Why did Jesus stop reading?

[Homer]

Steve wrote:

I don't think Jesus was making this generic point on this occasion, though He made it on other occasions. This conversation is more specific. He was not simply trying to show their inconsistency in the keeping of the Law of Moses. He was contrasting the Word of God with the traditions of men, and saying that they were more loyal to the latter than to the former. While this may have proved them inconsistent in their law-keeping, it was more concerned to show that they are consistently keeping human traditions at the expense of the word of God.

Since Jesus was teaching against equating the status of traditions with that of God's commands, it would seem, if Paidion is correct in identifying the death penalty for rebel sons with a mere human tradition, that Jesus would not have referenced that command in the manner that He did. He obviously put it in the same category (as a second example of the same thing) with the fifth commandment of the decalogue. These were both given as examples of "the commandment of God" which the Pharisees were violating. When He wanted to give an example of a human tradition (on the other side of the ledger), He gave an entirely different example.

Exactly! According to Paidion, much of what Moses wrote is nothing but "the traditions of men". How then are we to decide what fits that category? Mere human sentiment isn't much of a guide.

[mattrose]

Exactly! According to Paidion, much of what Moses wrote is nothing but "the traditions of men". How then are we to decide what fits that category? Mere human sentiment isn't much of a guide.

In Paidion's defense, I don't think he is using mere human sentiment as his guide. I think he has honestly and genuinely tried to understand Jesus. He has taken seriously the biblical claim that Jesus is the fullest revelation of God that we have to work with. And he has tried his best to interpret every part of the Bible in light of his understanding of Jesus. In other words, I think there is quite a big difference between a liberal theology (reading with a lens of contemporary human sentiment) and Paidion's theology (reading through a lens of Christo-centrism).

Where I disagree with Paidion (I think) is in our views of inspiration. Paidion seems willing to say that certain Old Testament texts that he thinks don't measure up to the standard of Christ are, therefore, not 'inspired' Scripture. I'd be more likely to say that they are an inspired record of progressive revelation... even as I read with a very similarly interpreted Jesus-centered-lens.

[Paidion]

Thanks Matt, for your defense, including an understanding of my intentions and my position.

I don't usually talk about inspiration unless I'm called to the carpet. However, my basic view is that no writings (strictly speaking) are inspired, but rather some writers are inspired, and I don't think those writers are limited to the authors of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. I also don't think that because an author was inspired, everything he wrote is without error. And that includes not only factual errors in history or numbers, but also in even philosophical and theological errors. So that allows that even the inspired Moses was sometimes incorrect in attributing his own solutions for dealing with Israel to be the word that God has spoken to him.

Like you, I also believe in progressive revelation. But doesn't that imply that the earlier understanding could be in error? Such as the example that was brought up concerning who incited David to number Israel? According to 2 Samuel, it was God, but according to 1 Chronicles it was Satan. Doesn't that mean that someone was incorrect?

Of course, I understand (but disagree with) the position that Satan is God's agent, and that one could say that God incited David through Satan. But that position makes God the author of evil. I don't understand why it would be wrong to number Israel, but it must have been since it is written that God was displeased with it, and that David repented of doing it. All of this implies that God was displeased with the very thing He incited David to do, and that just doesn't make sense.

Now, concerning my belief that the authors rather than the writings were inspired, someone is sure to point out the following verse to me:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...(2 Timothy 3:16 RSV)

Or as the original RSV had it:

All scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...(2 Timothy 3:16 old RSV)

Both translations indicate that there are inspired writings. However, I think that to say a writing is inspired is just another way of saying that the writer was inspired—except for a person who believes in the verbal-dictation theory of inspiration, and I don't think anyone who posts here subscribes to that theory.

[Homer]

The problem to me is that once we insist there is significant error in the scriptures we are on a crumbling foundation of faith. And make no mistake, this is not about some minor issue such as the number of men in a battle or whether a certain think happened when Jesus was entering or leaving a place. There are many things written in the Old Testament that are contrary to modern sentiment*. The events of The Passover are certainly in that category. Did God really send an angel to kill all the firstborn of Egypt? And Jesus is The Passover Lamb? Hmm.

*sen·ti·ment, noun

1. a view of or attitude toward a situation or event; an opinion.

Why should we have any more confidence that those who wrote the New Testament didn't put in their own ideas, any more than Moses? Thomas Jefferson held the teachings of Jesus in highest regard, that the teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." But Jefferson also believed that anything "contrary to reason" should be excised from the scriptures. On what basis do we say Jefferson was in error regarding the things attributed to Jesus any more than we are regarding the writings of Moses? All we know of Jesus is what is written by those we are assured were inspired but fallible men. So what is this inspiration? Does it amount to anything more than the inspiration of the writing of a modern hymn? How so? Maybe those who wrote the New Testament made some mistakes and Moses was correct and they were in error.

Dangerous ground.

[willowtree]

The element of inspiration, to me, is evident at two points. It is evident at the point of its writing, as scripture claims. It is also evident at the point of reading. This second point ensures that what was inspired when it was written is applied again inspirationally to the reader. In the first place it is written in the context of the writer's day and circumstances. In the second place it is read in the context of the reader's day and circumstances. These contexts may be vastly different.The application at the point of reading may be quite unrelated to the writing, but fully inspired in the heart of the reader as a promise or assurance in his current situation.

Jesus' statement that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth is a very valid aspect of inspiration.

The combination of these two points ensures that inspiration maintains integrity throughout. Isaiah, in speaking about the power of God's word (Is 55:11), allows for an interval of time between when the word was spoken and when it produced results. I take this from the example he gives of rain falling to the ground and later, maybe quite some time later, waters crops which provides bread and more seed for another season's crop.

To think of inspiration as happening only at the point of writing unevenly loads the process and adds a lot of pressure in defending or validating the characters of the authors. I would rather believe that the inspiration of scripture, validated at both ends, was bulletproof.

[Paidion]

According to Paidion, much of what Moses wrote is nothing but "the traditions of men". How then are we to decide what fits that category? Mere human sentiment isn't much of a guide.

Jesus referred to a revision of God's laws to allow for exceptions as "the traditions of men." In this case, withholding financial honour from parents with the explanation, "What I would have given to you, I gave to God."

In fact, I don't claim that "much of what Moses wrote is nothing but 'the traditions of men'." I haven't suggested at all that Moses' mistaking his own ideas as the Word of God was tradition. Rather, I have simply suggested that Moses, at times, mistook his own solutions for leading Israel, as God directing him to do it.

I know God spoke to Moses "face to face." Yet it is entirely possible for anyone to make a mistake and think that God has spoken to them when, in fact, it was their own thoughts. I know many people who have declared, "God told me to..." or God revealed that..." and it turned out that they were clearly wrong. In the 1940s, God supposedly told someone that Hitler was the Antichrist. Throughout the years of my life, many people have predicted the year of Christ's second coming. And many such people seem to have been genuine Christians, very devout in every other way, and serving Christ in their lives. Is Moses an exception? Was he miraculously preserved from error? Or do we accept his statements that God killed and ordered violence and killing, only because his words form part of the Bible?

My views do not arise from mere emotion. Rather they arise from my concern about upholding the character of God. When Steve Gregg opposes eternal torment, he also appeals to the character of God, saying that a loving God would not sentence people to eternal torment. Do you think, Homer, that Steve takes this position from mere sentiment?

[Homer]

Graeme wrote:

Jesus' statement that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth is a very valid aspect of inspiration.

I hope your point isn't that by inspiration Paidion has determined that Moses spoke falsely of God. And I do not think that the statement of Jesus that you referenced is applicable in anything but a limited way to anyone other than those Jesus was speaking to.

Who is the "you" in the following and what warrant is there in applying it to us?

From John 16:
1. “These things I have spoken to you..." 2. They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, 4. But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them. These things I did not say to you at the beginning, because I was with you.
5. “But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6. But because I have said these things to you, etc., etc.

12. “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

Jesus left the Apostles with much yet to learn from the Holy Spirit.

The idea that this promise to "guide you into all truth" applies to us just as it did to those to whom Jesus was speaking, I believe, diminishes our confidence in the truth found in the New Testament writings. By the Holy Spirit Peter was led to the house of Cornelius and the gentiles were brought into the Kingdom. The Holy Spirit, I believe, guided the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) to the conclusion that we do not have to be Jews to be Christians. If that decision had gone the other way, Christianity would be nothing more than a sect of Judaism. I could go on.

Now consider what it looks like if the promise Jesus gave to the twelve applies to all Christians. Hundreds of denominations, all with equally valid reason to believe they have the inspired truth. And who can say they are wrong? Either the Holy Spirit has failed miserably or we are complete failures as listeners. And the TV preacher's words may be as authoritative as scripture; who can say?

This is not to say the Holy Spirit does not dwell in us and plays no role in opening our eyes to truth. But I do not believe the Spirit inspires us to be editors of the scriptures. And anticipating the argument, I believe the Spirit providentially guided the Church, not individuals, in putting together an authoritative New Testament.

[Homer]

Paidion wrote:

Do you think, Homer, that Steve takes this position from mere sentiment?

I would not say from mere sentiment. I will say (or confess) that our sentiment plays a role in the understanding each of us has of the scriptures. We are all fallible interpreters of the truth.

(Except, I hear, for a certain man, or men, in Rome who even have the authority to decide what truth really is.)

[steve]

The example of my views about eternal torment are in a different category. I do object to it sentimentally, and always have. However, that did not prevent me from believing and teaching the view, which I thought to be supported by scripture, for 40+ years. I moved away from it only as a result of examining the relevant biblical evidence more thoroughly.

My move away from what I found sentimentally repugnant was not occasioned, or justified, by denying the authority of any scriptures, but by a synthesis of the whole of scripture, without diminishing confidence in one jot or tittle. This is the opposite from the policy of saying, "I can't harmonize these passages with what I think Jesus would approve of—so they are gone!"

[steve]

In Paidion's defense, I don't think he is using mere human sentiment as his guide. I think he has honestly and genuinely tried to understand Jesus. He has taken seriously the biblical claim that Jesus is the fullest revelation of God that we have to work with... I'd be more likely to say that they are an inspired record of progressive revelation... even as I read with a very similarly interpreted Jesus-centered-lens.

It's not quite that simple. We all believe in progressive revelation, I imagine. Paidion's view, however, affirms that his own personal revelation on this topic has progressed beyond even that of Christ and the apostles. I gave several examples of Christ's disagreement with Paidion a page or so back. As I predicted in that post, there has been no response. It cannot be said that an honest treatment of Jesus' teachings in those places leaves room to challenge any of the judgment passages in Moses or in the Old Testament, generally.

I have previously shown that the apostles also believed that God strikes people dead (e.g., Herod in Acts 12, and the Book of Revelation—to mention only a few). Paidon has previous said that these writers were mistaken—meaning that those who kept company with Jesus and with His apostles knew less of the character of Christ (and what is, or is not consistent with Him) than Paidion himself knows. If this is, in any sense, an "honest" treatment of the New Testament writings, it is anything but humble.