When it comes to authority -- or authorization -- does the spirit of god (ever) supersede Scripture? At the least, a vaguely positive answer to this question sounds like a terribly messy conclusion to come to; at most, I should be burned at the stake for even daring to ask such heretical nonsense. But what does Scripture say? Or more to the point, how does Scripture itself behave, and how was it treated by those who read it long before we did?
We fins one of the most significant pivots in Scripture -- Old and New Testament included -- in the Book of Acts, chapter 10. Here we read of a Gentile joining god’s covenant community, but in a surprising way. Cornelius didn’t need to go under the knife and have a part of his manhood snipped. He didn’t need to demarcate himself by keeping the food laws. In short, he didn’t need to become a Jew. The spirit of god resting upon this centurian was enough to convince Peter that YHWH was doing a new thing. Circumcision, a fundamental law found throughout the Old Testament, was superseded by a new law -- the law of Christ -- which was radically inclusive of Jews, Gentiles, males, females, free men and slaves.
Paul took this to the nth degree, summarising in 1 Corinthians 7 that what matters is not circumcision or uncircumcision, but keeping god’s commandments…except the one about circumcision, evidently.
What Peter and Paul appear to be doing here is allowing the empowering presence of god’s spirit to shape their ministries in uncomfortable ways; ways that would have once been inconceivable to them as Jews. And what’s more, Peter and Paul are allowing the spirit to shape their reading and understanding of Scripture; it is a hermeneutic of the spirit, which sounds like a reasonable framework of interpretation given the spirit’s unique hand in the Bible’s authorship. These two apostles could never have come to the conclusion that circumcision is meaningless by merely reading and interpreting Israel’s scriptures themselves. They needed a higher authority -- the present experience of the spirit in their lives and in the lives of others -- to guide them towards uncomfortable truths.
The question remains - does the spirit supersede Scripture? Would the disciples have come to different conclusions about Gentile inclusion in the church had they let Scripture be their supreme authority? Or are the spirit and Scripture always and forever in perfect harmony? After all, in Acts 15 James quotes Amos as a witness to what Peter and Paul experienced first hand, and Paul is relentless in his use of Scripture to validate this new work of god spreading throughout the Roman empire.
I think there is an inherent harmony between spirit and Scripture, but I don’t think that implies utter consistency from start to finish, where both are absolutely immutable. For example, we affirm that the spirit of god worked with Moses as he formulated his divorce laws for Israel. But, we also affirm that the spirit of god worked with Jesus as he critiqued those laws by saying that divorce was never actually god’s original intention; rather, adjustments were made in the time of Moses to accommodate for Israel’s hardness of heart (Matt. 19).
What then of some modern day application, such as female teachers in church? Can we appeal to the promptings or gifts of god’s spirit in the lives of women over and against some texts like 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2? Has the spirit once again acted in a surprising way, a way only glimpsed by Paul (Galatians 3, for example) but not fully worked out yet? Might the spirit have said something to Paul in his day, but be saying something different to us? Something perhaps contrary to certain passages in Scripture, but resonant with the overall picture? I wouldn’t put it past him, but my word wouldn’t that open a can of worms.
We fins one of the most significant pivots in Scripture -- Old and New Testament included -- in the Book of Acts, chapter 10. Here we read of a Gentile joining god’s covenant community, but in a surprising way. Cornelius didn’t need to go under the knife and have a part of his manhood snipped. He didn’t need to demarcate himself by keeping the food laws. In short, he didn’t need to become a Jew. The spirit of god resting upon this centurian was enough to convince Peter that YHWH was doing a new thing. Circumcision, a fundamental law found throughout the Old Testament, was superseded by a new law -- the law of Christ -- which was radically inclusive of Jews, Gentiles, males, females, free men and slaves.
Paul took this to the nth degree, summarising in 1 Corinthians 7 that what matters is not circumcision or uncircumcision, but keeping god’s commandments…except the one about circumcision, evidently.
What Peter and Paul appear to be doing here is allowing the empowering presence of god’s spirit to shape their ministries in uncomfortable ways; ways that would have once been inconceivable to them as Jews. And what’s more, Peter and Paul are allowing the spirit to shape their reading and understanding of Scripture; it is a hermeneutic of the spirit, which sounds like a reasonable framework of interpretation given the spirit’s unique hand in the Bible’s authorship. These two apostles could never have come to the conclusion that circumcision is meaningless by merely reading and interpreting Israel’s scriptures themselves. They needed a higher authority -- the present experience of the spirit in their lives and in the lives of others -- to guide them towards uncomfortable truths.
The question remains - does the spirit supersede Scripture? Would the disciples have come to different conclusions about Gentile inclusion in the church had they let Scripture be their supreme authority? Or are the spirit and Scripture always and forever in perfect harmony? After all, in Acts 15 James quotes Amos as a witness to what Peter and Paul experienced first hand, and Paul is relentless in his use of Scripture to validate this new work of god spreading throughout the Roman empire.
I think there is an inherent harmony between spirit and Scripture, but I don’t think that implies utter consistency from start to finish, where both are absolutely immutable. For example, we affirm that the spirit of god worked with Moses as he formulated his divorce laws for Israel. But, we also affirm that the spirit of god worked with Jesus as he critiqued those laws by saying that divorce was never actually god’s original intention; rather, adjustments were made in the time of Moses to accommodate for Israel’s hardness of heart (Matt. 19).
What then of some modern day application, such as female teachers in church? Can we appeal to the promptings or gifts of god’s spirit in the lives of women over and against some texts like 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2? Has the spirit once again acted in a surprising way, a way only glimpsed by Paul (Galatians 3, for example) but not fully worked out yet? Might the spirit have said something to Paul in his day, but be saying something different to us? Something perhaps contrary to certain passages in Scripture, but resonant with the overall picture? I wouldn’t put it past him, but my word wouldn’t that open a can of worms.
Very thought provoking, as always.But how can we be sure when the Spirit is "superceding" some revealed scriptual position. If women are being raised up in the church today with pastoral and teaching gifts, and this is evidence of the Spirit superceding Paul's position, even scripture if you will, then is the Spitit not also superceding Paul's position on homosexuality, given that gay ministers are emerging into public ministry in the church today.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is the Spirit and not the Spitit who is engaged or otherwise in all this activity.
ReplyDeleteCan. Open, Worms. Everywhere.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the "how can we be sure" question, I think it takes a lot of discernment at a macro level. The one thing we musn't do is treat Scripture like a Law book. following its letter rather than its spirit. N.T. Wright likens the authority of Scripture to the authority of a play with 3 of the 4 Acts at our disposal. We are to work out the missing 4th Act in an appropriate way. It may be slightly different to the other 3 Acts, but it should be in full continuity as we read what went before and look to live out the climax of the play in light of this.
As for homosexuals in ministry, it’s hard to respond in a short comment without being completely reductionistic and/or without sounding like a homophobe. Perhaps it’s foolhardy of me to even try, but try I will.
The first thing I will say is that gifting alone is not a sufficient qualification for ministry, be you male, female, straight, gay, or otherwise.
Secondly, without wanting to make this sound easy, homosexuality is a distortion of god’s design for sex which, like other distortions, needs to be turned away from, not embraced.
Consider the following scenario - A gifted worship leader has a thriving ministry in his local church, but one day it emerges that he has been having an affair with someone within the congregation. Can we just abandon the notion that adultery is wrong, bless the worship leader and his mistress, and continue on as normal under some new moral system that caters for our desires? After all, it is only natural that a man would want to have sex with another woman.
But of course such actions would be absurd. Repentance is the order of the day, and all gifting should be set aside until such a time as repentance is real and true.
It would be very easy for us to call our natural desires “good”. I would love to embrace my lust, greed, and selfishness rather than put them to death. But that’s not the Gospel, which calls for allegiance from every part of our being, including our sexual desires.
There’s much more to be said on this, but that’s a start anyway.
Ps - There are many who will argue that what might be called “Paul’s position” is not actually his position at all. Clearly Paul embraced female teachers such as Junia and Priscilla, so might texts like 1 Corinthians 14 or 1 Timothy 2 mean something else?
Gordon Fee -- a much respected Christian scholar -- argues that Paul didn’t write 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 at all. Rather, it was a later interpolation. In this passage the writer says that women should be in submission “as the Law also says”. Doesn’t it sound very un-Pauline to speak in such a way that we are under the law? That’s not to mention the fact that Paul anticipates women speaking out in the church earlier in the letter (chapter 11).
But anyway, that’s another argument for another day.