take them very seriously (e.g., Paul's preference for all people to maintain perpetual singleness), but do not think them always to carry the weight of a command.

[steve7150]

Hi MoGrace2u,
Jesus "opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45). To me that guarantees the accuracy of their understanding and recognizing the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.








So would'nt this meet the criteria of inspiration? Also the Holy Spirit will bring all things Jesus had said to them to their rememberance? John 14.26 Isn't this suggesting inspiration?

[steve]

Yes, it definitely meets the criteria for inspiration. It means the apostles received inspired understanding of the scriptures, and, as you said, the Holy Spirit also reminded them of the things that Jesus said. This made them (as I said) the world's greatest experts on the life of Jesus—and fully qualified to write and testify authoritatively, just as they were appointed to do. These are very good reasons to trust them, as I do.

The fact that they received inspiration about certain things does not, however, tell us anything about their infallibility in remembering things about which they had received no inspiration—e.g., which Old Testament prophet it was who wrote the particular verse they might be thinking of on a give occasion. This is the matter that got us started in this discussion. If you or I were reading from the Bible and the Holy Spirit gave us a correct understanding of what we were reading (and I believe that has actually happened, at times), this would not guarantee that the correct location of the the verse would always correctly be recalled. To suggest that Matthew could not have such a lapse would be to attribute personal infallibility to him. As I said, the Bible makes no such claims for apostles, and in fact shows them to be fallible men.

[Paidion]

I am not sure, but I think I see the matter much as Steve does. What I can't make sense of, is the idea that there is a collection of writings which contain no factual errors, preserved from error by God. And who collected these writings? For the New Testament, there was a gradual shift in which writings should be accepted as authentic. At various points in time, the early church rejected 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. It wasn't until the 4th century that the same 27 writings of the NT as are in our Bibles today, were accepted by the early Catholic Church. Wikipedia states:

In the 4th century, in his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the 27-book NT canon,and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.

Did God inspire Athanasius to select these particular writings? If so, then there is inspiration outside the Bible (This is denied by many). Athanasius called his list "Wells of Salvation" and used the words of Revelation to apply to anyone who added or subtracted from his list. Interestingly enough, in his Old Testament list, Athanasius included Baruch, which is not found in Protestant Bibles. If Athanasius was inspired to select the correct writings for the infallible Book, then should be add Baruch to our Old Testament?

The foundation of my faith is Christ and His teachings, not a book. I follow the teachings of Christ as they are recorded in the Memoirs of Christ (or "gospels" as they are now called). Secondly, I accept the teachings of the apostles, because of the authority which Jesus gave them. The prophetic writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah no doubt have their source in God. Those overseers whom the apostles appointed in the churches who wrote letters and explanations of the faith are not to be ignored.

Most, if not all, of these men probably made factual errors, even the prophets when they were not prophesying. Indeed, some of the prophets prophesied things that didn't come to pass (in spite of the OT criterion for a true prophet). But those prophecies were not "mistakes". In several cases, they did not come to pass because God changed His mind in response to the repentance of the people, and didn't carry out what He had intended.

In any case, might not making the Bible the foundation of one's faith instead of the Person of Christ, be appropriately termed "Bibliolatry"?

[MoGrace2u]

Looking back at the OP about Matthew's supposed mistake in referencing Jeremiah instead of Zechariah, it sould seem Zech 11 is merely affirming and elaborating on what was already said by Jer 23. Perhaps Matthew has joined the two prophetic utterances so that we might look to Jeremiah before we see how Zechariah applies to Matthew's fulfillment? I think finding the harmony ought to be our first task.

[steve]

I agree. I think the judgment of charity would always first see if there is a way to harmonize what appear to be contrary statements.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hello, Steve,

A quite tardy response here…

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Let’s consider a parallel: in traditional Jewish and Christian thought, David was anointed to be king of Israel; he was chosen by G-d, and the spirit of G-d was upon him from the day of his anointing onward.

Would questioning specific aspects of David’s conduct as king equate to treason and/or blasphemy? Would it equate to questioning his overall competence to be king? Would it equate to questioning the wisdom of G-d’s anointing him?

steve wrote:
No. To criticize David's conduct would not be treason. But to disobey his orders would be. Likewise, we can criticize personal defects in the apostles (as Paul rebuked Peter), but we are not at liberty to overturn their authority as apostles or to rebel against their commands.

On one hand – it is not clear that present-day Christians are responsible to follow their commands (as discussed below).


On another hand – one can accept a party’s authority and still vigorously criticize the way that they handle their authority. And this criticism can extend not only to their “personal defects,” but also to their ideas and policies.

Is divine anointing a guarantee that all ideas and policies of the anointed authority will be correct and/or righteous? And if an anointed authority were to impose an incorrect and/or unrighteous idea or policy, what would be the responsibility of those persons under its authority? Should they follow the idea or policy into error? Into unrighteousness?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
During his kingship, David probably would have issued a great many directives. Presumably these would have been authoritative until/unless he revoked them. That is, until the end of his reign. After David’s passing, his directives would not have been impervious to displacement.

Would the apostles’ authorization to lead the church have transcended their passing, any more than David’s authorization would have? Would their every directive in first-century leadership remain authoritative for the twenty-first century church, any more than David’s every directive would remain authoritative for twenty-first century Jews?

steve wrote:
When David died, he would thereafter issue no new directives. However, the laws that he put in place would still be on the books after his death, until such a time as a successor occupying his office would come along to change them. Roman Catholics believe that the apostles actually have successors in the bishops of Rome, who have the authority to issue new (and even contrary) commands. I do not. I believe that the apostles (unlike David) hold their office in perpetuity, and are not succeeded by others who would have the authority to contradict their decisions.

I will disagree with your characterization. Law is established by present authority.

In the ancient Near East, laws might persist through a dynastic line of accession or through orderly succession. But if there were no accessor/successor, then there was a vacuum of present authority, and anarchy ensued. The dictates of a late archon did not persist in the vacuum; they did not remain ossified for generations to come.

It is quite the same today. If the Jordanian state were to collapse tomorrow, then the laws of the Hashemite Kingdom would not remain in force until eventually a successor emerged. On the contrary – the nation would slide into anarchy if another authority did not come into place. And without the emergence of another present authority, it would not take long before all “law” in Jordan became ad hoc.


This is quite appropriate, because authority relationships involve mutual responsibilities. When an authority passes away and is no longer able to fulfill the present responsibilities of leadership, then those who have been under authority will hardly continue to be responsible, in the present, for their end of the arrangement.


If the apostles expired without authoritative successors, it does not follow that their decisions would sustain in perpetuity. The apostles are not present to apply any authority they might have to the present situations of the present church, some twenty centuries removed from the apostles’ ancient dictates.

When a present authority ceases to be present, then “the books” of that authority cease to be law books, and become history books.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
In the course of his political, military, judicial, and administrative leadership, David probably would have articulated a number of principles to those under his authority, and probably would have made a vast number of decisions.

Would David’s anointing as king guarantee the impeccability – in immediate and/or subsequent contexts – of his every articulation and decision in these areas?

steve wrote:
No, David could be wrong, and so could the apostles—and the Bible records instances of both. There is no suggestion in scripture that the apostles were either impeccable nor infallible. What we are told is that they were appointed by Christ to instruct the church in His place. The church is thus obliged to recognize the authority of Christ in their office, and to obey their commands—just as Joab was obligated to follow David's (rather sentimental and unwise) orders to not harm Absalom (which Joab violated and later was put to death for doing).

Where are thinking of, when you say that "we are told ... that they were appointed by Christ to instruct the church in His place"?

Jesus may have appointed certain disciples to instruct the church of their milieu. But it is dubious to flatly extend their commands beyond that purview. The present-day church does not live in a first-century Jewish and/or Hellenistic context.

Joab was put to death in light of his character, and in light of his having been a partisan of Adonijah. The killing of Absalom might have been taken into account when David and/or Solomon deliberated over assassinating Joab, but they never explicitly cite the case of Absalom. Rather, the killings of Abner and Amasa are invoked. {q.v., I Kings 2:5f., 28-34}

steve wrote:
Their infallibility is not really an issue. It is a fair inference that they refrained from giving authoritative decrees about matters of which they were inadequately informed. Most of what they wrote was either 1) historical information about Christ (a subject about which they were the world's best experts); 2) interpretations of the Old Testament (which Christ specifically enlightened them about); and 3) the enunciation of Christian doctrine (which usually came from either the teachings of Christ, or from the direct revelation of the Holy Spirit).

On occasion, they may have (like Paul) disclaimed any authoritative word from the Lord on a fine point, but they were kind enough to give their wise judgments and preferences on such matters. I assume that these judgments arose from the intelligent and careful consideration of men much closer to Christ than myself, so I take them very seriously (e.g., Paul's preference for all people to maintain perpetual singleness), but do not think them always to carry the weight of a command.

So is the reader to adopt the default assumption that an apostle is dispensing "direct revelation," unless they give an explicit disclaimer? (Would this be a prudent methodology for interpretation?)

In what manner is the reader of an apostolic text to distinguish between "direct revelation" and mere "wise judgments and preferences"?

Putatively, Christians enjoy an imminent communion with the Holy Spirit. Why should present-day Christians slave themselves to the dictates of persons who lived far from the context of the present church, when "the direct revelation of the Holy Spirit" is available to them - a present director to engage the present needs of the present church?

[Jason]

Putatively, Christians enjoy an imminent communion with the Holy Spirit. Why should present-day Christians slave themselves to the dictates of persons who lived far from the context of the present church, when "the direct revelation of the Holy Spirit" is available to them - a present director to engage the present needs of the present church?

This issue has entered my thinking on many occasions. My stock answer (to myself) used to be, "Christians need an authoritative standard in order to assess what is and isn't correct teaching." However, it has occurred to me that the bible doesn't really provide that, since even astute and charitable Christian brothers and sisters (who all love the Lord) do not often agree on important passages of scripture. Not that we must all think alike on every apostolic directive, but my own mind is sometimes split on what the writer intends me to learn. It's also obvious to me that the context of the NT is decidedly Jewish and Hellenistic, meaning those same apostles may have given different advice if they were written in the midst of another culture. Don't get me wrong, I don't think principles are determined by cultural setting, but their practice usually is. For example, how one culture practices hospitality (a Godly principle) in the Middle East is very different from that in Europe. In the southern US it's considered rude to walk into a store and say, "I want nails." Yet, in Pakistan it's rude to walk into a store and start a conversation with the clerk about the weather. If those countries were switched, it would be acceptable. In the US it's not acceptable to make a joke about someone's race, but in the Philippines it's not considered taboo at all. Such considerations make me wonder how to interpret apostolic writings since they are so entrenched in a given setting.