In this passage Jesus is continuing the series of antithesis statements he began in verse 21. In these he fleshes out what he means by coming not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. He goes beyond the law — not relaxing it, but pushing it further — pushing it toward its spiritual fulfillment. Jesus challenges us to consider more than just outward fulfillment; he pushes us to examine our motivations and inner lives.
In verses 21-37 the issues were: destructive anger, covetous sexual desire, divorce, and the swearing of oaths. Here the issues are vengefulness, enemies, peace, and universal love for all. Here the issue is how we treat — and think about — each other. This passage can be seen as a unit because of its closely related themes.
This is also one of those passages in the New Testament that uses the word τέλειος — often translated “perfect” — which gave rise to the phrase “Christian Perfection”— often used by John Wesley (and his followers) to talk about the spiritual life. The phrase has been misunderstood from the beginning and continues to be misunderstood today, and it’s easy to see why Looking at verse 48 in its context may help to sort out some of the confusion.
My goal in looking at this passage is much larger than that one issue — it is to understand how Jesus interprets the Old Testament law and applies it to life.
Jesus has already stated that the purpose of his ministry was in no way to destroy the Law and the prophets (that is, the Old Testament) but to fulfill them.
In this passage he begins to flesh out what that means. He seeks to bring the Old Testament law and teaching into its fulfillment by expounding its inner intent and purpose for the people of his own day. In “fulfilling” the law, he fills it up with meaning, demonstrating how it reveals to us the will and purpose of God.
I recall attending a Bible Study group where the text being read was James 2:14-26. This led to a very interesting discussion. It is an interesting passage. Here we read things like this:
“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?” [Implied answer: no.]
“So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”
“Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.”
“Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?”
“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
“For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.”
And I was reminded again of the vital relationship between faith and works in the teachings of the Bible. Genuine faith must eventuate in good works — in obedience to God and service to others. While I am never in a position to judge the genuineness of another person’s faith — nonetheless, faith must always make a difference. And, this is one of the reasons I am thankful for the Wesleyan holiness tradition where my early faith was nurtured. Here are some themes that I especially appreciate in the Wesleyan perspective on faith:
Following in the tradition of John Wesley, the Methodist outlook on theology is thoroughly based on scripture, but also enlivened through tradition, experience, and reason.
Methodists believe that “all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God.” They believe that the written Word of God is the only and sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice in life.
Methodists live in a vital faith relationship with God. They turn from sin, and turn to Christ in faith. It is faith in Christ alone that can reconcile us to God.
I often speak or write — or think — about the mission of the Church. It is natural for religious professionals (or even former ones like me) to get in the habit of thinking that the mission of Christ is the mission of the Church. We start to think of the Church as the necessary mediator of the grace of God — as not just the ordinances of the Church but also its very activities as saving. I think it’s a false teaching, myself — but one easily fallen into — to restrict the activity of God to the activity of the Church — and to (unconsciously) fall into the falsehood of thinking the Church is the necessary mediator of grace.
There is, in fact, a mission of God larger than the Church — out of which the Church was born as a response. The Church did not create this mission and the Church does not own it. It belongs to God. Jesus came into the world as the living expression of the mission of God in the world. The Spirit of God was given to empower the Church in its witness to Christ.
I keep hoping people will stop using the word “literal” to describe the Bible — as in: “take the Bible literally” “literal interpretation of the Bible” and so forth. It’s never going to happen, but I keep hoping.
The reason I keep hoping for this is the fact that the term is over-used, wrongly used, and abused. What does it mean to take the Bible “literally“? What does the word “literal” mean in this context? It seems to be used rather loosely. I understand it to be the opposite of words like “symbolic” “figurative,” or “allegorical.” To take a thing literally is to take it at face value. It’s not that difficult a concept. Yet, the way the word is used would make you think otherwise.
In the summer of 2014 (as I recall) I preached for the evening services at the Family Bible Camp at the Albright Park Camp & Retreat Center in Reed City, Michigan. It was a very natural place for me to be, and I was glad to preach there. I have a fondness for the tradition of the holiness camp meeting (as you may have noticed), and it felt right to be there preaching in that old tabernacle.
It occurred to me: why not preach on the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew? I remembered the importance of the Sermon on the Mount in the preaching of John Wesley, and I wondered if a series of messages suitable to a camp meeting could be delivered based on it. I think it went very well.
Since this is actually another blog re-boot, I thought it would be good to re-iterate my intentions for this web site and this blog — and for my various Internet projects.
A story can be told in more than one way. Two witnesses may see events in a significantly different way. I think sometimes preachers, commentators, and theologians give in too easily to the temptation to get behind the story of Jesus rather than reading it for what it is . The way the story is told cues us to the meaning the gospel writers saw in the story. It is story-telling that we encounter in the Gospels, not some kind of scientific history writing. The story has a point. That’s why the gospel writers tell it. In addition, people often too quickly attempt to harmonize and explain. And, I think the temptation is strong in this passage.
Christians look to the Bible as an inspired source and norm for their beliefs. It is no accident that Christians —along with Jews — were long ago designated as “people of the Book.” In a very special sense the Bible has a shaping influence on Christian beliefs, and moral ideals, and conduct. The United Methodist Church, for example, says: “…Scripture is the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine.” The original Articles of Religion of the United Methodist Church — drawn from the Anglican Articles of Religion as edited by John Wesley — states:The Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
“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.” (NIV 2011.)
We cannot allow the argument for the authority and inspiration of the Bible to rest on this one verse alone — of course — but since this verse seems so clear and explicit, it has been cited more than any other. This is certainly a helpful summary of the role the Bible plays in the life of the church — and of the individual Christian. But, how far can this passage be pressed? How much is really entailed by this language?
It is natural for emphasis to fall on the word θεόπνευστος: “inspired” (or as in the NIV) “God-breathed.” At first glance, the derivation of the word seems to give it a clear meaning. It is a compound word: “God” (θεός) + “breathed” (πνευστος). While this is commonly translated “inspired,” the NIV insists on the more literal translation. There is no doubt in my mind that this word is intended to denote the idea of something inspired by God in such a way that it conveys a message from God. In the Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Spicq says:
To express the sacred nature of the Scriptures, their divine origin, and their power to sanctify believers, perhaps St. Paul coined the verbal adjective theopneustos, ‘breathed, inspired by God.’
So, this is apparently not a word picked up from the surrounding culture. This is a term Christians used to describe their confidence in Scripture. It may even be a term coined by the apostle himself as a way of expressing what role Scripture is to play in the Christian community.
There is a parallel idea in 2 Peter 1:21 – “…ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι” (“…carried along by the Holy Spirit, people spoke from God”).
So far, so good. It seems that very high claims are made here about the Bible and its role in the life of faith. True enough. But, what is it here that the apostle says is “inspired”? It is πᾶσα γραφὴ, all Scripture. What is this? This passage comes from a time when the New Testament as we know it had not yet been collected together. The early church depended upon the apostles’ teaching (see Acts 2:42). But, they also looked to the Scriptures — what Christians today would call the Old Testament. Just as in Judaism, the Old Testament scriptures were considered authoritative and inspired — they conveyed a message from God. So, we can be sure this passage refers to the Old Testament as γραφὴ, Scriptures.
Now, let’s consider, what form or edition of the Scriptures (γραφὴ) are they talking about? It seems clear that the Scriptures being discussed here are the Greek translations of the Old Testament — commonly known as the Septuagint (LXX). Why do I think this? Because very few Jews even knew Hebrew well enough to read the Hebrew Bible — the common language of the Jewish people in those times was Aramaic, not Hebrew. The Septuagint was originally written because Hebrew was already dying out long before the days of Jesus and the apostles. The Septuagint essentially replaced the Hebrew Bible in those times. When New Testament authors cite Old Testament passages they cite them from the Septuagint. The New Testament writings were written in Greek — obviously to Greek-speaking people. The form of the Scriptures that these people would have had available to them — and the one they could read and understand — was the Greek translation.
So, yes, high claims to inspiration are being made in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 and in 2 Peter 1:21. But whatever γραφὴ may be discussed in 2 Timothy — okay, maybe some apostolic writings, maybe the Hebrew Bible — it certainly refers to the Greek translation of the Old Testament — the Bible of the early Church.
But, the Septuagint is often a rather free translation of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint contains books not in the Hebrew Bible (like Tobit, and The Wisdom of Solomon, etc.). Major additions are made to some Old Testament books in the Septuagint: Esther is longer, and Daniel is longer. (Conservative Protestants who want to make exalted claims for the inspiration of Scripture built on this passage and the meaning of θεόπνευστος, may be inadvertently constructing an argument for the inerrancy of the book of Tobit!)
Furthermore, how much weight should rest on the fact that the compound word θεόπνευστος means “God-breathed”? Many compound words like the English word “chairman” don’t have a meaning that can be determined solely from “chair” + “man”. So, how much of the nature of the Bible’s inspiration can be deduced from 2 Timothy 3:16, 17? Not much, I think.
We have a great affirmation here about the practical usefulness of Scripture: “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness“; but, not too much about the nature of its inspiration. The passage cannot be pressed too far. So, this doesn’t get us as far as some might suppose.
Is there another way of looking at the idea of Biblical inspiration? Is there another approach? What about looking through the Bible for those (rather few) passages where the Biblical authors themselves reflect on what they are doing? This might give us more of an inside story on the nature of Biblical inspiration. We might ask: what view of inspiration and authority of Scripture are implicit in various passages of the Bible itself. How did the earliest Church Fathers view the inspiration and authority of Scripture?
But, over-reliance on 1 Timothy 3:16, 17 is just not going to work.
