STAR 15–Understanding the Bible Part 3–A Question of Inspiration or Perspiration
Understanding the Bible Part 3—A Question of Inspiration or Perspiration
What is the Bible?
As it relates to the Bible, how many of you have heard the Bible described and labeled as the Holy Bible? What about the bible as the “unadulterated Word of God?” How bout this: The Bible is God’s love-letter to the Church. And you can’t forget this one: “The Bible is your sword.” I remember a Christian friend once asked me, “Hey brotha, where’s your sword?” of course asking me where my Bible was at the time as it appeared to him that I was Bible-less. As I was coming up in the Baptist Church of my youth, I recall hearing quite frequently, that the Bible—especially the “Authorized King James Version,” was the “66-Special.”
All these titles and descriptors about the Bible. Indeed, so much is made of the Bible within and without Christian circles, but as we’ve seen in the previous two-episodes of this series on “Understanding the Bible,” the Bible in all it’s preeminence and centrality to the Christian Faith, is not only misunderstood by most but is hardly ever read. I suggested also that we have a “Biblical-illiteracy” crisis that is plaguing the Body of Messiah (as well as the whole of Christianity) and little if anything is being done amongst the church’s movers and shakers to rectify this problem. Till now, we’ve come to the conclusion that (1) the Bible is the greatest book never read and (2) despite being the greatest book never read there remains many benefits to be had when one “shama’s” the content of the Bible. In this episode of Sabbath Thoughts and Reflections, I begin an examination of just what this book that the world knows as the Bible really is—if that is at all possible to do in our alloted time.
So how do we address this issue of biblical illiteracy in the Body of Messiah? I’ve given this issue quite a bit of consideration over the course of the last few weeks. I’ve been especially stymied over the question why do so many of us hate to read our Bibles? I briefly examined in the previous parts of this series potential reasons why we tend to avoid reading our Bibles. The most prominent excuses given is that the Bible is just too hard to understand and that we are simply too lazy to pick up the book and read it. Certainly, I agree that there are aspects of the Bible that make reading and studying it a chore. Take for instance the many names of the characters and places mentioned in the Bible. Many, if not most, of these can be confusing and foreign to most of us, as well as the many “begat” passages scattered throughout the Bible (that is—so and so begat so and so, etc., etc., etc.) that bring so much reading pleasure to most of us in the West—unless, that is, you’re a genealogist of some type. I began to think that much of these and other less than desirable attributes underscore the fact that the Bible is unlike any other book known to man. Because the Bible was authored by so many different men over such an extended period of time, the Bible is disjointed and often difficult to fully comprehend and follow. There are often huge gaps in many of the recorded stories, leaving the reader to either “go out on a limb” and make guesses as to what occurred between the written lines or simply ignore the missing pieces altogether. (Please note, there are methods of interpretation that we will get into in future parts of this series that will provide us the means whereby we can fill in the missing pieces of the Biblical puzzle. But for now, suffice to keep up with me and my line of thinking and discussion until we get out of this storm of confusion.) The book of Genesis for instance contains some of the most poignant stories of the entire Bible, yet so much is left unsaid. The creation story has so many holes in it that theologians and thinkers have had field days trying to explain what actually happened during the week of creation. Was the creation week a literal 7-day week or was the seven days actually dispensations or ages? What was the time frame between the time Adam was made from the dust of the earth to the time the Creator created the woman from the rib of the man, to the fall, to the expulsion from the garden? Did all of this occur in one day? Or was it a few days; a week; a month or years; centuries or millennia? These are just a few questions in a long list of questions, the answers to which are not contained in the content of the books of the Bible.
Let’s face it, the Bible is not very reader friendly. Indeed, the Bible leaves a lot to be desired as a consummate work of literary genius that the world has elevated it to be. Granted, the King James Version of the Bible reads beautifully and is genius in its grandeur and use of the English language. But when one is desiring to hear from the “author” of the Book, the LORD Almighty, the great I AM, the Creator of the Universe, the Beginning and the End, all the flowery fluff seems to get in the way much of the time—especially having to navigate through the countless thee’s, thou’s, hasts, etc, it can often be quite frustrating. Yes, I’m primarily referring to the Authorized King James Version that has become the foundation upon which most other translations have been built.
But let’s be open and honest in this discussion. The Bible is a tough book to crack—literally speaking. But then, the Bible was never meant to be read and or understood as we would any other books that have been written throughout history. And that, my friends, is the problem as well as it is the beauty of the Bible. Those dusty bibles that line our household bookshelves were written, according to some sources, by 40 or so men; the work itself spanning some 2-milllennia by writers residing at the time they composed their histories, poems, prophecies and epistles in possibly 3-continents. In every sense of the term, the Bible is a book of books. We of course run into problems when we have so many variables—that is different authors writing over a period of about 1,600-years (some say even longer), each documenting his own unique experiences and associated stories. Thus we have contrasting writing styles, turns of phrases that can in most cases only be understood by individuals who lived in the writer’s culture and time frame. I mean, what can be said about the Apostle Paul? There is absolutely no doubt that this man was a brilliant Torah scholar and just an outright smart fellow. To endure what he endured for the Kingdom is by no means a small thing. That which he experienced on the road to Damascus was certainly life altering and you have to give the man his props. He lived his calling. But when you read his writings—oh boy, it’s not always easy to understand what he was writing about, even for the most knowledgeable of us. And I’ll even say, a few of his passages I just don’t get at all. (Please note: I’m not interested in having a debate over how easy it is to understand the writings of Paul. Most people’s understanding of Paul’s writings is based upon their denomination’s interpretation of the man’s writings. But when we strip away denominational influences and examine the writings of Paul based solely on what is written in the pages of our Bibles, one must admit that his writings are at times quite difficult if not impossible to understand. Even Peter commented on the complexities of Paul’s writings and how unscrupulous men have taken Paul’s writings and twisted them to their own devices–reference 2 Peter 3:15, 16.) Because Paul was writing to a specific audience, addressing a set of specific issues transpiring in a specific assembly of believers, at a specific time in history, within a specific culture with its own historical context with unique unmentioned external and internal influences, we can not always fully comprehend the meaning of Paul’s writings. We living in the 21st century, especially in the West, tend to apply Western sensibilities Paul’s writings. This will inevitably lead to certain failure when we attempt to interpret some of Paul’s writings. This my friends is one of the causal effects that is responsible for our Biblical illiteracy problem.
Have you ever been cc’d in an email or string of emails addressing a topic or subject that you knew nothing about? Do you recall how it drove you to stop and go to the person responsible for including you in the email and having them explain to you in depth what that email was about. Why did you have to do that? Because, if you didn’t conduct an inquiry into that email you would remain in the dark and possibly run into the problem that that email was addressing, completely unaware. So you were forced to retrieve missing elements of the story or issue that the email was addressing in order for you to make sense of that email. Unfortunately, we don’t have the writers of the various books of the Bible available to clarify the various nuances of their writings. Fortunately today, we have access to tons of information compiled and published by experts in various fields that we can tap and hopefully gain a clearer understanding these men’s writings. However, we cannot be certain as to the validity of these experts’ claims and suggestions as they are often basing their conclusions on subjective findings. Unfortunately, much of the content contained in our Bibles is shrouded by centuries that were filled with cover-ups and lies; lost and altered Biblical texts; cultures and peoples that were wiped out by crusading powers; denominational and pagan influences; and the like. But…we do have the Holy Spirit (aka Ruach HaKodesh) to fill in the missing pieces, as long as we are willing to put in the work of delving into the pages of the Bible to learn what “thus saith the LORD.” And of course, this is part and parcel of what we got into in the previous 2-parts of this series—and that is that many of us are simply unwilling to invest the time, energy and gray-matter to build a spiritual foundation whereby the Ruach Kodesh can actively reveal the full picture; the full story; the full message of the bible to our souls. I am a firm believer most of us can gain a firm understanding of the Bible if we desire to do so; are willing to eliminate denominational influences from our lives; seek out spirit-filled Biblically-based teachers; are willing to invest in available resources; are not afraid to accept information that challenges former beliefs and understandings; and have an undying love for Yahovah.
Inspiration and Francis Scott Key
Let’s face it, many things must occur before we can ever expect to remedy the biblical illiteracy plague that exists in the body of Messiah. One of those things that must occur beforehand is for us to gain as clear an understanding as possible of what the Bible is; and just as important, gain an understanding as to what the Bible is not.
Now, I’d bet you dollars to a doughnut that if you were to ask the average Christian on the street; for that matter, ask even the average Hebraic Roots/Messianic believer to define or describe what the Bible is, you’d probably get one or more of the descriptors I mentioned at the top of this post. More times than not, however, you’ll probably get the answer of “the Bible is the word of God.” Hey, that’s how I saw the Bible for many years and how I saw and described the Bible up till just a short while ago. So okay, you say the Bible is the word of God, right? Yes? Okay. So you’re saying that the Bible is actually the “words of God,” right? I would imagine that you’ll get a lot of head shaking to the affirmative to that question. So you’re saying that every word, every story, every epistle, every prophecy is the actual words of God. Correct? I would guess that you’ll then get a few folks who may throw in a a disclaimers or two at this point. These will probably say that, well, not every word written in the Bible is from God. But they will still contend that the Bible is the word of God. Okay, that explanation and descriptor is as clear as mud! Right?
So is the Bible the word of God? Or does the Bible contain the words of God? Or is there something else to describe the relationship between God and the Bible? Well, I was curious as to what the various Christian sects thought of the Bible and I came up with some interesting definitions and descriptors.
Let’s start with Catholicism. Now, don’t start booing. Just hear this out. Face it, protestant Christianity is an off-shoot of Catholicism and a great many of us came from either catholicism, protestantism or both. So we mustn’t throw stones in glass houses. Just remember that.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Bible is described as a collection of writings which the Church of God has solemnly recognized as inspired. So, according to Catholicism, our Bibles are a collection of writings that the Church of God has determined to be inspired. Okay, let’s break this bad boy down. We see here that Catholicism sees the Bible as a collection of writings. Pretty cut and dry, right? Indeed, we can all agree that the Bible is a collection of writings or books. So then, we can safely say that the Bible is a book of books. Oh, and here’s a fun fact: the Catholic Bible has some 73-separate books or writings, compared to the protestant Bible that contains just 66. Somewhere along the line I lost 7-books. How disturbing. Can I get my money back?
The next thing is that the Church of God compiled these writings into a collection or books or into what we know as the Bible today. So the natural question is, who and or where is the “Church of God?” Is it the Baptist Church on the corner? Is it the Episcopal Church down the street? Is it the Lutheran, or the Pentecostal, or the Interdenominational Church, or any of the 100s of 1,000s of Christian churches and denominations that are scattered throughout our communities and neighborhoods? Nope! Context here clearly suggests that the “Church of God” is the Catholic Church. Bottom line brothers and sisters, the Catholic Church sees herself as the “Church of God.” Okay. That was news to me, but I get it. They—the Catholic Church or the Universal Church-assumed the lead role in Church history after the death of the Apostles and going into the latter-half of the 2nd and into and through the 3rd centuries. So being the dominating organization of believers very early in the church history game, I can see how they would call themselves the Church of God. I’d say pretty presumptive, given that Catholic men assumed total control of the Church, officially throwing God out the front door in the 4th century C.E. So it seems pretty silly to me that Catholicism sees herself as “God’s Church” when they’ve clearly stated in their various publications and documents that the Church herself makes the rules and sets the course for her 1.3 billion adherents. Certainly, if God were in full control of that organization, it wouldn’t be in the mess she’s gotten herself itself in recent years, now, would it? But I digress.
Lastly, this proclamation contends that these writings were “recognized” by Catholicism as “inspired.” Now, this is where things get somewhat interesting. There are select writings that the Catholic Church has identified as special, what they call “inspired.” I was interested to learn how the Catholic Church defines the term “inspire,” “inspired,” or “inspiration.” Well, search as I might, I really never got a satisfactory definition of this term. I have an idea of what our western society considers as inspired.
I remember growing up in Baltimore and going on elementary school class trips to “Fort McHenry” and looking out towards the Chesapeake Bay and being told by tour guides that just out in one section of the bay, adjacent to the Fort, Francis Scott Key was on board the HMS Minden, a prisoner, watching the bombardment of Fort McHenry by the Royal Navy in September of 1814. It was said of the successful defense of the Fort that Francis Scott Key was elated and overwhelmed with emotion. So affected by the successful defense of the Fort, Francis Scott Key was “inspired” to write a poem entitled “The Defense of Fort McHenry.” This poem later became the basis for our “National Anthem.” So in this particular example, a 35-year old lawyer and amateur poet, was led or prompted by the events he witnessed at one of the most pivotal battles of the War of 1812 to write a poem. Indeed, there may be key events in our lives that prompt us to act and do something special. In Francis Scott Key’s situation, his special act was to write a poem. In other people, certain events or circumstances may lead them to compose a song; chisel a sculpture; climb a mountain; build a monument; etc. We are an emotional and sentimental lot, us humans. And important events can be just too powerful for us to idly sit by and not do something in response. So we act. And we tend to react to those unique events in a special way.
So back to Catholicism and the writings that the Church of God identifies as “inspired:” what then is the Catholic Church saying about these writings? She seems to be saying that this compilation of writings has been recognized by the Church as being “inspired” or of an “inspired nature.” So one of the questions that we could ask is where did the “Church of God” get this idea that the compilation of writings that ultimately became the content of our Bibles centuries ago, were of an “inspirational” sort and how does the “Church of God” define “inspiration” as it pertains to these writings? Clearly, the concept of the writings found in the Bible being of an “inspired nature” originated from Paul’s letter to his young Messianic apprentice Timothy. The specific passage pointing to the inspirational nature of these writings is found in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. The Complete Jewish Bible rendering reads as follows: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that athe man of God may be adequate, bequipped for every good work. Certainly,no human cognitive effort could ever come to such a profound conclusion about the body of work that we refer to as Scripture. Such a revelation as this one, made by the Apostle to the Gentiles as recorded in this passage, must be of the Ruach Kodesh (aka: the Holy Spirit). Here, not only does Paul provide us with a framework upon which to build an understanding of the nature of the Bible, but he also provides an explanation of the Bible’s intended purpose.
There are a couple things we must bear in mind here as it directly relates to this passage. First and foremost, I believe that Paul was strictly addressing the writings contained in the Tanakh, also known as the Old Testament to Christians. By this time in history, much of the writings that now make up the canon of books in the Brit Chadashah, also known as the New Testament to Christians, either had not been written or had existed solely as hand-written historical accountings or letters directed to the various churches that were popping up throughout the Near East and the Mediterranean. These specific writings were likely dispatched by devoted couriers to the various churches and home fellowships throughout the region. Those writings were then copied by hand and then forwarded to others for purposes of getting out the word to would-be-believers in Yahoshua HaMoschiyach. So none of these first-century writings should be classified as Scripture, despite what many liberal Christians contend. Paul was not applying the term Scripture to any first-century writings and that would include his own. Why do I take this position? Well, we understand that the writings of Paul were in their truest form, letters that he wrote to specific people and assembles, addressing specific issues and topics pertinent to those individuals and assemblies. Quite simply, they were letters or correspondences. One would be hard pressed to believe that Paul envisioned his letters assembled into a single book and seen as Scripture or as holding the same authority and place as the writings found in the Tanakh. I would imagine that Paul would have been heart stricken to see how Christianity has taken his body of writings and created a religion that is completely divorced from its Hebraic Roots and Torah. It is because of Biblical illiteracy that Christians as a whole have become easily scammed by their denominations over the centuries. Certainly, back in the early years of Christianity, having access to these writings was a rarity–and that’s assuming you could read and understand what was written. Thus, those believers had to rely primarily upon their Church leaders and teachers for Biblical instruction. I personally believe that those people will face a significantly lesser judgment than us today who have ready access to the Bible along with untold amounts of extra-Biblical resources. So it behooves us to be diligent in our efforts to read and understand and obey that which is contained in pages of our Bible.
I get so frustrated with individuals and so-called scholars who want to elevate the status of these first-century writings to that of Scripture when most of these books hadn’t even been written or, at very least, their existence known to the Body of Messiah. Sensibility demands that we pay attention to context and that context must include time. Now that’s not to say that for convenience sake we can’t refer to the New Testament as Scripture. But we must always be careful to not confuse these first-century writings with those of the Tanakh. I believe that when people so adamantly insist that Paul is referring to all the books that make up the Bible, they are unknowingly diminishing the authority and preeminence of the writings that make up the Tanakh. Listen, it is no secret that Christianity has turned a blind eye toward Torah and that blind eye began to take firm shape as far back as the 1st-century C.E. (Reference Jude 3,4) What better scheme to disavow the validity of Torah to the self-professing Christian than to manipulate Paul’s statement that “all scripture is given by the inspiration of God” and to postulate that Paul was also including his own writings.
Now I realize that many individuals who will be reading this transcript or listening to this podcast episode will pooh-pooh my position on this issue. I’m certainly inclined to take the beating on this. But I can not in good conscious ever twist the writings of the Bible to suit whatever Churchianity-based leanings I might have remaining in my pea-brain. Am I rejecting the Brit HaDashah (aka the New Testament to the Christian) or reducing its relevance to the Body of Messiah? Absolutely not! I believe the writings that make up the New Testament portion of our Bibles were of an inspirational nature—the term inspiration we have not as yet adequately defined. Without the writings contained in the New Testament, we’d have no understanding of the life and work of Yahoshua HaMoschiyach nor would we know how to live Torah to its fullest potential as the elect of Yahovah. The Torah will always remain as our “constitution” and the writings and prophecies supporting documents that provide a deeper understanding of Yahovah and his plans for mankind. We must never allow an anti-Semitic mindset to influence how we see this book that we call the Bible.
Back to this Pauline passage of 2 Timothy. Paul applies the term “inspiration” to Scripture. We are in desperate need, however, to figure out what this term inspiration truly means as it relates to the Bible. Earlier in this post I gave an historical example of inspiration found in United States history—that of Francis Scott Key and his penning of what has become the Star Spangled Banner or our National Anthem. Is that which Francis Scott Key experienced during the Sea Battle of Fort McHenry the same experience the writers of the Bible had when they penned their books? Honestly, I wasn’t certain, although I was pretty certain that the writers of the Bible were somehow influenced by the Father to write while Francis Scott Key was influenced by the events he was witnessing at Fort McHenry to write. Both examples highlight the concept of an external influence causing one to write. In both examples, something external was stirring up something within these two-classes of writers.
The “Google” definition of “inspire” is to fill one with the urge or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative. The “Google” definition of “inspiration” is the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something , especially to do something creative. Clearly, this definition seems to apply quite aptly to the story of Francis Scott Key. But does it apply to those who wrote the books of the Bible? To some degree I’d say yes, to another degree I’d say there seems to be something glaringly different. That difference seems to be a bit more complicated than a simple infilling of an individual to do something creative such as write.
The term “inspired” as found in 2 Timothy 3:16 is “theopneustos.” Breaking down this word to its base meaning we find “theopneustos” to mean “God” (i.e., Theo) “breathed” (i.e., pneustos). So Paul, assuming he wrote this in Greek—we can only assume although He may have written it in Aramaic or Hebrew. One can safely assume that Paul was multi-lingual given his Roman citizenship and his notable Jewish education and traveling experience, he certainly could have written the two books of Timothy in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. On the other hand, given that Timothy’s mother was Jewish and his father was a Greek (ref. JFB), Paul could have very easily written the two books of Timothy in either of these 3-stated languages. Obviously the conventional wisdom holds that Paul wrote his epistles, especially 1st and 2nd Timothy, in Greek. So let’s, just for the sake of discussion, assume Paul wrote 2 Timothy in Greek. Thus, the term “theopneustos” presents a most unique term that implies that the writing of scripture was of some divine nature. According to the Commentator Matthew Henry, this rare form of inspiration separates the Bible and “elevates it above any other literary work in history.” This form of inspiration, being God-breathed as Paul describes, makes the resultant work or writings “by default the Creator’s Word.” Thus the Bible, according to Henry, does not belong to man as some would pompously assert. Furthermore, “the inspiration is of divine revelation; the prophets and apostles did not speak of themselves; thus, what they received of God that they delivered unto us.” Thus, the Greek understanding of “inspiration” in this context, according to Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, “can never be used of writings in a general sense, but only of the sacred Scriptures.” In fact, the term “theopneustos” is used nowhere else in the whole of the Bible. It is in this section of JFB’s commentary where they assert that because most of the Brit Chadashah/New Testament had already been written, that Paul’s epistles as well as the Gospels and other apostolic writings, qualified to be viewed and revered as Scripture. As I suggested earlier, I take exception to this belief. I don’t believe that Paul was acutely or intimately aware of the other writings in existence at the time he was penning his letters, nor do I sense him to be so pompous as to dub his own writings on par with the class of writings contained in the Tanakh. The “Church of God” assigned Scripture status to the writings that are contained in our Bibles today. Again, I’m okay with calling the Bible itself Scripture. I personally take exception, however, in classifying letters written by the Apostles to the various churches and assemblies on an equal footing with Torah, the writings and prophets. That’s just me. I believe the writings that make up the New Testament were definitely inspired of the Father, but I do not believe they should be placed on equal footing with Torah. Just saying. These books that make up the New Testament were likely inspired of Yahovah for purposes of revealing His Son to the world and for purposes of showing us how to live Yahovah’s way. Thus, I would describe the writings of the New Testament as our Bill of Rights, compared to the Torah, that is our Constitution.
Continuing on: the JFB commentary describes this concept of “inspiration” found in 2 Timothy 3:15 as placing “an extraordinary divine agency upon the teachers while giving instruction, whether oral or written, by which they were taught how and what they should speak or write.” So if we were to adopt JFB’s explanation of “inspiration” as it relates to the writing of the books of the Bible, then compare and contrast the inspiration that leads one to write poems, sculpt, build, etc, as Francis Scott Key did in response to the unsuccessful bombardment of Fort McHenry in 1814, we will see one glaring difference. The inspiration experienced by the writers of Scripture was more of a direct instruction of what they were to write. In other words, can we assume from such an explanation as found in JFB that God in some form or another, directly told the writers of the Bible to write that which He wanted them to write? We can, for the sake of discussion, assume that we’re talking about the Holy Spirit being the agent that influenced these writers of the books of the Bible. So right away after reading this section of Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, I wondered if this unique form of inspiration caused the writers of the books of the Bible to, what, go into a trance at the time they wrote? Or did the Ruach Kodesh take control of each writer’s hand and writing utensil as each wrote? Did each writer have the ability to control his writing or was his will somehow briefly deactivated at the time of the divine inspiration? Or did the Father’s Spirit simply speak to each writer, sort of dictating to them, the content which they were to write, and then the writer would simply jot down what he’d heard or received from the the the Creator?
So going back over to Catholicism and her view of the Bible (reference the Catholic Encyclopedia), we find that the writer of each book of the Bible was “invested with divine power at the very moment of writing or when thinking about writing.” Thus, the Catholic view of inspiration as it relates to the writing of Scripture, tends to lean over towards the thinking that the Creator’s power directly overshadowed each writer at the time they were “inspired” to write. The writer’s “will, intelligence and executive faculties” came under the direct control of the Father. According to a Catholic Encyclical (a papal letter sent to all bishops of the Roman Catholic Church—google definitions), “God stirred up and compelled the sacred writers to determine to write all that God meant them to write. God moves the will of the writer directly or decides it by proposing motives of an intellectual order.” Please keep mind my friend that I’m just reporting what I’ve uncovered in my research on this subject. I am not, at this point, rejecting or accepting the Catholic position on the subject of the Bible or their concept of “inspiration.” Just wanted to clear that up. I don’t want you to be misled by the content that I’m delivering here. I fully plan to outline in a future episode the Bible’s concept and explanation of itself—that is, if we are able to arrive at such a conclusion.
Continuing on. This explanation of “inspiration” as it relates to the writing of Scripture led me to suspect that the Roman Catholic Church saw each writer of the Bible as being temporarily under some type of trance at the time he was inspired to write. Or did the writer become some type of “automaton” or “robot” that simply followed the writing commands of the Father without any ability to add or subtract from the content of what they were writing. Well, the Catholic Church disavows any belief that these writers experienced some type of ecstasy at the time of their inspiration. However, the following things are believed to have happened to each writer:
1. The writers’ intellect was commandeered by Yahovah (my wording by the way)
2. The writers’ cognitive functions were under the control of Yahovah
3. The writers’ personal efforts remain their own
4. There is no guarantee that the resultant work would be perfect, at least from a literary perspective
5. The Spirit of Yahovah simply assisted the writers’ intellect
6. The resultant text is “destined of God for the Church and is readily recognized as God’s written word.”
As I mentioned earlier, the whole concept of inspiration seems not to be an easy thing to explain as we can clearly see in the description of “inspiration” that has been provided by the Catholic Church. The Church Triumphant places absolute responsibility upon the Creator as it relates to the content of the Bible. It appears as though, according to Catholicism, that Yahovah (they refer to Him as God) wants His message to get out, so He handily selected these writers, commandeered their cognitive and physical abilities to some unclear degree and for a define period time, and caused them to write that which He desired them to relay to the Church. Bear in mind, the intended receivers of that message was the Catholic Church and no others.
But here’s an interesting tidbit to throw onto the fire of discussion: according to gotquestions.org/, the Church (speaking about the Catholic Church still), rejects the concept of “sola scriptura.” What is “sola scriptura” you ask? Sola scriptura is a Latin ablative meaning “scripture alone.” The concept of “scripture alone” has been adopted by Protestantism to establish a doctrine within the Body of Christ that contends that the Bible is “the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.” (ref. Google definitions) Clearly, the Catholic Church does reject such a concept in that she holds to the belief that both the Bible and Roman Catholic traditions are on equal footing. Thus, throughout the centuries, whenever the “Church” (again, speaking about the Catholic Church) would devise traditions—and let’s be honest, many of those traditions were based upon the pagan practices of the people the church assimilated throughout the world, in addition to the papacy’s own contrived practices—those traditions would become just as relevant as the laws, prophecies and teachings contained in the pages of the Bible. In many cases, the Church even subordinated the laws and teachings contained in the Bible and replaced them with their own laws and teachings. What did Yahoshua say about such things: “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the atradition of men.” (Mar 7:8 NAS). Indeed! One must admit, however, that the Catholic Church is honest in communicating her views of the Bible from this or any other perspective.
But friends, let’s not let Protestantism off the hook. Although protestantism singly adopts the concept of “sola scriptura,” she too has fallen into the trap of equating tradition with the absolute authority of the Bible. I know, there are probably several individuals out there who are taking exception to what I’ve just said. But all one has to do is step back and critically examine Christianity. No, I’m not talking about examining Christianity from the perspective of her many missteps throughout the years. I’m talking about Protestantism’s perpetual death grip on the things that originated from Catholicism such as the wearing of crosses; the celebrating of pagan holidays such as Christmas and Easter and the belief in the Trinity—to name just a few. Nowhere in the Bible will one find these traditions and practices condoned by the inspirer of the Bible. In fact, in several places throughout the Bible, the Father commands that we not adopt the ways of the heathen. Yet Protestantism without giving so much as a second thought holds ever so tight to her formerly Catholic traditions that she by default places on equal footing with the authority of Scripture. So the belief in “sola scriptura” by Christianity is definitely a misnomer.
So it would be difficult at best to base any understanding of what the Bible truly is through the lenses of Catholicism and to some extent the lenses of Protestant Christianity. We will, however, still examine the Protestant’s concept of inspiration and the Bible in the next installment of “Understanding the Bible.” In that episode we will pick up where we’re leaving off and try to arrive at a Biblically-based understanding of the concept of inspiration and its relationship to the creation of the Bible. (End Recording)
