What would you say if I formed a doctrine based on one hard-to-translate word which is found only one time in the entire Bible?
In other words, what if I formed an entire doctrine not only from just one verse in the Bible, but from one word in that one verse?
It does happen. Though it is more than one word, the Mormon practice of “baptism for the dead” is based on one verse out of 1 Corinthians. And we all scoff at them. How could they be so foolish, to believe such thing based on one difficult statement in one verse out of the entire Bible? There are other examples as well, but if you or I tried to invent a doctrine today based from one difficult word from one verse in the entire Bible, we would be mocked. This is not the proper way of doing theology.
Ironically, one of the key doctrines in Christianity is also based from one word in one verse in the Bible. This is the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture. That’s right. ONE VERSE. And not only that, but the word in this verse is notoriously difficult to translate. The verse is 2 Timothy 3:16, and we will look at this verse in more detail later. And yes, I am aware that there are other verses which support the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture, but the only verse which explicitly mentions “inspiration” is 2 Timothy 3:16 (and I will argue later that even this verse does not mention inspiration).
So while I understand the logic behind the doctrine, it seems that with a theological slight-of-hand we have developed a central idea to the entire Christian faith!
I find that scary. I find it troubling. More than that, I find it suspicious.
I does not seem that the doctrine resulted from a careful analysis of what Scripture says, but rather that the doctrine was a result of a need within the early church to have a trump card against those who disagreed with it theologically.
Look at this another way. Does it not seem that if the Doctrine of Inspiration is central to our beliefs about the Bible, clear statements should be more frequent within the Bible than in only one hard-to-understand verse? If God had really wanted us to have an authoritative text by which we could defend our beliefs from all those who hold contrary beliefs, it seems He would have written a different sort of book, and would have included more frequent and more clearly stated references to the nature of this book.
All of this makes me wonder if the original framers of the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture were too hasty in their construction of the doctrine, did not lay a good foundation for what they were trying to accomplish, failed to understand the ramifications that would result from this doctrine, and ultimately, missed the entire point and purpose of Scripture.
I believe that by looking at what the authors of Scripture say about Scripture, we can arrive a much better position — one where we maintain the accuracy and authority of Scripture, but in such a way that Scripture is not set up as a sacred idol. I’ll explain more in posts to come. For now, does it concern you that the doctrine of Inspiration comes primarily from one word in one verse? Do you disagree? Do you think I am overreacting?
Sounds interesting, but I would like clarification on what you mean by “doctrine of inspiration.” This particular doctrine has been interpreted many ways by many different theologians.
Elizabeth,
I surveyed the various views of inspiration earlier in this series. So far, I have not stated which view I hold, or even if I hold one of these views.
Here is the link: Views on the Inspiration of Scripture
Jeremy,
Another important question is to ask what scriptures is Paul writing about.? At the time of the writing of 1 Timothy, Only a couple of Gospels and some epistles had been written and even then most of those were not considered “scripture until they were canonized at a much later date. If we rely solely on this statement, then anything written after is suspect? Did Paul even consider his own writings as “scripture” or was he only speaking of the already written books. Was he speaking of the Torah, or the entire OT and maybe apocrypha is also included? There are just so many questions.
J/K, I agree there is much danger in creating a doctrine from any one verse, even when the reading of it seems clear. I think that the thing which troubles me most about doctrines like this one is not the doctrine itself. We should be free to develop an understanding based on what we read, what is troubling is the authoritative why the doctrine has been proclaimed, and the way supporters of the doctrine hold to it with unquestioning devotion (dogma. Not only has the bible become an idol in a sense, but so also has this doctrine (among many others).
FedEx,
President,
Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry
FedEx,
Yes, I am not sure I can fully know the history or logic behind the historical development of the doctrine. I will take a small stab at it tomorrow.
Again you raise some good points. It is encouraging to see others questioning these things as well as they have been troubling me for the past couple years. Another example is the cessation of gifts which is based on one verse in 1 Corinthians 13 that is very much taken out of context.
But these one-verse doctrines have become so engrained in certain circles of Christianity that to question them means to risk the label of heretic. And yet, which is actually the heresy?
Another dangerous doctrine, in my opinion, is Sola Scriptura because by its logic, it denies any word of prophecy that the Holy Spirit may reveal. All prophets must be tested against the scriptures (God will not contradict Himself), but that does not mean that God cannot and does not continue to reveal messages to His people even today.
Matthew,
You read my mind. In the rough draft of this post, I actually raised the exact same question as you did here: “Which is actually the heresy?”
That is an interesting question about sola Scriptura. I will have to think on that more.
We get into trouble when we try to hang our hat on one nail of questionable strength, or our doctrine on one verse/word that has issues.
Does that verse say what many tell us it says? Probably not. The writer was undoubtedly writing long before the canon had been agreed upon. Therefore he couldn’t have been referring to the Bible we can hold in our hand today. (And would that be the Protestant version or the Roman Catholic version that contains some extra books?)
Was the writer referring to what some of us refer to today as the “Old Testament” or to that and more? Even in ancient Eastern thinking would it not have been rather cheeky to be including one’s own writing and letters in such a statement?
Did Paul write this? That is not universally agreed upon. Perhaps someone wrote it to make some other stuff they had written (like I Timothy, for example) sound authoritative, stuff meant to support their positions on certain topics.
There does seem to be agreement that the ancient church, although perhaps not the most ancient, accepted the document (II Timothy) as authoritative. But was it all of the church, or only part of it? (Perhaps the issue of what the ancient church accepted as authoritative is more important than authorship, but then again we must ask what group/part of the ancient church accepted the writing as authoritative.)
Sam,
I am one of those who think Paul did write it, but I do agree with you that he was probably referring only to the OT. Peter says some things which seems to indicate that he thought Paul was writing Scripture.
Indeed it is a concern to base a doctrine on one word. One key is to look carefully at the context. Another is to look for similar teaching elsewhere. I’m sure you will do that as this series progresses.
Another example of this is the way that some teach that women cannot take any kind of leadership in the church on the basis of the Greek word authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12, a word which is found nowhere else in the New Testament and is very rare in Greek as a whole, and which never seems to mean simply “have authority” as some people insist it means.
Peter,
That is another great example. Have you written anywhere about that verse? What does the word mean?
Jeremy, I have written several times about that verse. See these posts.
Fantastic, I’m going to head over there and read those posts. Thanks!
I believe Paul was referring to the OT, but Paul was the Moses of the NT. He had to explain what had just happened! If we were to throw out all the letters of Paul, would we have a different Christianity?
Even though I was ordained in a Pentecostal denomination, I truly believe we don’t see the manifestation of the gifts is because we aren’t living in community or the ekklesia. I don’t mean living on a commune, but being involved in each other’s lives on a regular basis. The gospel was written to “y’all” or “you guys”.
Plus, if I were to say that some scriptures are not really inspired of God, then “I” become the authority, not the Bible anymore, because you can’t just read the whole Bible and trust it because not all of it is inspired. So I become the authority if I make such a statement. Well, someone can come along and say, Well, no, no, no, he was wrong on that one. We can do this ad infinitum (which is happening even now) And why even read it if it’s not from the breath of God?
Another note, some readings of Greek translate the verse as “all divinely inspired scriptures are useful…”, not saying which ones are in fact, divinely ispired. So I can safely assume the OT was.
Anthony,
Lots of good points there. I just don’t want to say something about Scripture which it does not say about itself. We will get into 2 Timothy 3:16 today or tomorrow, I think.
Thanx for putting knowledge here.the best part about accessing this info is not about agreeing or disagreeing
With you but learning the truth behind what I believe and believed.
Mandy,
Yes, I am hoping to learn along with everybody else on this as much of this way of thinking is new to me also.
Hi Jeremy,
I read your response to my previous comment and I understand you are taking us somewhere with this. However, I still want to chip in with some additional information. I understand that the term “inspiration” does come from a single verse (2 Timothy 3:16) but, as you said yourself, there are other verses that corroborate the doctrine.
I am going to pull out the old chestnut that, just because a term we use comes from only one verse it doesn’t follow that it is wrong or that the evidence for it is weak. The terms “trinity” and “hypostatic union” cannot be found at all in scripture but that doesn’t make them untrue.
For your readers I am going to provide two online references on the topic if they are interested in digging deeper:
1.) The Study of Inspiration by Gary Kukis.
2.) The Doctrine of Inspiration by Bill Wenstrom.
Thank you.
Glenn
Glenn,
Thank you for the additional resources. I always welcome people to point out other points of view. Studying all sides of an issue is wise.
Glenn, thanks for the resources. Bookmarked and started.
You are so unraveling this big ball of yarn, Jeremy! When I was a new Christian at 18, I was explaining to another 18y co-worker why the Bible was the word of God. “It says so right here, that the bible is inspired.” A look of incredulity came across his face. “You mean to tell me that you believe this book is the word of God because it says so?” He then grabbed a comic book he had stashed behind the counter and mocked me, “This comic book says it’s the word of God too, and I believe it.” I was left speechless and stupified, having surrendered my young, strong mind to the paralyzing forces of beliefism (which is a different phenomena than faith). That conversation was nearly 30 years ago, but it has never left me. Your series on the scriptures is rattling some old bones for me that I have chosen not to pick at over the years. I’ve been afraid, I guess, that if I pick at it too much I’ll be left with nothing but a dusty old book of history and mortally devised collection of writings.
It is good to read your posts on this controversial topic…I think there is a battle over the Bible that is likely going to heat up as we continue forward into the 21st century.
Hi Pam,
I don’t mean to intrude on your conversation with Jeremy but I do want to make one comment. I have heard this issue come up before. If you think about it most of what any of us “know” comes down to taking someone’s word. Do you believe that Einstein’s theory of Relativity is true? If you do then prove to me it’s true. If you don’t then tell me exactly where it is wrong. I can play this game with almost everything you or I know.
When it comes down to believing that the Bible is God’s word then you are going to have to take someone’s word for it. There are people who say it is and those who say it isn’t. Who has the final say? The answer is God does. Now you have to figure out what He has told you and take His word as being the final authority. I can’t really see any other way.
Glenn
Hi Glenn, intrude away!
There are people who say it is and there are people who say it isn’t that the bible is the word of God. I think there are other questions besides is the bible the inspired word of God. Jeremy is doing a great job of teasing out those questions, like what do we mean by inspired and how are people inspired? How has the bible been transmitted? I think it doesn’t have to mean that the bible is tossed out the window if a reevaluation of this holy book comes up with new perspectives for us, such as the possibility that parts of the bible are not inspired or were tampered with or even forged, as Bart Ehrman’s latest book tackles with tremendous scholarship and cultural context.
yes, we can question everything all day long until all is utterly meaningless. I get that, postmodern thinker that I tend to be. However, it is the postmodernistic thirst for questioning that leads to new thought trails. I think Jeremy is leading his readers to a few trailheads to consider exploring. I for one have never been willing to explore, for I’m nervous of where it might lead me….I think I need a greater measure of faith to trust that I can venture intellectually into new territory and not lose my relationship with God even if my relationship (or view) of the bible shifts. I don’t know. I haven’t been willing to give it much thought before….and this is one perfect example of why I LOVE the internet and reading blogs like Jeremy’s. It helps me think by listening to others point of views to discover my own.
Have a great weekend!
(and thanks again jeremy for this series on the bible)
Hi Pam,
Questions about inspiration of scriptures and how they have been transmitted are indeed valid. Since our backgrounds are different we approach the answers differently though. My contention is that if the Bible is not inspired in the traditional sense then it is worthless, it is an all or nothing proposition. I can see no other options.
I have heard of Bart Ehrman but have never seen the point in reading his works (see “Bart Ehrman, Mind Reader“). He seems just like another atheist to me. A few years ago I got into a lot of arguments with Calvinists over some of their doctrines. I spent a lot of time studying Calvinism because of that. Some of it was worthwhile but I basically spent time studying things I didn’t believe in so I could argue. I finally came to the conclusion that there is more truth to learn than I have time for, why should I waste time with other stuff?
I don’t want to argue with you and you understand my point even though you don’t agree with it. Good luck on your path.
Glenn
Glenn and Pam,
Great conversation between both you. I have not read Bart Ehrman either, so I have no clue what his arguments are.
And the comic book example aside, there are numerous other books which claim to be “from God” and which also claim to be written or inspired by God. The Book of Mormon and the Koran are two examples. So it is not quite as simple as taking God’s word for it that the Bible is inspired, because why then do we reject these other books?
We say, “Well, they aren’t really from God.” But how do we prove that they aren’t, and the Bible is? It gets very tricky.
Truthfully, I am not sure I will have good, clear answers to these questions which will satisfy everyone.
You are very right about both the Koran and the book of Mormon. I’ve done quite a lot of work on apologetics on both the book or Mormon and the Koran, and the Koran is easier to dismiss actually. If yu’ve ever read the Koran, it’s a chaotic mess. The further you read you notice it becomes more and more the ravings of a lunatic mind. The book of Mormon not so much though. In the book of 2 Nephi (or Moroni..I forget), it claims to have been created 300 years before the first destruction of Jerusalem. (Remember, the book of Mormon was supposed to be written by the early Native Americans, most likely the Aztec or Inca), and 3 chapters from the KJV of Isaiah are written word for word in the book of Mormon. How can that be? When the book of Mormon was written, very few families owned a Bible since owning one was very expensive. Or he could have just assumed people never read the Bible so he could easily pull the wool over their eyes.
I never finished reading the Koran. I found it too chaotic or ADD like.
Yes, I have read both and share some of your sentiments. The book of Mormon especially has numerous historical and factual errors. Of course, Mormons have their own “apologists” which have creative ways of explaining all this away, just as we have apologists who explain away the supposed historical errors in Scripture.
Hi Jeremy,
You have just hit the nail on the head and have identified exactly where we disagree. Your argument that every sacred text claims to be true is correct. How then do we decide who is right?
In a nutshell I believe that we all (the entire human race) are hardwired to know there is a God and I also believe that we all recognize truth when we see it. I don’t believe that truth just comes from God but that God is truth. If we reject the scriptures we know, at some level, that we are rejecting God and his truth.
I did a quick internet search to see if I could find a write-up on the topic (why re-invent the wheel?). The folks at Answers in Genesis have an article that, unsurprisingly, is titled “How Do We Know that the Bible Is True?” that expresses my beliefs better than I can:
Thank you.
Glenn
Glenn,
Have you had any conversations with Muslims or Mormon’s about their “sacred texts”? They use the exact same arguments we do.
How would you prove that the Bible is true, but the Book of Mormon is not?
I would just use historical evidence. Besides that, I really don’t think it can be done.
I agree. Fulfilled prophecy is also a good method, but is somewhat subjective.
Hi Jeremy,
I have spoken to many Mormons because I grew up in Colorado even though I don’t remember discussing inspiration. I have never discussed religion with a Muslim but that may change at some point, who knows?
Per my previous comment I really don’t believe that anyone can prove that the Bible is true via some kind of mathematical proof. Every one of us has been given, by God, the ability to recognize truth (Common Grace) and if truth is rejected it is a decision not an ignorant accident.
Besides, the scripture never tells me to prove that it is true to anyone (notice how I treat scripture to be authoritative and sufficient). We are told to do many things but that isn’t one of them. What I am told to do is to explain to anyone why I have the hope that I have (1 Peter 3:15).
Glenn
Glenn,
I agree with you completely. I will also be writing about the authority of Scripture later.
Glenn,
Don’t you know Steve Ham has been written off by any credible scientist? He lies blatantly and doesn’t care who he lies to. There is absolutely no way to defend a literal 7 day creation story. Even major church denominations have embraced theistic evolution because they choose not to stay in darkness and lie to their flock about the threat of literal interpretation of the Bible. Truth always wins out and backing up truth with both science and scripture you find a very consistent message of who God is and HIS LOVE. Anyone who would lie just to make money has lost all of my respect and in my opinion is no “Man of God” because TRUTH IS GOD!
*by almost every scientist who has credibility.
So, if you don’t interpret it literally, how do you know Christ was crucified for our sins? Have you ever read Enoch? That could explain the tme before Eden. Plus Genesis 1:2 says the earth BECAME null an void. The LXX says for vs 2 “η δε γη ην αορατος”( i de yi in aoratos) which may say “and the earth became unsightly” or something similar. The Hebrew renders it thus “וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ” (v’ha’erets hayatah tohu v’bohu) “and the earth became formless..”
In the next few chapters, in every other place the word is used, the word hayah is translated ” became, become, came to pass, come to pass, or let there be.”
There is a BIG difference between ” And the earth was without form, and void; “, and “And the earth became without form and void.” The implication is that the earth was created at one point in time. Then the earth became waste and void. Possibly due to the rebellion of the angels? Enoch chapter 1 says as much,and Ezekiel 28 doesn’t give us a time reference, but in Luke 10 Jesus says he saw Satan fall. It is very possible that the angelic host occupied the earth before we did. Now, the rebellious angels are here and are lords over the earth.
If you are quick to dismiss the literal word of God, and take human reason, do not ignore the Book of Enoch which was quoted in the Bible more than once.
Back to your regularly scheduled program 😉
Ant, I’m sorry, but I can’t let this pass without comment. Do you actually know any Hebrew, or Greek? Hebrew hayah is the regular verb “to be”, and Greek ην is a form of the regular Greek verb “to be”. Both languages have their own clear ways of saying “become”, and this is not it. As for your words “In the next few chapters, in every other place the word is used, the word hayah is translated ” became, become, came to pass, come to pass, or let there be.””, I’m not sure what translation you are talking about, but I have never seen one which renders anything like “And there became morning, and there came to pass evening, the nth day”. Same verb, different form.
I am not saying that a translation “and the earth became formless..” is impossible. It is one possible interpretation of the Hebrew, in context. But it is by no means demanded by the words. But their basic meaning is stative: “and the earth was formless…”
Hi, Peter. Thanks for commenting. I know both Modern Greek and Modern Hebrew beter than their Ancient counterparts. “hayah” in Modern Hebrew tends to be an intransitivizer…sort of like this:
ani meratikh hamayim (I boil water)
hamayim hayah meratikh (The water boils or The water became boiled)
I wasn’t trying to be emphatic, I should have said it “could” mean ‘become’. Unless my Hebrew is way off. (It has been a while since I took formal lessons)
Thank you, Ant. I should have been more clear that I was talking about biblical Hebrew. I don’t know much modern. But modern Hebrew can be very misleading for understanding the Bible. I remember a modern Hebrew speaker insisting that ehyeh asher ehyeh means “I will be who I will be”, not “I am who I am” (another example of the same verb), which is of course correct in modern Hebrew, but in classical Hebrew that form of the verb is completely timeless.
Great discussion here by two language scholars! The modern versus the ancient!
I see I need to be more careful if I ever bring up Greek and Hebrew! Yikes! Now I’m scared…
I fully admit that language was never my strong suit in Seminary.
They mean both in Colloquial Modern Hebrew, but there ‘is’ a proper way to put verbs in Future tense in Mod. Hebrew. I just forget what it is right now…
Both Ancient and Modern Hebrew are rather imprecise, which is why I’m glad the NT was written in Greek, a very demanding and precise language. Almost as precise as German 😉
Scritpure?
nice! I love typos!
Understanding historical and cultural and grammatical contexts is just the tip of the iceberg. God’s word is spiritual. A few verses may seem strange alone, but when in harmony with every verse, and when interpreted by the power of the Holy Spirit, what you read and then understand (after asking God for understanding) will become alive in your life. You have to use what you already know before you get more. You have to obey and understand the natural before you can get spiritual wisdom. The old testament is a shadow of the new. The new testament actually starts at the death of Christ, or at the “cross” (as in the cross-over) from the natural to the spiritual. God’s last command in the book tells us not to add or take away from the bible. He told Adam/eve not to eat of the fruit and he knows they did it, so I’m pretty sure he knew and still knows that man will add and take away from the bible. Men can add and take away in two ways: naturally, and spiritually. Naturally, they can purposely mistranslate words in the bible or not include some scriptures/books in the bible. Spiritually, a person can mistranslate and “take away” words in the bible by speech, thus, preaching error by not considering ALL the words, but only what they choose.
I know God’s word is true because when I read it, I read it so that I can apply it to my life, not so I can win a Bible trivia contest. It’s not about what you know, or how many facts you have in your mental vault, it’s about using the little you understand by applying it to your life. Then, you’ll begin to “get it” and make the connections between His word and your own, personal life. The bible will start to “come alive” in your life. You’ll be made aware that the bible is concept, or “doctrine” that applies to those who seek him, the truth. It’s not an instant thing, either, it’s a daily thing, and it makes life worth living. It’s not easy, but it’s worth it. The truth about our immortal inheritance from our creator is phenomenal. If one thing in the bible has been proven true to you in your life, then just imagine how much more truth you will gain when you start applying the principles of the word of God to your everyday actions.
Notice how the stories of the bible share similar concepts, but different characters who all represent various institutions of humans in this world system.
Pray for wisdom, not of the earth, but of God.
When wisdom (truth) enters your heart, knowledge (information) is pleasant to your soul (it used to not be pleasant, because of all the stuff you “knew” but wasn’t pleased because you didn’t understand it). Discretion (separation of truth from information) will preserve you (keep you free from false information), understanding (harmonization of truth and knowledge) will keep you (in the will of God, in the light).
True point. I am learning to read the Bible with spiritual eyes, and listen to the leading of the Holy Spirit through the words of Scripture so that all of the Bible points to the WORD, that is, Jesus Christ.
Below is 2 Peter 1:19-21. I am no theologian so pardon my seeming ignorance, if so. My read of it is that it validates 2 Timothy 3:16. That is, the doctrine that scripture is given by inspiration of God is not supported by one verse only but also by 2 Peter 1:19-21. Regarding the question of which scriptures Paul was referring to, the fact that the all-knowing Holy Spirit inspired those words by Paul and chose to include them in the scriptures suggest to me that what we consider as the entire Bible today is what God had in mind. That is, God spoke about the entire scripture years before the canonization – this does not seem to be difficult for God to do.
19And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Hi everyone,
I’m Roman catholic, my first language is Spanish, so my apologies if there some mistakes. First of all, blessings for all of you. I got to this article looking for some one verse doctrines that so many Christians use. The truth is that many try to use the Bible under their own convenience and that is very dangerous for our salvation, which only comes from God. sometimes they are accepted and sometimes not. Example one verse is enough for many for the baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and for others not. Who is right? How do I know it? Why? The baptism, is clearly, a requirement for our salvation that can be easily founded in the Bible. Mk 16:16 John 3: 5, Acts: 38-41 and even with all that there are many, many who are not agree with that. The same case for the inspiration of the Scriptures, Who is right? How do I know it? Why? at the end EVERYTHING is about the AUTHORITY, as many in this thread has exposed. That’s all. I dropped that authority to the body of Christ, his wife, the Chuch. Which far of be a perfect one, as any apostle wasn’t, or their disciples wasn’t their are guided by Jesus. My words are not trying to convert anyone to be Catholic, that’s not on me. That’s something that proceeds from the Holy Spirit. My only point on all these words is without an AUTHORITY everything is a caos, or not? God is a god of order not confusion Gen 1:2, 1 Cor 14:33 “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” Peter 3:16 “He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction”. If God is not a God of confusion that includes the interpretation of the Scriptures, the question is, do we have that safe interpretation? I do say yes. Blessings for all of you. I love you all in Christ.