We escape the corruption of the world by the way of righteousness and the sacred command. But, what if we lose the way and don’t know the sacred commandment?
I started this short series focusing on the second epistle of Peter where Peter warns his readers about false prophets with “eyes full of adultery”, greed, and depravity who are slaves to their own sin. These people seduce the unstable and entice others by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh. Peter says,
It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.
These are fearful words of warning. Anyone who might feel enslaved to sin has likely felt angst when reading this words.
In the previous article, I note that the actions Peter describes are the fruit of people who have “known the way of righteousness” and the “sacred [holy] command” and have turned their backs and walked away. The fruits are the symptoms, not the cause.
The important thing for us, therefore, is to know the way of righteousness and the holy commandment, and not to turn our backs on them! In this follow up to that introductory article, I will focus on the way of righteousness.
We escape the corruption of the world by the way of righteousness and the sacred command. But, what if we lose the way and don’t know the sacred commandment?
I started this short series with a passage from 2 Peter 2:20-21:
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.
They “they” who escaped the corruption of the world only to be entangled in it again are the false prophets Peter accuses at the beginning of the chapter of introducing “destructive heresies” and “denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.” (2 Pet. 2:1) Peter says these false prophets are like dogs returning to their vomit. (v. 22) Seducing the unstable (v. 14) and appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice “people who are just escaping from those who live in error.” (v. 18)
In the introductory article, I note that the words of judgment Peter unleashes on these false prophets might lead to a concern that we could one of those unstable ones who are enticed and entrapped. Those who struggle with sins that so easily entangle us might easily feel condemned in this tirade.
The solemn warning that such ones are better off not knowing Jesus. than knowing the way of righteousness and turning their back on the sacred command is enough to send a shiver down the spine. The actions Peter describes, however, are the fruits of turning away from the sacred command. These fruits are not the problems in themselves, but the symptoms of disconnecting from the way of righteousness and the sacred command.
In the second article, I explored the way of righteousness. The way of righteousness is the way of Jesus, who is the Way! Knowing Jesus and knowing the way of righteousness is the same thing.
The way of righteousness means embracing and walking in light of his sacrifice on the cross by which we are justified and we are considered righteous before God the Father. It means trusting in Jesus and the grace of God the Father. It means ceasing from our striving to earn the way and the pride that goes with our achievement.
The way of righteousness means following Jesus and maintaining relationship with Jesus, who is our Living Water, our Bread of Life, and the Vine in which we have become the branches (extensions of him). Knowing the way of righteousness and turning from the sacred command is to disconnect and to go our own way.
But what is the sacred command? This was my big question as I read through this passage recently, and this question is ultimately what motives me to write this short series.
I admit, that I wasn’t sure as I read through this passage. I should have known, because Jesus was pretty clear about it. But, I didn’t. I had lost sight of it. It’s so easy to lose sight of what’s important in the turmoil in the world that often spills over into my own heart.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is just a little older than my Christian faith. It was relatively new when I first read the Bible in college and when I first asked Jesus to be the Lord and Savior of my life. I have wrestled with the idea of inerrancy from the beginning of my Christian life until now.
It isn’t that I don’t think the Bible is the “word of God”. It isn’t that I don’t have a “high” view of the reliability, integrity, and divine nature of the Bible. It isn’t that I don’t think the Bible was inspired by God and should be relied on as His word to us to follow.
I believe all these things, but I have issues with statements on inerrancy that seem to push what the Bible says about itself beyond what it says.
Finally, I have found some similar thinking in two of the great Christian thinkers of our time: Mike Licona and William Lane Craig. In his blog, Risen Jesus, Licona introduces a paper to the world that he wrote and presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological society.
In the paper, Licona cites Craig in support of a new proposal on inerrancy. First, though, he explains some of what is problematic with the Chicago Statement. I am not going to restate the points he makes here. You can read the paper, CSBI Needs a Facelift, yourself, but I will summarize it for those who don’t have the time or inclination to read the original (though it isn’t long).
Licona starts with the two main verses that provide the inspiration (pun intended) for the doctrine of inerrancy: 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. At the center of this are the words “God-inspired” or “God-breathed” which are English translations of the Greek word, “theopneustos“.
Licona traces the history of the use of the word, theopneustos, prior to the 3rd Century. The word was not often used, and it was used in very diverse contexts. Licona quotes a commentary on 2 Timothy, stating, “Theopneustos does not have enough precision to go beyond the basic idea that the Scriptures came from God.” and he concludes:
Therefore, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not contribute as much to our discussion as we may have first thought. So we should be cautious not to read more into it than Paul may have intended.
The 2 Peter 1:20-21 text speaks of prophets who were “carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Licona observes that the Greek word translated “carried along”, pherō, is also used by Philo “to describe how prophets received revelation from God, during which time they had ‘no power of apprehension’ while God made ‘full use of their organs of speech.’ Josephus likewise used this word to say that “God’s Spirit put the words in the mouths of the prophets” (quoting Licona, who paraphrased Josephus).
The 2 Timothy passage and the 2 Peter passage express different ideas and give rise to different pictures of how God speaks to/through people who authorized the writings of the Bible. some writings purport to be prophetic and some do not expressly adopt that attitude. The Chicago Statement assumes that both passages mean the same thing, but most biblical scholars disagree with that conclusion.
Licona goes on to summarize some phenomena in the text of the Bible that suggest a “human element in Scripture”. Licona concludes from this, “Although [the human element] does not challenge the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, it does challenge the concept of inspiration imagined by [the Chicago Statement].”
These issues with the ambiguous meaning of the Greek words and the very different images of God working to convey His “Word” through people (God-breathed and carried along by the Spirit), can be reconciled with a “new” paradigm, says Licona. This paradigm was suggested by Craig in 1999.
As an English Literature major in college, I have always been interested in literary devices. Symbolism, hyperbole, allegory, imagery, metaphor, analogy, and simile are some common literary devices, and we can add parable to the list.
Jesus often spoke in parables, but he also used other literary devices. The statement that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God is both figurative and hyperbole.
According to the Oxford Dictionary online, “figurative” means “departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical.” Many literary devices are figurative, including all the ones I listed in the opening paragraph. Literary devices make our communication more interesting, and they communicate truth in a way that is more nuanced, robust, and multi-dimensional than literal statements.
Jesus often used literary devices to convey nuanced, spiritual meaning. For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus encouraged a more nuanced (spiritual) understanding of sin when he said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[Literal] But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” [Figurative]
Matthew 5:27-28
In fact, Jesus used figurative language often. To some people, he spoke only figuratively! (Matthew 13:34) (in parables) He even spoke figuratively to his disciples, and he seems to express frustration when they didn’t get it:
“When the disciples went to the other side, they forgot to take bread. ‘Watch out,’ Jesus said to them, ‘beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ So they began to discuss this among themselves, saying, ‘It is because we brought no bread. When Jesus learned of this, he said, ”You who have such little faith! Why are you arguing among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand and how many baskets you took up? How could you not understand that I was not speaking to you about bread? But beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!’ Then they understood that he had not told them to be on guard against the yeast in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” [emphasis added]
Matthew 16:5-12 NET
The “yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees” is a figurative statement. Jesus wasn’t talking about bread (literally). When the disciples didn’t get what he was talking about, Jesus told them literally not to take him literally! He also seems to suggest that seeing the figurative meaning is a matter of faith. (Not the other way around.)
Jesus used the metaphor of yeast to convey the idea of the corrupting influence of the Pharisees and Sadducees in the community. We have to discern, though, what he meant. Was he talking about their thinking, their teaching, their attitudes, their assumptions, their hypocrisy, all of the above, or something else? …. Truth be told, I am not exactly sure exactly what all he meant by their “yeast”.
That’s the thing with figurative speech. It isn’t as precise. It doesn’t carry with it a detailed explanation, but figurative speech can be more profound than literal speech, and it can carry fuller and deeper meaning.
Often though, figurative meaning requires deeper thinking and discernment to determine all the meaning. The meaning has a surface level meaning and a deeper level meaning. The meaning may even be multi-layered, which explains why we often “see” new things in Scripture the more we read it and become familiar with it.
The Jesus had to provide some explanation to the disciples in the example above, because they didn’t fully understand it (telling them that he wasn’t making a point about bread at all), but Jesus doesn’t fully explain exactly when he meant by the “yeast” of the Pharisees. What is it about the Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus was talking about? He doesn’t really say!
People we we label “fundamentalists” have developed the idea that we do not take the Bible seriously if we do not take it literally. The ministry of Jesus is replete with examples that run completely counter to that idea, but it’s easy to understand why people might want to read the Bible literally. It’s easier! We don’t have to wonder what is meant if we simply take it literally. At that same time, we run the risk of missing the whole point if we insist on reading everything literally.
I am reminded again in my daily reading of Scripture of the prominence of women in the life and ministry of Jesus. Every time I read through the Gospels, I see it. As I read through the Old Testament with eyes sensitized by the Gospels, I see the theme there also. This theme is somewhat, hidden, however.
We have only committed to the idea that women should be equals of men in very modern times, and that idea is still not universal around the world. A cultural revolution was required in the western world to change ancient paradigms. The change has been slow, difficult, and filled with tension.
Christianity was influential in bringing about that change, but many Christians have also resisted it. This is true even while the roots of that cultural revolution are embedded in Judeo-Christian Scripture.
Tom Holland, in his epic book, Dominion, traced modern, secular humanist values back to a surprising root. He had no idea where the values he took for granted came from: gender equality, racial equality, individual freedoms, civil rights, etc. When he searched for them, he for found them in Genesis, in the Gospel accounts of Jesus, and in the letters of Paul, the apostle.
Rebecca McLaughlin writes about the prominence of women in the Gospel accounts of Jesus in her 2021 article, Jesus Changed Everything for Women. She quotes Holland to remind us of the cultural context in which those accounts were written:
In Greco–Roman thinking, men were superior to women and sex was a way to prove it. “As captured cities were to the swords of the legions, so the bodies of those used sexually were to the Roman man,” Holland wrote. “To be penetrated, male or female, was to be branded as inferior.”
In Rome, “men no more hesitated to use slaves and prostitutes to relieve themselves of their sexual needs than they did to use the side of a road as a toilet.” The idea that every woman had the right to choose what happened to her body was laughable.
Jesus chantged Everything
Jesus didn’t introduce the these radical notions, however. They go all the way back to Genesis, where we read that God made men and women, together, in His image. (More on that below)
Modern westerners have learned to reject and even to despise the paternalism of most of the history of mankind (pun intended), so it’s easy to miss the way the Bible elevates women. After all, the Bible was written by many men many centuries ago, before anyone in the west (or anywhere else) got the notion that women should be treated as equals.
Let that sink in a moment: the Bible was written by men.
As much as modern westerners like to recoil from the idea of men treating women as second class citizens, the 1st Century Roman world thought nothing of it. Aristotle taught that women are “defective men”. He believed that “women were fit only to be the subjects of male rule“, and “they are born to be ruled by men”. Aristotle and most men for millennia thought that the inferiority of women was obvious, stemming from their nature as the “weaker gender”.
Given that context, the “clues” we find “hidden” in the Bible of a different narrative about women is remarkable. Though the Bible was written, literally, by men, Christians like myself maintain that it was inspired by God, and a divinely inspired narrative shines through it. This is true despite the obvious cultural influences we see on the face of it.
The Bible was written by men during times in which men dominated thought and culture. it is no wonder that the Bible is often criticized for being backward and paternalistic, but that view can only be sustained on a cursory, shallow reading of the Bible. A closer reading belies a very different narrative!
Navigating by Faith 