Hebrews 6:4-6 and a Theologically-Driven Mistranslation in the KJV

Latter-day Saints, as with most other groups within the broad Christian spectrum, believe that it is possible for a truly justified, believing individual to lose their salvation. This is anathema to those within certain camps who hold to a form of eternal security, whether “Once Saved, Always Saved” or the “Perseverance of the Saints” (the “P” of the TULIP).

One of the most popular texts used to show that one can lose their salvation is that of Heb 6:4-6 (cf. 10:26). The NIV provides the following translation:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Readers of the KJV will notice a slight difference between most modern translations and the KJV; verse 6 in the KJV reads “if they shall fall away” (cf. the NIV's "and who have fallen away") giving some aid to the theory that this pericope is only speaking hypothetically, and it is not a real possibility that a saved individual could lose their salvation, but more of an admonition to persevere. However, this is based on a mistranslation. The Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, does not have a verb in the subjunctive of the verb παραπιμπτω (“to fall away”/”commit apostasy”) but instead, is in the participle aorist active form (παραπεσοντας), speaking of people who have indeed been regenerated, but have lost their salvation, as such people were not superficial believers, but those who were enlightened by the Holy Spirit and were initially brought to genuine repentance, as well as having “tasted the goodness of the word of God.”

One possible reason for this mistranslation is that the KJV translators were Reformed/Calvinistic in their soteriology. In Reformed theology, it is impossible for a truly justified individual to lose their salvation. This shows that all translations will be subject to the bias of the translators, and one should be aware of how different, reputable versions translate a given verse or pericope, and, furthermore, a knowledge of some Hebrew and Greek are important.

Between Heaven and Earth

I will be on my annual leave from work beginning Thursday. I will he heading home for a week, so I hope to get a few posts done (as well as much-deserved relaxation!), but before I do, I will be making a quick trip with a few others to the Latter-day Saint Temple in Preston, England. As a result, I won't be posting anything until Monday or Tuesday. In the meantime, I thought I would share a good video for those interested in the Temple within "Mormonism."

The Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon at the Temple, and the Doxology

In Matt 5-7, we find the sermon that is often called "the Sermon on the Mount. " This sermon is reproduced, with some changes, by the then-resurrected, glorified Christ when, after his resurrection, preached to his people in the New World (somewhere in ancient Mesoamerica) at a temple in a land called "Bountiful"; thus it is often labelled “The Sermon at the Temple” (3 Nephi 12-14).

In Matt 6:13, Christ provides a doxology (emphasis added):

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil; For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen.

This is paralleled in 3 Nephi 13:13:

For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

Some critics, perhaps most notably Stan Larson, have charged that this is strong evidence of a 19^th century origin for the Book of Mormon. The reason? Some early manuscripts of Matthew lack this doxology. Many modern translations (e.g. the NRSV) lack the doxology. The argument goes that Joseph Smith pilfered, rather ignorantly in this case, from the KJV, and the Book of Mormon retains this error.

There have been many responses to this alleged “error.” In his book, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and Sermon on the Mount (online here), John W. Welch provides a number of arguments that Jesus did utter a doxology. Consider the following:

First, it would have been highly irregular at the time of Jesus to end a Jewish prayer without some words in praise of God. In Palestinian practice, it was completely unthinkable that a prayer would end with the word “temptation.” In Judaism, prayers are often concluded with a “seal,” a sentence of praise freely formulated by the man who was praying (on this, see Jeremias’ book, The Prayers of Jesus).

Secondly, at a temple setting, that of the Sermon in 3 Nephi 12-14, it is all the more unlikely that a prayer at the temple would end without some form of doxology. This may be a factor in explaining why Luke 11 does not contain a doxology, while the Lord’s Prayer at Bountiful does. In prayers at a temple, the people did not end a prayer with just “Amen.” The benediction at the temple on the Day of Atonement ended with the phrase, “Praised be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and eternally!”

Thirdly, the doxology in the KJV and the Sermon at the Temple seems to have followed a traditional form, reflected in 1 Chronicles 29:10-13, as is widely observed. The Nephites may have known such phraseology from their Israelite traditions, for it appears in an important blessing spoken by King David, and the Nephite record contained certain historical records of the Jews (see 1 Nephi 5:12). According to Chronicles, David’s blessing reads: “Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou Lord God of Israel out father forever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine if the kingdom” (1 Chron 29:10-11, emphasis added).

Fourthly, although a minority, several early texts in Greek, Syriac, and Coptic include doxologies at the end of the Lord ’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13.

What is also interesting is the Didache, an early Christian document that has been variously dated (most scholars argue that it was written about 100 C.E.; one leading Didache scholar, Aaron Milavec, in his The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. places it before the inscripturation of the Gospel of Matthew) contains the doxology in his rendition of the Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8:2), showing that the doxology in the Sermon at the Mount was known in Christian antiquity; it was not a much later development.

Overall, these considerations show that the argument of Larson et al. does not hold water vis-à-vis the Sermon on the Mount and Sermon at the Temple in Matthew and the Book of Mormon.

Jacob Arminius on Sin and Predestination

I came across from the following quote from The Works of Jacob Arminius, 1:153, presenting one of his many cogent critiques of the Reformed doctrine of Predestination. Latter-day Saint soteriology has been called “hyper Arminianism,” which has much truth in it:

XII This Predestination is inconsistent with the Nature and Properties of Sin in two ways: (1.) Because sin is called "disobedience" and "rebellion," neither of which terms can possibly apply to any person who by a preceding divine decree is placed under an unavoidable necessity of sinning. (2.) Because sin is the meritorious cause of damnation. But the meritorious cause which moves the Divine will to reprobate, is according to justice; and it induces God, who holds sin in abhorrence, to will reprobation. Sin, therefore, which is a cause, cannot be placed among the means, by which God executes the decree or will of reprobation.

Mary’s Question to Gabriel in Luke 1:34—Did Mary take a vow of perpetual virginity?

Mary being a perpetual virgin is a dogma within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and was a doctrine that many of the Reformers and their followers held to, too (e.g. Luther; Zwingli; Francis Turretin), and many Anglicans and Lutherans still hold to this belief in modern times. The historical Latter-day Saint view is that normal sexual activities took place between Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus, and that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus one finds in the New Testament are the biological children of both Mary and Joseph, being Christ’s half-siblings. While this view (the “Helvidian” view, to give it its historical title) has never been officially proclaimed by the Church as the belief of the Church, it is the working position of all commentators and leaders of the Church (I only know of one LDS scholar, Jeffrey Chadwick, who believes the brothers/sisters of Jesus were children of Joseph from a previous marriage, though he rejects Mary being a perpetual virgin).

One text that, since the time of Augustine, has been cited in favour of this belief are the words of Mary to Gabriel, after finding out that she would be the mother of the Messiah:

Then said Mary unto the angel, how shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (Luke 1:34)

Augustine, in On Holy Virginity 4 wrote about this verse:

Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; "How," saith she, "shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

One online Catholic apologist provided a similar “take” on this passage vis-à-vis Mary being an avowed (perpetual) virgin:

Here comes when the incarnation is announced to Mary. Here is where Mary is told by the angel Gabriel that she will conceive and bear a child who is the Messiah who will reign. This is strange and wonderful news to Mary. We first note that the angel says to Mary, future tense, you will conceive in your womb. Mary is asking how this can be, since I know no man? Is this a pledge that she will remain a virgin even after she gets married to Joseph, as us Catholics would say? Modern Protestants will say, well ‘when she says I know no man’ she is only speaking about her present state, not speaking about any pledge for the future. Now, putting aside the technicalities, let us use a similar statement on another issue and see how we would understand a similar response.

Let us say someone comes to me and says ‘You will smoke a cigarette’, future tense. My response is ‘How can this be since I do not smoke?’ Technically my response is only in the present tense and not addressing the future. But the statement that I am addressing is dealing with that future. Thus, the statement I am making is not, ‘well, up to now I have not smoked, but I will smoke in the future.’ Because if that is the case, if I intend to smoke in the future, there is no reason for me to ask the question. When I say, albeit in a present tense, I do not smoke; my question is addressing a statement made about the future. Thus, when I say ‘I do not smoke’ it does not mean ‘I have not smoked in the past but I intend to smoke in the future.’ It means I have not smoked in the past, I do not smoke now, and I will not smoke in the future.

Much has been made out of the force of Mary's use of the present tense. However, as many grammarians (e.g.) show, the present tense may be used to emphasise that the results of a past action are still continuing. In this light, Mary's words are to be understood that at that point of time, she was still a virgin, but no hint whatsoever that she took a vow of virginity.

Daniel Wallace presents the following examples, alongside Luke 1:28, in the Greek New Testament in his book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp.533 (emphasis added):

Rom 10:16	᾽Ησαΐας γὰρ λέγει· κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν;
	For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”

The way in which Paul introduces the quotation from Isa 53 implies that Isa­iah’s words were still applicable to Paul’s situation. Typically quotations of the OT, other than prophecies, are introduced by γέγραπται, “It stands written.” It is difficult to assess the difference in force between these two introductory for­mulas, but it is possible that the connotation of the tenses is the following: (1) γέγραπται, being a perfect tense, stresses the abiding authority of scripture; (2) λέγει, being a present tense, stresses the applicability of scripture to the present situation.

Eph 4:8	λέγει
	[God] says or [scripture] says

Occasionally the NT writers do not name the subject of λέγει when introducing a quotation from the OT. A most probable explanation is that to them, what the scripture says is what God says and, consequently, there is no difference between scripture and God’s word. A significant text, in light of this discus­sion, is Eph 5:14. Although λέγει introduces the quotation, it is probably not from the OT. Rather, it may well be a quotation of an early Christian creedal hymn.

1 Tim 5:18	λέγει ἡ γραφή· βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις
	the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain”
1 John 5:20	ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει, καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν
	the Son of God has come and has given us understanding

The perfective present is here joined by καί to a perfect tense, illustrating its force.

There are also other issues with the idea that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity. For instance, the interpretation of Augustine et al. introduces a historical novum, namely the idea of a married virgin. We know from Luke 1:27 that Mary was betrothed/engaged to Joseph (cf. Matt 1:18).

Suggested Reading on Sola Scriptura

The following are the best books, both critiquing and supporting, Sola Scriptura. For those wanting to delve deeply into this topic, I would highly recommend tracking down these volumes to better study the relevant texts and historical issues. There are others, but the following would fall under the "must-read" category.

In Favour of Sola Scriptura

Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura

William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton

William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice (3 vol.)

Against Sola Scriptura

Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis

Dave Armstrong, Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, and Biblical "proofs" for"Bible Alone"

Gerard Loughlin, Telling God's Story: Bible, Church, and Narrative Theology

Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Part 6: 2 Timothy 3:16

2 Tim 3:16 is the most commonly cited, and perhaps the strongest verse Protestant apologists cite to “prove” Sola Scriptura. Indeed, Protestant authors, from the Reformation onto modern times, cite this verse in favour of this doctrine as the key-text supporting this doctrine, which is the formal doctrine od the Reformation (e.g. Francis Turretin; Charles Hodge; William Whitaker; James White; Eric Svendsen; William Webster and David King).

Paul, writing to the bishop of Ephesus, Timothy, in 2 Tim 3:15-17 writes:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Much has been written already by various authors, both historically and in modern times, refuting the points Protestant apologists cite in favour of this doctrine. In this post, I will focus on a few key issues that show that to derive Sola Scriptura from this pericope can only come about by eisegesis, not meaningful exegesis.

The Meaning of the term “Profitable”

The Greek term translated as “profitable” is ωφελιμος, which is actually a qualitatively weak word. It does not denote formal sufficiency, but something that is “useful” or “beneficial,” as major lexicons of Koine Greek state (e.g. BDAG; Moulton-Milligan; TDNT). There are a number of Greek word Paul could have, and should have used if he wished to portray “Scripture” as being formally sufficient, such as the terms ικανος and αυταρκεια. Indeed, such terms are used in the Pastoral Epistles themselves to denote the concept of formal sufficiency:

καὶ ἃ ἤκουσας παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων, ταῦτα παράθου πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις, οἵτινες ἱκανοὶ ἔσονται καὶ ἑτέρους διδάξαι.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2)

Ἔστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας

But godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Tim 6:6)

The scope of the term, “Scripture”

Protestant apologists have to beg the question, namely that “Scripture” and the “[Protestant canon of] the Bible” are one-to-one equivalent. The problem is that this is an interpretive impossibility, as not all 66 book of the Protestant canon were inscripturated when the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul. Indeed, as many Protestant apologists admit, Paul write this text during a time when Scripture was still being inscripturated, and that oral revelation was as authoritative as the written word during this period (cf. 2 Thess 2:2, 15 for e.g.) If that is the case, Sola Scriptura could not be taught by this text or other texts, as Sola Scriptura needs Tota Scriptura, that is, the entireity of “Scripture” to be inscripturated for it to be true.

See my post reproducing Robert Sungenis’ interaction with James White’s admission on this very issue.

The use of the ινα clause and the terms “perfect” and “thoroughly furnished”

The Greek structure of 2 Tim 3:17 is that of a ινα-clause. The particle ινα corresponds to “[so] that” in many constructions (i.e. a “purpose clause”) it is used in, including this particular text. The argument, forwarded by James R. White (The Roman Catholic Controversy [1996]) is that it is the Scriptures and the Scriptures only that equip the “man of God” to be equipped to teach doctrine. Additionally, White et al. argue that, when coupled with the terms αρτιος (“fit”) and εξαρτιζω (“equipped”) further support the Bible being formally sufficient.

As I explained to Desmond Ferguson, an anti-Mormon in Dublin, in my response to his comments about 2 Tim 3:

Unfortunately, the eisegesis of the Bible does not stop there. Ferguson, again in the Spring edition of ICM's The Banner, follows the typical line repeated by Protestant theologians that draw attention to Paul's use of the Greek noun, artios ("fit") and the participle exartismenos ("fully equipped") in verse 17 (Ferguson makes an appeal to the NIV translation, and not the Greek, but the argument is basically the same as those forwarded by proponents of Sola Scriptura and the alleged *formal* sufficiency of the 66 books of the Protestant canon). However, the definitions of "complete" and "perfect" and other like-terms speak more to the expected result. Suffice it to say that, coupled with the very infrequent usage of these words in Koine Greek, the variations in meaning suggests that the understanding and application of the words will depend heavily upon the context in which they are placed.

Observing Paul's play on words further helps us to understand the use of artios and exartismenos in 2 Timothy 3:17. The adjective artios and the perfect passive particple exartismenos derive from the same verb artidzo. The prefix ex puts a perfective force on exartismenos, which denote the meaning of "altogether" or "fully." In a somewhat repetitive way, Paul describes the kind of man he envisions (a fit or capable man), and then explains the result of that capability (he is now fully equipped for every good work).

One of the most important points about 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for the present discussion on Sola Scriptura is that neither the adjective artios nor the participle exartismenos is describing "Scripture"; rather, they are both describing the "man of God." However, some proponents of Sola Scriptura, realising such, insist that only the "man of God" is perfectly equipped if Scripture is the perfect equipper. Notwithstanding, such is based, yet again, on eisegesis.

Firstly, no one can prove that the only or even primary meaning of artios or artidzo is "perfect" or "sufficient." There are many other words Paul could have used to denote the concept of perfection or absolute sufficiency which he obviously did not use in the context of 2 Timothy 3. Moreover, the specific meanings of these words are conditioned, or are relative to, the context in which they are contained. Secondly, while in verse 17 Paul uses the adjective artios and the participleexartismenos to describe the "man of God," he uses a much weaker word, ophelimos ("profitable"), in verse 16 to describe scripture. Ophelimos means "helpful, beneficial, useful, advantageous." It is not a word that connotes solitary sufficiency and certainly nothing close to the absolute or formal sufficiency that Protestants must assign to Scripture to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In fact, there is an implied insufficiency or limitation in ophelimos.

To show the intent of Paul's description of Scripture as profitable, a simply analogy from Scripture will help illustrate the point. In Ephesians 6:10, Paul instructs Christians to "Put on the full armour of God so that you can stand against the devil's schemes." Included in the full armour is "the belt of truth," the "breastplate of righteousness," the "feet fitted with readiness," the "shield of faith," the "helmet of salvation," and the "sword of the Spirit which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:11-18). We notice here that Paul includes many aspects of the Christian walk in making one prepared to fight evil (the same evil Paul instructs Timothy to fight in 2 Timothy 2-4), such as truth, righteousness, readiness, faith, salvation, and the word of God. We also notice that Paul considers the "word of God" but one of many components of the "full armour" of God. The "full armour" of Ephesians 6:11 is analogous to being "fully equipped" in 2 Timothy 3:17. Finally, Paul adds prayer to the list of items to ward off the devil as he says, "Pay also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel" (Ephesians 6:19). We see from this analogy that Paul intends his message to reveal all the things necessary to teach and defend the gospel and lead a good and wholesome Christian life, not to give a lesson on "sufficiency" for the sake of argument, one cannot presume that a sufficiently equipped man has been made that way only by Scripture. Certainly Scripture (being defined here as the 66 books of the Protestant canon) plays a large part in the equipping, but Paul does not tout it as the only source to help in this process, nor a source that will automatically do so.

Also, one should note the immediate context of this passage. In 2 Timothy 2:21 we see that there are means other than the 66 books of the biblical canon to accomplish the goal of making a fit and fully equipped man of God. Paul uses the phrase, "every good work" six other times in his epistles. As in the context of 2 Timothy 2-3, these verses shed much light on how we are to understand Paul's meaning in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (e.g., in 2 Corinthians 9:8, Paul says that God is able to make all grace abound toward the Corinthian saints in order that they may always abound in every good work).

Another aspect of the relationship between Scripture and the elements which make Timothy a "fit" man of God is Paul's wording in 2 Timothy 3:15 that he "knows" the holy Scriptures which are able to make Timothy wise to salvation. The word "know" denotes a present intellectual apprehension of Scripture, and as such, it, itself, is not saving wisdom but only a means to saving wisdom. Timothy must turn to his intellectual knowledge of salvation into a spiritual embracing of salvation. The process of attaining salvation is implied in Paul's use of the present tense verbs "know" and "are able." From passages such as 1 Timothy 4:15-16 and 6:11-12,  Timothy must combine his faith and obedience to what he knows of Scripture in order to secure his salvation. We see that Timothy's salvation is not an absolute certainty. Scripture is trustworthy (i.e., inspired revelation) and thus, it is "profitable" for what leads to salvation, but it itself does not produce of guarantee salvation.

Church offices and officers being the final authority? Eph 4:11-14 as a meaningful parallel

For many commentators, the “high” language Paul uses of Scripture is seen by them as strong evidence, if not “proof,” that the “Scripture” (which they read as one-to-one equivalent with the “Bible”) is formally sufficient. However, this argument, and other arguments, some of which were dealt with above, is scripture-wrenching of the worse degree.

If one wishes to absolutise 2 Tim 3:16 in the way that Evangelicals and others wish to, as evidence of Sola Scriptura, then being consistent, the words of Paul in Eph 4:11-14 vis-à-vis the offices and officers in the Church “prove” that they are formally sufficient and there is no need for other authorities, or at least, these authorities are the final authority and all other authorities are subordinated thereto.

The pericope reads as follows:

And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

If one wishes to absolutise this pericope to “prove” that the offices and officers within the Church are sole (formally sufficient) authority, one would point out the use of προς, the preposition “toward” and the term καταρτισμος (KJV: perfecting) which means “to equip,” and how the offices within the Church are the instrumental means by which believers (or “the man of God” to borrow the language of 2 Tim 3) come to the unity of faith, and how it is part of a purpose or ινα- clause in the Greek, “that (ινα) [believers] be no more children” who are taken in my new, erroneous doctrines, but are stable in their faith.

Now, if such terms were predicated upon “Scripture,” I can see a defender of Sola Scriptura point to this pericope as definitive “proof” of the Bible teaching its own formal sufficiency. However, unfortunately for the defender of this doctrine, nothing of the kind is predicated upon Scripture in this pericope; instead, such terms are predicated upon the ecclesiastical offices and officers. Is such biblical proof of their being formally sufficient and the sole final authority? No, but it does highlight the special pleading and eisegesis proponents of Sola Scriptura are forced to engage in due to their man-made doctrine vis-à-vis 2 Tim 3:16 and other “proof-texts” used by Protestant apologists to defend this practice.

Only the Bible is said to be “Inspired” by God-argument

Some argue that, as the term translated “God-breathed” (Greek: θεοπνευστος) is predicated upon “Scripture,” therefore, only inscripturated revelation (read: The Bible) is the only inspired authority from God. There are many problems with this. Firstly, it is question-begging. Furthermore, if an authority can only be inspired from God when such a term is predicated upon it, what about the time before the inscripturation of 2 Tim 3:16? Was there a question about Scripture being God-breathed revelation? If the argument “proves” something, it proves too much.

Furthermore, many authorities are said to be inspired by God (e.g. oral revelation in 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15), and such authorities are said to be Paul to be en par with the written word with respect to their authority.

Much more could be said, but it should be enough from the above that Sola Scriptura cannot be exegetically derived from 2 Tim 3:16. What should cause the thinking Evangelical some discomfort is that this is the “best” text used to support this anti-biblical, man-made doctrine. I hope Evangelicals, and those thinking of embracing Evangelicalism, will rethink their commitment to this doctrine (which is the formal doctrine of the Reformation), as it clearly falls under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9.

Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Part 5: Acts 17:11 and the Bereans

Acts 17:11 is another popular text that has been cited in favour of Sola Scriptura. According to many apologists for this doctrine, Luke applauds their searching of the Scriptures to ascertain the trustworthiness of Paul’s message to them. Therefore, they conclude, the Bereans accepted only the authority of the Bible, and no other method of ascertaining the truth of the Gospel is to be privileged (this has also been used to claim that praying to know if the Book of Mormon is the Word of God is false). However, if this proves something, it proves too much for the Protestant apologist. Why? Firstly, even allowing “Scripture” and “the Bible” to be one-to-one equivalent, not all 66 books of the canon were inscripturated at the time of Acts 17:11, so if one will absolutise this verse in the way many do, one will have to hold to, at most, the Old Testament canon, which the Bereans no doubt used. Furthermore, they are said to have received “the word.” What was this word, which they accepted en par with the Scriptures they received? It was, at the time, non-inscripturated revelation (viz. the identity of the long-promised Messiah). If anything, the Bereans were not “proto-Protestants,” in fact, quite the opposite, as Sola Scriptura does not allow one to privilege any other authority as being en par with Scripture, as all other sources of faith and authority are subordinate to “Scripture” (being defined as the Protestant canon).

A couple of years ago, a questioner raised the issue of Acts 17:11 and if it was a verse that posed problems to Latter-day Saint beliefs. What follows is my answer (slightly edited) to him:

Acts 17:11 and the case of the Bereans

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, where those things were so.

For those predisposed to believe in the concept of Sola Scriptura, Acts 17:11 is touted as a definitive proof text. It is reasoned that because of the Berean’s appeal to Scripture and the Thessalonians’ apparent lack thereof, Luke, the writer of Acts, judges that the former “were noble” in comparison than the latter and should serve as a model for each Christian to emulate. Obviously, the Bereans’ appeal to Scripture suggests a people very familiar with the word of God who did not bend with every new wind of doctrine that came breezing their way, even from an apostle like Paul. Their “daily” examination of Scripture evokes a picture of studious and intelligent people who did not give God lip-service on the Sabbath but from sun-up to sun-down had, as the Psalmist of old, the word of God on their heart. They did this daily because Paul, as Acts 17:17 specifies, reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews on a daily basis. Luke tells us that not only did the Bereans examine the Scriptures, but they did this purposely to see what Paul said was true or not. Hence, the actions of the Bereans, if we are to take them as our model, seem to set Scripture up on the sole judge of what a teacher is proclaiming. For Sola Scriptura advocates, Scripture is portrayed as the given, but Paul was the new-comer who had to be authenticated. The passage seems to assert, or at least strongly suggest, that in judging anything claiming to be from God, Scripture must be the sole and final authority.

But is Scripture as the final authority a la Protestantism, the message Luke is trying to impart here? Let us examine the context of this passage to find out. Acts 17:2 records:

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.

Here we see that it was not only the Bereans who were steeped in Scripture, but rather Paul himself, who in this regard had led the way in all the synagogues in which he taught. At this early time in Christian history, the synagogue was still the main meeting place, for Jews as well as Greeks. It was Paul’s “custom” or “manner” to visit the synagogues in each city of his missionary journey. For example, on his trip to Antioch recorded in Acts 13:14, Luke tells us that on the Sabbath Paul and his companions entered the synagogue and read from the Law and the Prophets. As he would later do in Thessalonica and Berea in Acts 17, Paul made it a continual practice to read and teach from the Scriptures--in this case, the Old Testament. Hence we see that Paul’s teaching sessions in the synagogue were to a people who knew their Scripture, used it often, and were willing to exchange ideas about it. If Paul appealed to Scripture, then it was to Scripture the people would go back to check if what Paul said “were so.”

But there was a special reason that Paul may have stimulated (or agitated) his hears. In Thessalonica, Acts 17:2 records that Paul not only read in the Scripture but that he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Christ had to suffer. Apparently, Paul was deducing from already known Scripture new understandings about what the Scripture meant in light of the events that had just taken place a decade or so earlier.

In Luke’s wording we notice a slight difference between what Scripture said and what Paul taught. In the beginning of verse 3 he says that Paul was “alleging that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead” but in the latter part he records Paul saying, “This Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” The difference between the two is that Paul is interpreting “The Christ” of the Old Testament to be the “Jesus” of the New Testament. Since the Old Testament did not use the name of “Jesus” to identity the Messiah (Christ), Paul’s message was a new application of Scripture. Further, the Jews did not believe that their coming Messiah had to “suffer,” let alone “rise from the dead.” Most of the Jews expected their Messiah to be a powerful king who would relieve them of Gentile rule. In their view, he would not have to rise from the dead because he would establish himself as an eternal king who would rule forever over the Jews’ enemies. They simply did not understand, in the same manner as New Testament authors, Old Testament “proof-texts” used to support the Messiah as a suffering servant who had to die--a suffering underwent precisely for their sin of disbelief in him.

In Thessalonica, it was Paul’s statement that “the Christ” of the Old Testament was the “Jesus” of the New which caused such contention and jealously among the Jews. In Acts 17:5-9 Luke records their response:

But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Casear, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things, And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.

It is apparent by their last words, “one [called] Jesus,” that the Jews simply not ready to accept the Christ of the Old Testament as the Jesus of the New Testament. Hence, Paul and the Jews of Thessalonica were not contending about the veracity or usefulness of Scripture; rather, it was Paul’s interpretation of Scripture that they could not accept. Everyone believed Scripture’s prophecy about the coming Messiah. But the information that the Christ was “Jesus” who had recently suffered and died at the hands of the Jews was something Paul was getting from another source outside of Scripture. This new information, would, of course, correlate with Scripture but it would nonetheless be in addition to Scripture. Such was the case, in fact, in Paul’s own conversion. He had to be convinced through additional divine revelation that the people who followed “Jesus,” and whom he was persecuting were in actuality the followers of “the Christ.” In Acts 9:5, after being knocked off his horse by a flash of light, the Lord said to Paul, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” At that instant, Paul recognised that his long-awaited Messiah was the “Jesus” who had suffered and died a decade or so ago. It was not Scripture that brought him to this point but a revelation from Jesus himself showing Paul how the Old Testament Scriptures were to be interpreted.

When Paul arrived in Berea, he acted just as he did in Thessalonica--he went to the synagogue to teach. We may assume that he engaged in similar “reasoning,” “explaining and proving” from Scripture with the Bereans that he had done with the Thessalonians. We may also assume that Paul, as in Thessalonica, made it a point to teach the Bereans that Christ of the Old Testament was the Jesus of the New Testament. The Bereans received Paul’s interpretation of scripture without hesitation. Luke records in Acts 17:11:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Here we see that these Berean Jews “received the word with all readiness.” We can surmise from his previous encounter with the Thessalonians that the main message the Berans were receiving with eagerness was Paul’s news that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Because they believed Paul’s message about the identity of the Messiah, Luke concludes that they were “more noble than those in Thessalonica.” Moreover, their being more noble was also demonstrated when they “searched the scriptures daily” to see if Paul’s message was true. It showed that they cared greatly for God’s revelation, in whatever form it came. We can imagine that their counterparts in Thessalonica perhaps did not investigate the testimony of Scripture after Paul told them that Jesus was the Messiah. They had a blinded or one-sided view of Scripture and did not care for Paul’s interpretation. They were not willing to “reason” from Scripture’s circumstantial evidence that the Messiah was indeed Jesus, thus, they were not noble, open-minded people.

But why, we ask, did Luke consider the Jews of Berea more “noble” than the Jews in Thessalonica, when, according to Luke’s description of the Thessalonians in Acts 17:4, some of the Jews from Thessalonica joined Paul and Silas, as did God-fearing Greeks. It is obvious that not all the Jews in Thessalonica had rejected Paul’s interpretation of Scripture. Wouldn’t Luke consider these Jews “noble” for accepting Paul’s message? The answer is yes, but these noble Jews were so badly outnumbered by the jealous and riotous Jews who rejected Paul’s message that Luke was forced to sum up the situation in Thessalonica as one of general unbelief. We also see this in the way he describes how many people were positively influenced by Paul’s message. Regarding the Thessalonians in Acts 17:4, he points out that only some of the Jews were persuaded while in regard to the Bereans in Acts 17:12 many of them were persuaded. Apparently, the number of believing Jews in Berea were of a sufficient quantity that Luke could designate them, at large, as “noble” in contrast to the overall negative disposition of the people in Thessalonica. Moreover, the unbelieving Jews of Thessalonica further justified Luke’s negative assessment since they caused riots among the people both in Thessalonica and later in Berea (cf. Acts 17:5-9; 17:13-15).

In view of the above facts, is it reasonable to conclude that the Bereans, because they examined, on a daily basis, the Scriptures to ascertain the answer to the question of the truthfulness or lack thereof, of Paul’s message, are models of the modern theory of Sola Scriptura? Is Luke trying here to teach us that being “more noble” or “nobility” consists in using Scripture as the final authority in determining the veracity of oral teaching? When we look at the evidence fairly and accurately, the answer is a resounding “no.” Any attempt to extract from this short pericope a teaching of Sola Scriptura is simply reading into the texts one’s doctrinal bias (eisegesis, in other words). First, the text is simply a narrative of events that occurred in two respective cities, not a treatise on the nature and extent of Scripture and its authority. Granted, the passage suggests how Paul and his hearers used and understood Scripture but neither Paul or his commentator Luke say anything definitive about the doctrine of Scripture. Second, we have seen from our comparison of the Jews in Berea with the Jews in Thessalonica that Luke considered the former more noble not because they merely examined Scripture, but mainly because they believed Paul’s oral revelation that the Christ of the Old Testament was the Jesus of the New Testament. Luke attributes nobility to them because they received his oral message with eagerness. The Bereans believed that the apostle’s oral message had just as much divine authority as the Scripture. In Acts 17:13, Luke specifies that Paul’s oral message to be the very word of God. Paul was not merely speaking about the word of God, he was speaking the actual word of God. Elsewhere, Paul’s own assessment of his oral teaching to the Thessalonians confirms its superlative distinction, for in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, he states:

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

This is a pivotal passage because it shows that Paul considered his oral message to the Thessalonians in Acts 17:1-4 (which revealed that Jesus was the Christ), and by necessary extension his oral message to the Bereans in Acts 17:11-13, as divine revelations on par with Scripture. In fact, no one could know the real meaning of Scripture, as obscure as it was at times, unless accompanied by an equally authoritative divine interpretation. This is the essential teaching of the Berean encounter.

Since the Old Testament did not explicitly identify “the Christ” as “Jesus,” it was impossible for the Jews of Berea, using the Old Testament alone, to have proven from Scripture that Jesus was the Messiah. One could certainly “reason,” “explain” and “prove” that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, but there was no explicit evidence, other than Paul’s authoritative testimony, that the one who was prophesied in the Old Testament to suffer and rise was the Jesus who walked the earth only a decade or so earlier. The Bereans were noble because they accepted Paul’s apostolic authority on the identity of the Messiah, not because they could extract such for themselves from the Old Testament that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Thus, their “examination” of Scriptures was limited to re-evaluating those passages which spoke of the Messiah as the one who had to suffer, die, and rise again; not to prove or disprove that Jesus was the Messiah. Before Paul’s teachings to the Bereans, like most Jews, thought that the Messiah would be recognised by a majestic appearance and a subsequent conquering of the Gentiles. It was not until Paul pointed out that the Old Testament passages which spoke of God’s servant as one who had to suffer must be interpreted to apply to the Messiah, and, more importantly, that his name was Jesus. The typical Jew, although he knew his Scripture, invariably skipped over the numerous passages in the Old Testament that suggested his Messiah had to first come as one to suffer and die. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:14-16:

But their minds were blinded; for until this day remained the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

After Paul was done teaching, the now enlightened Jew could read a passage like Isaiah 53 and see it in a whole different light (cf. Luke 24:26; Acts 8:26-35). It was in connecting Paul’s divine revelation of the person of Jesus with the suffering passages of the Old Testament that the Bereans examined scripture to see if Paul’s message was true. The Berean did not first believe that Jesus was the Messiah and then examine Scripture to see if Paul’s identifying of Jesus was the Messiah was true. No, he examined the Scriptures that spoke of the suffering servant and then accepted by faith that the “Jesus” about whom Paul spoke was indeed the Messiah. His faith was based on accepting Paul’s authority to interpret Scripture, while Scripture served mainly as a witness to what Paul preached. Scripture could not serve as the sole determinant of what Paul taught for the simple reading that Scripture never identified “the Christ” specifically as “Jesus.” Using the New Testament approach to Scripture, He was designated with names like “the prophet” (Deuteronomy 18:15) or “Immanuel” in Isaiah, but never “Jesus” (Matthew 1:21). The Bereans, as their Old Testament prescribed, needed at least two or three witnesses to prove the veracity of a certain person or event (cf. Deuteronomy 19:15; 2 Corinthians 13:1). Paul was one witness and Scripture another, and both were necessary for truth to be know and understood. Hence, Acts 17:11 cannot support the concept of Sola Scriptura. If anything, it implicitly denies such a teaching.

Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Part 4: Matthew 4:1-11

Matt 4:1-11 recounts Christ’s temptation in the wilderness to an external, supernatural tempter, Satan (yes, there are groups which deny this obvious exegetical fact!) Interestingly, this has been cited in favour of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by its proponents.

Dublin-based Anti-Mormon, Desmond Ferguson (a critic I have tried, many times, to debate, but he has refused as I have soundly refuted him), in an article entitled, “Waking up the Watchtower” said the following of this pericope:

Matthew 4:1-11 where Satan tempts Jesus three times and each temptation is rebuked with a scriptural response. So here we have Jesus going directly to Scripture . . . “Surely these texts”, I said, “show clearly that the bible is sufficient unto itself and therefore logically we need no other authority or guide in the way of salvation”?

Now, before I begin my response to Ferguson’s rather eisegetical, illogical comment, let me state that I am not trying to defend the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society here (the focus of the article), but the claim that, in Matt 4:1-11, we have proof of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Perhaps it should be enough to point out that, if Ferguson was consistent, he would have a significantly smaller canon than he does at present as this “proof-text” proves too much. Why? If Matt 4:1-11 is “proof” of formal sufficiency of “Scripture” (defined as “the Protestant Bible” without any meaningful evidence offered—the logical fallacy of begging the question), then only the Old Testament would be formally sufficient, as these were the only inspired texts Jesus employed in his lifetime, including his temptation in the wilderness.

As I explained to Irish Church Missions (the group Ferguson worked with until his retirement) in a response I wrote back in 2008:

I am sure that Ferguson, as with many other Protestant apologists, such as Robert Godfrey, are of the opinion that, as Jesus did not refer to His own divinity or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or anything else, but only to Scripture, that such "proves" Sola Scriptura (Ferguson's only offered justification for concluding Sola Scriptura is that Jesus cited Scripture, so I am guessing that he might have a better justification for concluding the Protestant canon is God's sole authority beyond such blatant circular reasoning and question-begging). The problem with such a formulation if that Matthew is not attempting to specify the only source from which we are to make our appeal. Granted, on many occasions, Jesus uses Scripture against the forces of evil, and rightly so, but not on every occasion. Many times he does appeal to his divinity, his miracles, and the Holy Spirit to fight the opposition against him (cf. John 5:32-47; 6:32-65; 7:16-19; 8:12-58; 10:1-34; 12:44-50; 14:9-31; 16:1-33). Hence, just because Jesus calls Scripture as a witness against the devil in Matthew 4:1-11 one cannot therefore conclude that Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura. Would we say that the devil believed in Sola Scriptura because he quoted verbatim to Jesus from Psalm 91:11? Of course not.

One reason Jesus may not be appealing to His divinity in His discourse with the devil is that it is precisely the identity of Jesus that the devil wishes to discover. Knowing this, it is Jesus' wish, at least in the early part of his ministry, to keep this information from the devil in order for God's plan to be accomplished (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:8; Ephesians 6:12; Matthew 8:4). Hence, in Jesus' three appeals to Scripture in Matthew 4:1-11 he does not affirm that he is the Son of God, but only that (1) man lives not by bread alone but by the word of God, (2) man should not test God, and (3) man should worship and serve God only. These three stipulations could apply to any man, not just Jesus, and from this the devil may have thought Jesus to be just a man at that time. Thus, Jesus thwarted the devil by withholding the very information the devil was trying to extract from him--his divinity.

We should also add that even in Jesus' specific appeal to Scripture, there is good evidence that he did not intend to teach or even suggest Sola Scriptura. For example, his first reference is to Deuteronomy 8:3: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Notice here the specific reference to "every word" that comes from God's mouth. Since God recorded his words not only in Scripture but also by speaking directly to the people, the term "every word" certainly cannot be limited to Scripture. Jesus is merely calling Scripture as a witness to the basic truth that all God's revelation is to be heeded, not saying that Scripture is the only source of God's word. The same applies in New Testament times: "every word" of God includes both his written and oral inspired truths (cf. Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5-6; Acts 20:27; Galatians 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15). More importantly, if Jesus was not teaching Sola Scriptura at that time, then how can these verses be interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura today? I am guessing that Ferguson, who holds to Fundamentalist views on the Bible, accepts that the meaning of the Bible is determinate, or "fixed" (related to "Intentionalism") so the meaning of the text does not change with the passing of time, so, consistency on his behalf, in light of exegesis of this text, will lead to a conclusion that one text of Scripture cannot be re-interpreted in light of something novel or cultural relativism, etc.

Lastly, we cannot leave this passage without pointing out its implicit warning against the misuse of Scripture. It is precisely the devil's misuse of Psalm 91:11 which shows us that interpretation, when the interpreter is not under proper authority, only leads to error and apostasy.