As we all know, we live in times when many churchmen and women, whether pastors or teachers, or delegates to conferences, are affirming teachings that are contrary to the plain meaning of Scripture.
Original intention?
Historically, the weakening of Biblical reliability initially seems to have occurred with critiques of the older Scriptures, despite the assertion of Paul that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (KJV), “All Scripture is God-breathed” (NIV) (2 Tim 3:16). From the preceding verse, where Paul reminds Timothy that “from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures”, it is clear that the Old Testament is to be treated as authoritative.
We should not wonder at this, as Jesus Himself quoted from it on several occasions, frequently using the definitive Old Testament phrase, “it is written” (e.g. Matt.4:6-10, 21:13), also stating, “everything written about me by the prophets will come true” (Luke 22:37, NLT). It is less clear, however, that Paul may also have been referring to any New Testament writings that were in existence at the time of His second letter to Timothy.
If one asks, “Did Paul, or other writers, intend to add to those Holy Scriptures?”, the answer most probably is “No”, not least because we have no direct evidence. It is also clear that the various letters were addressed to individuals or churches, often dealing with specific concerns, Paul even making the caveat for the Corinthians, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord" (1:7:12). But none of that of itself undermines the authority of the text.
Liberal scholarship
New Testament criticism, of course, is nothing new, but a recent example of questioning the authority of these later writings popped up in The Times newspaper on Saturday, July 17th. Written by Professor Keith Elliott, who taught New Testament textual criticism at Leeds University, the headline boldly declared, “New Testament writers did not set out to write authoritative texts”. He claims that the New Testament only “represents the experiences of those closest to Jesus of Nazareth … merely the first steps in a continual interpretation of the faith … (each) freely interpreting to meet the needs of his community.”
If one asks, “Did Paul, or other writers, intend to add to those Holy Scriptures?”, the answer most probably is “No”, not least because we have no direct evidence, but that doesn’t of itself undermine the authority of the text.
Such a view implies mere human action, a denial of the Holy Spirit’s part in the lives of the authors. And it is via such claims that current liberal re-interpretations which twist the Scriptures are justified, despite Peter’s clear warning (2 Peter 3:16-17). Whilst it is generally true of literature that authorial intent can be difficult to discern, one wonders on what basis the learned professor can be confident in his assertions. Does he not trust what the authors themselves have to say?
Luke’s eyewitness account
In this short article we can focus our attention on but a few crucial statements that completely undermine the professor’s headline claim. Let’s take Luke as our first example. The opening verses of his Gospel emphasise with great clarity what he is setting out to do. That means that his intention is transparent. Here he states that he is presenting a narrative that is based on eyewitness accounts (vv.1-2), with the specific purpose that the reader “may know the certainty of those things” (v.4).
Luke’s Greek behind the latter two highlighted words is particularly instructive: epiginosko and asphaleia. The first of these means ‘to know upon some mark’ (Strong’s Concordance), ‘to know exactly’ (NAS Concordance), ‘to know accurately’ (Thayer). Luke’s verb alone thus conveys reliability. The second of these reinforces that, meaning ‘certainty, security’ (Strong & NAS), ‘firmness, stability, certainty, undoubted truth (Thayer)’; in fact, this word derives from the opposite condition to the Greek word sphallo, which means ‘to fail’, and so indicates ‘unfailing, dependable’.
The gospel of John
Now let’s turn to the Apostle John, who clearly opens his Gospel by consciously paralleling the authoritative inspired beginning of the Hebrew Scriptures, strongly suggesting continuity of revelation. Then, in verses 7, 15, and 19, he emphasises ‘witness’ and ‘testimony’. His Greek words are ‘matureo’ and ‘marturia’. The first of these is the verb meaning ‘to be a witness’, whereas the second is the noun meaning ‘evidence, judicial enquiry’. Both of these are the language of the courtroom, and both appear again as John signs off his account: “This is the disciple who testifies of these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (21:24). Significantly, John here asserts the validity of his testimony via the word ‘true’, in Greek, ‘alethes’ – ‘true’ (Strong & NAS), literally ‘not hidden, unconcealed’, and hence, ‘true, actual occurrence’ (Thayer).
Paul the Apostle
Finally, we look at the Apostle Paul’s opening of his letter to the church in Rome. Here he focusses on two key matters – continuity with the Old Testament Scriptures, and apostleship. The ‘Gospel of God’, he says, was “promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord” (vv.2-3). In verse 4 he states that Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God …. by the resurrection from the dead” – that stunning actual occurrence of which Paul bravely testified at his trial in Caesarea Maritima before the Roman Governor, Festus, and the puppet-king Agrippa (Acts 26). (Incidentally, in his first letter to the Corinthians (ch.15), Paul also speaks of those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus).
If the writers’ claims to authority are groundless, surely the remainder must also be without moral authority - mere evidence of how some Christians were thinking in the early centuries AD - mistakenly (or deliberately misleadingly) at that
As to apostleship, our English word ‘apostle’ derives directly from the Greek, ‘apostolos’, ‘a messenger, one sent on a mission’ (Strong & NAS), ‘a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders’ (Thayer). In first-century secular Greek this word functioned as a legal term for an ambassador, someone sent by a superior authority. Having already had experience as a delegate with the authority of the High Priest (Acts 9:1-2), Paul was no stranger to such a position. Now he identifies himself as very different kind of apostle in verse 1, in verses 4 and 5 stating that this apostleship derives from that same Jesus Christ. His intention to make his authority known is obvious.
Summing up
Thus, the text speaks for itself. Either it is true or false. If the writers’ claims to authority are groundless, surely the remainder must also be without moral authority - mere evidence of how some Christians were thinking in the early centuries AD - mistakenly (or deliberately misleadingly) at that! We are left to wonder what kind of Gospel that would be. Praise God for the One who alone is “the Way, the Truth and the Life”! After all, He it is who declared “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt.21:18, most translations).
