About the Word

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     "He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave."--William Drummond.

     The dawning of this new year brings me to a task which will cause many of you to think of me as presumptuous, despite the fact that I am motivated by a wholly different desire than to appear proud or arrogant. I am going to attempt to answer some of the questions which brethren have asked me for the past several years and to share my views in this fashion, hoping that I may thus be able to clarify my position for those who affirm that they have difficulty in understanding what I have sought to convey.

     It will be understood, of course, that I am offering my own opinion as to what I conceive of God's word as teaching, and it is given with no thought of being dogmatic or authoritarian. It is binding upon no one further than his own knowledge and conscience lead him to accept it as valid and true. I shall love those who cannot concur with it as much as I do those who agree.

     I am constantly made to smile when I receive letters, generally from much younger brethren, who feel obligated to include the statement, "Of course, I do not agree with all that you write." The fact that they must issue this little gem of protective thought says much more about them than it does about my writings. And it says even more about the kind of sectarian framework in which we operate. Why should anyone ever feel obligated to say that he does not fully agree with all that another thinks? That should be taken for granted by all who do not think of the kingdom of heaven as a parrot jungle.

     I have repeatedly said that we can no more all think alike than we can all look alike. The variety of mental capacities is as great as that of physical characteristics. We should share insights for mutual upbuilding and strength but we should never impose our thinking upon another, seeing that he has the same right to interpret the word of revelation as ourselves.

     It is not expected that the answers I give will either please or satisfy all of my readers, and none of them will be offered with that goal in mind. Those who regularly peruse this little journal are upon all sides of every issue that is raised and we cannot stereotype them. I am thrilled that this is so. I would not want it otherwise at the cost of their personal integrity.

     My approach will be one of honest and open declaration. I will not conceal my feeling about any issue that is raised. I have nothing to hide and nothing to gain by unfairness. I am happy to answer and will do so on the basis of scripture as I understand it. I am committed to seeking the will of God as revealed in

[Page 2]

the new covenant scriptures, and it is upon that foundation I rest my case, come what may. And I will begin by answering questions about my attitude toward the word of God. These questions have come from various sources at various times. For the sake of continuity of thought I will combine them here without identifying the ones who have asked them, except in rare cases.

     I do not. All scripture is given by inspiration, but it was not all given by revelation, as is clearly taught in the scriptures themselves. God is a divine economist and he never does for a man what that man can do for himself, or what another can do for him. Man was made a rational creature, capable of observation, study and research, and qualified to make deductions from his findings or thought processes. Whatever man can discover for himself God has never revealed, for to do so would be to obviate the function of reason and defeat the very purpose for which rational powers were bestowed.

     Revelation is from apokalupsis, which means to uncover, to lay bare, or to make naked. It is always related to the disclosure of that which has been previously hidden or concealed. Revelation is the action of God in uncovering for man what man cannot discover for himself. Stated another way, it is the discovery afforded_by God to man of himself or his will, over and above what he has made known by the light of nature or reason. Man has discovered many truths about the universe in which he has been placed, and will discover many more in the future. But the human mind is finite and limited. The divine mind is infinite and unlimited. There are truths known to God to which man cannot attain regardless of his aspiration. If these are made known to man it will be by the action of God in revealing them.

     Isaiah records God as saying that his thoughts are not ours, and his ways are not ours. The gulf between human thought and divine is as great as the distance between heaven and earth (55:8, 9). Man cannot reach up to God "for who hath known the mind of God that he may instruct him?" If man comprehends the thoughts of God it will be because God has relayed them to him. And God will only reveal to man the thoughts which are beyond the ability of man to ascertain by his rational powers.

     Man can best learn by what he sees with his eyes, the visual method; or by what he hears, the audible method. He is not limited to these, however, because he can take the data that he assembles and by the faculty of judgment or perception, can run it through his mental computer and arrive at conclusions which, in turn, can be used as the foundation of extended and wider outreach. But whatever he needs to know for his wellbeing, above and beyond his ability to discover, God must reveal to him.

     Thus, the apostle writes, "That which the eye hath not seen, and the ear has not heard, and which has not been determined by the mental processes concerning God's provision for those who love him, God has revealed unto us by his own Spirit, which alone is capable of unlimited knowledge, including the deep thoughts of God" (1 Cor. 2:9, 10). What the apostles observed and heard, they simply recorded as they saw and heard it. No revelation was required for such matters.

     Peter makes this all quite clear. He affirms that the apostles did not derive their testimony from artfully contrived myths when they testified that the Lord Jesus Christ was revealed in majestic power. Instead they were eyewitnesses of a demonstration in which they not only saw him in a glorified state, but personally heard a voice from heaven acknowledging him as a beloved Son, pleasing unto the Father.

     But the apostles, or envoys, were not limited to what they saw or heard because, Peter said, "we have also a sure word of prophecy" (2 Peter 1:16-19). Now prophecy is revelation. The prophet speaks under divine impulse and brings

[Page 3]

forth a divine message. Prophecy does not come by the will of men, but holy men of God speak as motivated or empowered by the Holy Spirit. It is clear that the scriptures contain the testimony of chosen witnesses, as well as the revelation of God.

     This is aside from the point we are concerned with at the moment, but I cannot forego mentioning that one event which has always come under attack by liberal theologians and rationalists is the transfiguration of Christ. All sorts of explanations have been drummed up to make it appear that this is a myth. It is interesting to note that Peter who was present for the occasion, uses it as a demonstration that the apostles did not follow cleverly designed myths, in making known their message.

     But back to our question. Because the scriptures teach otherwise, I do not believe that all scripture was given by revelation. I do believe that all holy scripture was given by inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16). What is inspiration? "Inspiration of God" is from theopneustos and means "breathed into by God." Inspire means to breathe in, expire means to breathe out. To inspire is to give life, to expire is to die. Inspiration does not have so much to do with origin as with survival. It provides power and vitality. God breathed into the body of scripture compiled from what his ambassadors saw, heard, reasoned out, and received by revelation, and that body became a living and perpetual testimony to all men.

     I accept the sacred scriptures as the God-breathed communication to man, given under the direction, or by the agency of the Holy Spirit, and I expect to be guided, governed and directed by this word. I have no intention of trying to please God by dependence upon the wisdom of this passing age, for I know and am persuaded that "the wisdom of this age is foolishness with God."

     I do not make a difference between them. I simply recognize the difference which inherently exists between the two. Revelation is the uncovering of the thoughts of the divine mind for the purpose of conveying divine concepts to man. Interpretation is the application of the human mind to what is revealed for the purpose of apprehending the divine concepts. One is the act of God, the other the act of man. Revelation is perfect for the achievement of the divine purpose, but interpretation, being human, is imperfect in its approach to revelation.

     Our ability to correctly interpret or understand the will of God, or anything else, is dependent upon many factors. All that which has previously been unknown can be understood only in the light of the known, and this is contingent upon background, culture, education, early training, and other circumstances. So God's revelation is infallible, but our interpretation is not. It is for this reason that God has finished his revelation, but man does not finish his attempt at interpretation, the striving for correct understanding.

     Many preachers continually exhort the saints to study, which is but another way of saying that they should seek to explore more fully the divine revelation with a view to achieving the correct interpretation. Yet these same preachers think that they already have an inerrant and infallible interpretation, and any deviation from the traditional view is a denial of "the authority of God." Such men ought rather to warn the humble brethren against further study, lest they learn some truth for which they will be "cast out of the synagogue." Nothing is more dangerous to the status quo than further serious study.

     On July 4, 1823, Alexander Campbell wrote the preface for The Christian Baptist, "a periodical paper pledged to no religious sect in Christendom, the express and avowed object of which is the eviction of truth and the exposure of error." Mr. Campbell well knew some of the trials which would beset him and he made this very poignant observation:

[Page 4]

     "It is a rarity, seldom to be witnessed, to see a person boldly opposing either the doctrinal errors or the unscriptural measures of a people with whom he has identified himself, and to whom he looks for approbation and support. If such a person appears in any party, he soon falls under the frowns of those who either think themselves wiser than the reprover, or would wish so to appear. Hence it usually happens that such a character must lay his hand upon his mouth, or embrace the privilege of walking out of doors...If this had not usually happened, we should have had no Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. If the party from which these sects sprang had received the admonitions and attended to the remonstrances of those bold and zealous men who first began to reprove and testify against it for alleged errors and evils existing in it, no separation would have taken place. Had the well-meant remonstrances of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley been acknowledged and received by the sect to which they belonged, the mother would have been reformed, and the children would have lived under the same roof with her. But she would not."

     In a word, I hold that God's revelation is finished, but my interpretation of the revelation is not. Each passing day finds me with new insights and a greater perception of the truth. I interpret many passages differently than I did five years ago, because my grasp of their significance is more profound. One who ceases the process of interpretation at a given point does not prove his faithfulness to the written word. He only freezes his ignorance at that level. It is true that dragon-flies can skim lightly over the surface of water which is so deep that an elephant can scarcely wade it, and we seem to have a lot more dragon-flies than elephants.

     Interpretation, or understanding, is simply the intellectual cloak with which we clothe the inner man, and I can no more wear the same mental coat that I wore when I began preaching at the age of twelve years, than I can wear the same coat for my body. The understanding which seemed adequate in my immaturity is no longer adequate for my present state. And I refuse to be confined to the strait-jacket of yesteryear in order to be consistent with my past. It was Ralph Waldo Emerson who wrote:

     "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today. 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."

     3. Why do we need to interpret God's word at all? Why can we not just take it for what it says?

     This would probably work if you were infallible, which you are not. You must interpret God's word for the very same reason you must interpret any other interpersonal communication. The purpose of all such communication is to convey mental images from one intelligence to another. Unfortunately, the image reception depends not solely upon the transmitting intellect but upon the receiving one as well. If both intellects were infinite and infallible there would be no problem, but when one intellect is in-

[Page 5]

finite and the other is finite, or when both are finite, there is room for distortion, and careful and prolonged study may be required to assure clarity. And some people seem to have been born without a "fine-tuning" button.

     It is the nature of communication which makes interpretation imperative. No one who studies the word of God diligently can do so for long without changing his mind concerning the meaning of certain passages. If one is led to a different view of a scripture now than he had ten years before, at which time does he take the Bible for what it says? Did he take the Bible for what it said ten years ago? If he did not, why not? If he did, does he cease to take the Bible for what it says when he changes his mind ten years later?

     One who holds that the Bible does not require interpretation must never alter his views but must cling to what he concluded upon his very first reading of it. But the Bible itself teaches that we must grow in grace and in knowledge of the truth. How can you grow without changing, since all growth demands change? The fact is that those who offer this puerile objection are constantly trying to explain what the scripture means, and thus interpret it. They write articles, print papers, put out tracts and publish books setting forth their deductions from the scripture. They deliver lengthy discourses in the pulpit and over radio expounding and expostulating on the implications of God's Word.

     We must never forget that those who want you to take the Bible for what it says, really want you to take it for what they say it says. It you explain a scripture you are interpreting it; if they explain one, it is what the Bible says. The final criterion is not what the Bible says at all, but it is their understanding and exposition, and unless you concur with them, you will be excluded. Theirs is the official, dyed-in-the-wool authoritative explanation, but it is not interpretation. Actually what they are really saying is that as they interpret God's word it does not require an interpretation. No scholarly person will make an assertion that the scripture requires no interpretation and when someone does you can be sure that he is both superficial in his thinking, and badly mixed up in his practice.

     I have a great deal of compassion for those who seek to defend their indefensible orthodoxy by making it appear that the scriptures speak so plainly to them that they are always in the right and cannot be wrong. I went through that same period when I was much younger than I am now. When a question arose, I took my Cruden's Concordance and looked up all the references which might have any bearing, near or remote, upon the problem at hand. Then I read all that had been said about it in the past issues of our official party journal, and examined all of the books that had been written by the loyal brethren. After that I examined everything else available, and when I made up my mind, it was always what the Bible taught, and required no interpretation.

     One day it dawned upon me how silly it was to send missionaries across the ocean to explain to others something that required no interpretation. Apparently we thought that none of the brethren were "wayfaring men," because we were always quoting that the way was so plain that the wayfaring man need not err therein. Once when I was in California a young brother handed me a tract he had written to explain why the scriptures need no interpretation.

     This question undoubtedly stems from the strife which has grown out of the contention between modern theologians, some of whom, under the influence of form criticism, have been led to regard the Bible as a cultural outgrowth rather than a divinely-given book. But I am not a part of the "theological rat race" and I do not allow myself to become involved in what I regard as a silly semantic merry-go-round. When questions like

[Page 6]

this are proposed the questioner asks them from a particular stance which he has already assumed and obviously he expects you to answer them while standing on the same "circle of turf."

     I never try to put words in the mouth of another man to enable him to define his position, nor do I allow others to select the words for me with which to explain mine. I just like my own terminology better than a Saul's armor furnished by others. Certainly, not every word contained in the Bible is the word of God, as anyone can easily determine by reading the book of Job. Here, in one volume you also have the words of Satan, Job, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, Zophar the Naamathite, and a young man by the name of Elihu, a Buzite who stood it as long as he could and said he either had to speak or pop! All of these had their say before the Lord entered the discussion and wound it up. So when I am asked if the Bible is the word of God I am forced to say that some of it is.

     And since the revelation of heaven does occur within the context of space, time and history, and it was gathered up (I happen to think under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit), and incorporated in what we call the Holy Bible, it does not make me choke to say that I believe the word of God is contained in the Bible. All this will help you to understand why I am not at all concerned with the verbal pegs upon which men hang up their mental overcoats.

     What I am interested in doing is making it clear that I receive the word of God without doubt or quibble, as a divine guideline for my feeble human existence. I trust it, respect it, revere it, and I intend to allow the sacred scriptures to take me by the hand and lead me into a closer walk with the Living Word, the Son of God, and my precious Lord. The written word provides for me teaching, reproof, correction and instruction in the just life, and I need everyone of these. I love the word, all of it, and praise God for giving it to us!

     But deliver me from becoming embroiled in the theological Donnybrooks where men become so engaged in fighting over the place of the Bible in God's purpose that they have no time to give it a place in their own lives. I am sure that the devil has a hearty respect for the word of God as being of divine origin, but that will not keep him out of the lake of fire. And I prefer to allow my daily and routine behavior to testify of my reverence for the testimony of the Lord which is certain, "making wise the simple." It is this last which gives me hope.

     It was J. B. Phillips who wrote: "I must, in common justice, confess here that for years I had viewed the Greek of the New Testament with a rather snobbish disdain. I had read the best of classical Greek both at school and Cambridge for over ten years. To come down to the koine of the first century A.D. seemed, as I have sometimes remarked rather uncharitably, was like reading Shakespeare for some years and then turning to the vicar's letter in the parish magazine! But I think now that I was wrong: I can see that the expression of the Word of God in ordinary workaday language is all of a piece with God's incredible humility in becoming a man in Jesus Christ." I agree heartily with that!

     This question has been proposed by a perceptive brother in Christ who is a successful general agent for an insurance company in southern Florida. He has

[Page 7]

been a source of strength to me since I first came to know him and I am pleased to give expression to my views regarding the important issue he has raised.

     On the college and university campus the same question is frequently posed and men and women are anxious to remove any lingering doubt about the constituency of the new covenant scriptures. This is altogether proper, because if we have works included which God did not intend to include, we have a corrupted compilation, and if there are works left out which God intended to include we have an imperfect version. Certainly the authority of the scriptures would be affected if it could be shown that they suffer from either unwarranted addition or omission.

     I find a very hazy view upon the part of many as to how we came to receive the new covenant scriptures in the form in which we now have them. A very common error is that a council was convened to vote upon which of the many extant writings were to be accepted and included, and which were to be left out of the sacred canon. One thing that encourages this fallacy is the propaganda of the communications department of the Knights of Columbus to the effect that we owe the compilation of the scriptures to the Roman Church. The impression is created that an ecumenical council selected for the purpose gathered up the epistles deemed worthy and bound them in a single volume. This is not the case at all!

     It is true that The Third Council of Carthage, which met in 397, in one of its creedal statements stipulated that only "canonical" books were to be read in the churches. It then listed exactly the 27 books that we have today. But they were listed because they were already recognized as "canonical." So the council did not establish the canon. It just exhibited it. In 419 The Council of Hippo repeated the identical list of books as specified by the Carthaginian Council.

     The Greek word kanon means literally a straight rod used for a rule or measure. We still use the word "ruler" to designate a piece of wood or metal with which to measure length. The idea of straightness can still be discerned in such derivative words as cane and canal. The latter is a trench for carrying water which cuts straight through the land. The clerical term canon comes from a clergy house whose members entered into a covenant to follow a certain rule for their lives.

     The word kanon occurs twice in the new covenant scriptures. In 2 Corinthians 10:16, it is translated "line," and in Galatians 6:16 it is rendered "rule." "As many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them." The "sacred canon" consists of the books which measured up, that is, which passed the tests, or met the requirements. But what was the test? It is obvious that before a piece of wood can be used for a measure it has to be measured. The reason we can use a one foot ruler as a guide in school is because someone else has determined beforehand its proper length and marked it off in inches and fractions of an inch.

     The same thing holds true with the sacred canon. Proper authority had to define the rule by which writings must be judged as worthy or unworthy of inclusion in a collection of materials esteemed to be from God, and this had to be done before the writings came into existence. It is recognizable by most people who believe in a revelation from God, and who accept that in these days God has spoken to us through his Son, that the Son should establish the criterion for measurement of the validity of that which is esteemed to be from God. In other words, the living Word is the measure of the written word, in order that the written word may correctly represent the Living Word.

     While he was yet among men on earth Jesus chose, called and commissioned a college of apostles to be his envoys or ambassadors to an alien world. An ambassador is a minister plenipotentiary, that is, a diplomat possessed of full power in the representation of his government. So one of these apostles wrote, "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we

[Page 8]

pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:20). This is very clear. As ambassadors entrusted with the word of reconciliation, God spoke through the apostles and they acted in behalf of Christ in presenting their message and entreaty.

     Jesus assured them while still present with them that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things and recall to their memory whatsoever he had said unto them (John 14:26). He affirmed that the Spirit would guide them into all truth and show them things to come. To receive the apostles was the equivalent of receiving Jesus (Matt. 10:40). They were to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes.

     The primitive saints of God recognized this and thus accepted apostolicity as their measuring rod. A writing, in order to be included in the sacred scriptures had to be written by an apostle, or by one close to an apostle, so close that apostolic endorsement or sanction could be given to it, thus establishing its veracity. At first the apostolic letters were scattered by their very nature, but as time passed congregations became aware of the need for preserving these vital documents and began to secure copies of them and to gather them as treasures to be passed on through the grace of God.

     This required a listing of those regarded as authentic and by the fourth century there were ten distinct catalogues of the books of the new covenant scriptures. Six of these were identical with our present canon. They are the lists of Athanasius (A.D. 315), Epiphanius (370), Jerome (392), Rufinus (390), Augustine (394), and the list of the forty-four bishops assembled at the Third Council of Carthage (397) which I referred to previously. Augustine was present for that occasion.

     Of the other four catalogues, three are identical with ours except for omission of the Revelation. These are the lists of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (340), the bishops assembled at The Council of Laodicea (364) and Gregory of Nazianzum, bishop of Constantinople (375). Philaster, bishop of Brescia (380) omits Hebrews and Revelation.

     Eusebius has been called "the father of church history." He was probably born in Palestine about A.D. 260, and became one of the most learned men of his day. He quotes from practically every one of the books and assigns them to the authors as we know them. But he investigated what the Christians thought of the writings available to them, and as a result of meticulous inquiries he reduced the books to three classes: (1) Those universally received as the genuine works of the authors to whom they were accredited. He includes the four gospel records, Acts of Apostles, all the epistles of Paul, the first epistle of John, and the first epistle of Peter. (2) The writings on which there was not unanimity of opinion. Eusebius says that here the greater majority accepted the books, but because of a few voices raised in doubt he placed them among the contested ones. He mentions James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. He adds that some placed Revelation in this class. (3) Those universally regarded as spurious. He enumerates Acts of Paul, Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Gospel According to the Hebrews.

     It does not bother me that some of the books were placed in doubt before they were placed in the canon. It only helps me to realize that such books had to prove their worthiness to be received. They were not accepted upon whim but according to a rigid standard. I am convinced that the canon as we have it is complete and unadulterated. I am perfectly willing to risk my hope of eternity upon the testimony of this wonderful volume containing the word of God.

     My position is not based upon an emotional hangover from a glamorous childhood affection, but upon mature reflection stemming from my own research. I accept the canon because of the testimony of the "church fathers"; the heretics who sought to combat it; and the Jewish and heathen adversaries who sought to overthrow it. I accept it because I believe that

[Page 9]

the internal evidences sustain it. I have read all of the apocryphal books related to the new covenant scriptures. There is no comparison, believe me!

     My own copy of The Apocryphal New Testament is the London edition of 1821, and as I read the contents, my wonder is not that they were not included in the canon, but rather that they were ever remotely considered for it. Such works as "The Acts of Paul and Thecla" and "The Epistle of Paul to Seneca" bear upon their faces an indictment of their forgery, or, at least of their inferiority.

     I happen to hold that the compilers of the canon were not "inspired" in the accepted sense of that term. God never wastes either divine power or gifts, and what man can do by reasoning and through study and research, he is permitted to do. And surely man could discover the revelation of God which had been uncovered for him, without additional supernatural demonstration. I do believe that the Spirit exercised supervisory concern in the compilation of the canon, but this was done providentially, and providence never makes use of the supernatural but always orders and arranges that which is natural to achieve the goal of God.

     It seems incongruous to me that the Spirit would provide a message essential to the eternal welfare of mankind and then allow it to be lost or adulterated until its power would be eroded away. I believe that the Spirit was the vehicle for the transmission of the word and now enlivens and enables the word. I am quite convinced that what we call the Bible as we have it is as God gave it. I intend to continue to allow it to guide my weak and unprofitable life.

     The question as to what I would have done if I had been a member of the conciliar convocation at Carthage is purely academic. As Dr. Joseph Angus remarks in one chapter of his unique handbook, "It is very remarkable that no General Council from the earliest times undertook to define the Canon. The Scriptures of the New Testament were their own attestation."

     In my own book Deep Roots I have this to say on page 38: "The Bible was not written by the church. It was written to the church. The books were not accepted as canonical because the church had produced them but because it had received them. The authority stemmed not from their acceptance but from their origin. Canonicity did not create authority nor increase it, but simply recognized it. It was in the giving and not the gathering of the books that the authority resided."

     On the following page I say this: "The authority does not reside in a volume but in a revelation. The Bible is not an authorized collection of books, but a collection of authorized books. The books were accepted because they measured up to the rule of the canon, they contained a revelation from God. They were not holy scriptures because they were selected for the canon, but they were accepted into the canon because they were holy scriptures." What I wrote so freely in 1966, I repeat just as freely seven years later.

     The Bible is my map on the journey of life, my bread for daily sustenance of the spirit, the staff upon which I lean, and my counsellor in times of doubt. I have proven in the laboratory of my own heart its supreme worth and its power to transform. I rejoice in its every word and every line and I thank the Giver of Life for the hope conveyed to me in its pages. I am not at all bothered by the canon by which the scriptures were selected and compiled, but I am concerned with my life which will be measured by them.

     6. Were the documents which compose the canon sacred at the time of their writing or did they become sacred later on because they were gathered and compiled?

     Really, this question, proposed in a "rap session" in a university student union building by a very astute young doubter, is an old one. It is also a sort of trick query raised by those inclined to be skeptical or critical. There is nothing sinful about either of these, for a skeptic is literally one who is thoughtful and reflective, and a critic is one who measures what he sees and hears.

[Page 10]

     But behind the question is the argument that the apostles merely wrote personal letters with no idea they would be gathered to constitute the Bible, and it was not until such compilation by the church several hundred years later that they were regarded as sacred. Thus the "sacred scriptures" did not originate as such but they were elevated to this by the church.

     In recent years this has formed the basis of the fallacious propaganda of the Knights of Columbus that the Bible is the product of the Catholic Church. The contention is that we owe a debt to Rome for giving us the sacred volume.

     Outside of the Roman Church one of the chief exponents of this idea in the preceding century was Henry Drummond, Scottish theologian and lecturer, who attempted to reconcile the principles of evolution to evangelical Christianity. He argued that "The Bible came out of religion, not religion out of the Bible. The Bible is a product of religion, not a cause of it."

     The question of the "sacredness" of the scriptures at the time of their origin can be very misleading. If the epistles written by the apostles were produced under the guidance of the Spirit, the question is not how the writers or recipients regarded them, but how God regarded them. The term sacred is from the Latin sacrare, holy or hallowed. Certainly if the new covenant writings were the special work of the Spirit they differed from all other writings of the same age or era, in that they originated in divine wisdom and not merely in human thinking. They were holy scriptures, as contrasted with profane, that is, unsanctified compositions.

     Whether the apostles knew they were helping to write "the Bible" is of no consequence. The word "Bible" is one which we have adopted to designate the gathered books which met the standard of authenticity and genuineness. God did not give us a Bible, but a revelation in various parts and in various times. We call the collection of the documents containing that revelation the Bible. Whether or not the writers knew that a collection of their writings would occur is of little concern. Their task was simply to write as motivated by the Spirit. The act of preserving their writings, or the method of doing so, was left in the hands of providence.

     It is important, I think, to determine how the apostles regarded the content and purpose of their writings at the time. Were the letters which they wrote and the words which they spoke considered to be simply an expression of their own thoughts, or a revelation from the Spirit? Were they reputed to be of any special authority, and thus binding upon the hearers and readers? In determining this we must rely upon the testimony of the apostles themselves. They alone are capable of testifying directly as to their view of their words. Let me mention a few considerations drawn from letters written by one man to one congregation located in the very heart of a vicious and immoral pagan culture.

     a. Paul declares that when he came to Corinth he "declared the attested truth of God without display of fine words or wisdom (1 Cor. 2:1).

     b. He affirms that he spoke "God's hidden wisdom, his secret purpose framed from the very beginning to bring us to our full glory" (1 Cor. 2:7).

     c. He asserted that the Spirit had revealed to the envoys of Jesus things which could not be ascertained by visual or audible means, or by the rationalization process (1 Cor. 2:9).

     d. He believed they had received the Spirit of God for the precise purpose of knowing "all that God of his own grace gives us" (1 Cor. 2:12).

     e. He said that the words in which the message was couched were those the Spirit of God selected, and not those which human wisdom dictated. "And because we are interpreting spiritual truths to those who have the Spirit, we speak of these gifts of God in words found for us not by our human wisdom, but by the Spirit" (1 Cor. 2:13).

     f. Those who claimed a prophetic insight were to validate it by acknowledging the apostolic letters as of divine ori-

[Page 11]

gin. "If anyone claims to be a prophet or inspired, let him recognize that what I write has the Lord's authority" (1 Cor. 14:37). Certainly, if the Spirit was operating in a man he would recognize His own words and revelation.

     g. Paul contended that the tradition which he passed on, for a tradition is simply something handed over or handed down, originated with the Lord. He did not arrive at it by his own research and it was not given unto him by other apostles previously chosen. "I commend you for always keeping me in mind, and maintaining the tradition which I handed on to you...For the tradition which I handed on to you came from the Lord himself" (1 Cor. 11:2,23).

     It is not necessary that I multiply references or pile up quotations. I do not know if the apostles were apprised of the fact that there would be a compilation of their material into a single volume to be designated as the holy Bible. I rather doubt that such was the case. But I am convinced that they wrote with full recognition that they were chosen instruments of God to receive the divine revelation and hand it to succeeding generations as the tradition of heaven. That it was given a place with the scriptures is proven by Peter who wrote, "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15, 16).

     Let me make it clear that, so far as I am concerned, the new covenant scriptures contain the revelation of God's will for my life. I shall not be upset by how they were gathered, collated and compiled. To me, they contain within themselves those internal proofs which establish their validity. I intend to read, study and shape my life according to them as best I can. I do not intend ever to twist them. If I err in my understanding and application of them it will be a mistake of the head and not the heart. I take my stand firmly and unequivocally upon these scriptures as God's guideline for my life and destiny.

     Next month, if the Father wills, I shall start addressing myself to questions related to the distinction between gospel and doctrine. It will undoubtedly be one of the most valuable studies in our present series.