No. 35, February 1999

WAS SHAKESPEARE INSPIRED BY GOD?

      All Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable. -2 Tim. 3:16

      One of my most memorable exchanges at Harvard was with Prof. Krister Stendahi on the nature of Scripture. We were discussing the canon, one of my areas of concentration. When I made the point that the main qualification for canonicity (the books that make up the Bible) was that the document be considered inspired, he corrected me.

      Inspiration was not sufficient for canonicity, Stendahl said. Numerous documents were considered inspired by the early church—Didache, Barnabas, Clement, Hermas—that were not made part of the canon. They were deemed worthy of private use but not for the public reading of Scripture. They never became part of the Bible even though they were considered inspired.

      Apostolicity was the test for canonicity, the professor went on to emphasize. Inspiration, yes, of course, but more than inspiration. To become part of the New Testament a document had to be written by an apostle or one close to an apostle.

      This was a liberating truth for me, not only that it elevated the standard for canonicity but it allowed me a broader view of inspiration.

      I had always esteemed great art and music, poetry and literature as in some sense "inspired," and admittedly some of it is more "inspirational" than some things in Scripture. If, for instance, I saw "Handel's Messiah" as inspired, this conflicted with the unique place of Scripture. If it is inspired of God, then it is in the Bible or should be. I equated inspiration with Scripture.

      This is the fallacy that Stendahl helped me to overcome. It is true that "All Scripture is inspired of God," but it is not the case that "All that is inspired is Scripture." That is a formal fallacy in logic, called "false conversion," just as "All children are human beings" cannot be converted to "All human beings are children."

      I can now see that Shakespeare or Handel or Browning were inspired (of God), at least some of the time, without putting their works on the level of Scripture. Scripture is on a level beyond inspiration, apostolicity.

      So all these years since Harvard I have been free to see inspiration all over the place. What a child says may be inspired. A magazine article. An encouraging word from a friend. Certainly a soul-stirring sermon. Even if an ass could speak to me, it might be inspired. Occasionally I hear an asinine (ass-like) voice, and who knows but what it is inspired!

      So, may a Shakespeare be inspired like Paul was inspired, and by the same God, the same Holy Spirit? Yes, of course. But that doesn't place Shakespeare on the level with Paul, for Paul was not only inspired but was an apostle of Jesus Christ. The difference is monumental, for the authority is not in inspiration as much as in apostolicity.

      When Paul defended himself to the Corinthians he said "the signs of an apostle have been accomplished among you, and this included "signs, wonders, mighty deeds" (2 Cor. 12:12). He was referring to authority and power, not inspiration.

      This might be even clearer if we better understood the meaning of inspiration. It occurs but once in Scripture, in the verse quoted above, and means literally "God-breathed." Precisely what that means is anybody's guess. I'll settle for "God somehow made it happen or caused it be said or written." Perhaps you managed to say just the right thing at the right time, and you wonder how you ever managed to come up with it. You may have had divine help. God "breathed" it and you said it!

      Let's not limit God's breath to the Bible when he is at work throughout history, in all of nature, and in every person. If we agree with Scripture (and the pagan poet who first said it! -inspired?) that "In Him we live and move and have our very being" (Acts 17:28), then we can only conclude that God is at work in all of us - and he may use us in ways we will never know.

      Inspiration is to be distinguished from revelation. Inspiration provides insight into material already available. Revelation is disclosure of the mind of God, providing information otherwise not available. The Apocalypse of St. John the Divine (Revelation) is just that, revelation, as well as inspiration. The apostle looked into heaven and told us what he saw, and he passed along what he heard God and angels say. Things he could know only by disclosure.

      But Luke's writings are hardly revelation at all, though of course inspired (God directed him), for he searched out what he wrote in various sources and interviews, something like writing a thesis, with hardly any of it revealed to him (Lk. 1:1-2).

      Inspiration provides discernment into what is already revealed. Revelation is a disclosure of the mind of God, information that can come only from God. So, while inspiration is ongoing all through history, revelation is limited to the apostolic age. We need no more apostles. They have finished their work.

      We have all the Scriptures we need in the Bible. I do not believe in new Bibles, whether the Book of Mormon, the writings of Ellen G. White, or of Mary Baker Eddy, all of which claim to be revelation from God.

      I also have my doubts when people tell me, "God spoke to me or "The Spirit said to me." God may inspire, motivate, excite one in reference to what He has already disclosed, but I do not believe he discloses new revelation. That is apostolic and confined to holy Scripture.

      If modern day apostles (the divided Mormons have two sets of Twelve Apostles!) are true apostles, let them demonstrate "the signs of an apostle," by "signs, wonders, mighty deeds."

      And that is why we can still profess the ancient creed, "We believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church."    — Leroy,

ON GOING HOME

      Now that I've turned 80 I assure my younger friends that the 70s are better than the 60s, just as the 60s were better than the 80s. That gives them something to look forward to. Life does keep getting better, doesn't it?

      Then I tell them my next project is to see if the 80s aren't better than the 70s. But by then, if not before, our time runs out and we leave planet earth.

      Then I get to make my point, which I see as the essence of our hope: When we leave this world we are not leaving home but going home. That is it, that is what our faith is all about. We live in time but we live for eternity. This world is not our home! We are pilgrims and sojourners passing through. Satan's subtlest tactic is to blur this distinction and thus cause us to live primarily for time with little thought of eternity.

      This is really the point of life for the believer, to prepare for the next world. This world may be seen as a "vale of soul-making," as one poet put it, which helps to explain why it is so often "a sea of troubles," to quote still another poet. If we can believe that our souls are being grown for life in another world, we can make a more meaningful response to hardship.

      This hope in "a better country" or a "heavenly city" goes all the way back to the patriarchs. It appears to be part of "the promises" given to Abraham, for while he lived intents in the land of promise (Canaan) as in a foreign country "he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God" (Heb. 11:10).

      This is a remarkable passage in that it indicates that God revealed to Abraham that even though he was now in "the promised land" he was still in "a foreign country." Canaan was not his home! Through the eyes of faith Abraham was allowed to see the heavenly city, made and laid out by God himself, and this is what he waited or looked for. That is exciting!

      Heb. 11:13 allows that all those heroes of faith mentioned in that chapter had that same vision. When it says "These all died in faith, not having received the promises," it means that they did not receive the things promised, for they did of course receive the promises. The "things" promised must have included a heavenly home, for "having seen them afar off, embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."

      When they saw the heavenly city from afar and embraced that promise, they conceded that they were but strangers and pilgrims in this world. According to verse 14 that concession or confession "declared plainly that they seek a homeland." The next verse shows that they were not referring to the country from which they came, for they could have returned to it. Then verse 16 says: "But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them."

      The writer of Hebrews goes on in 12:22 to suggest that even now in the church we live in the environs of the heavenly city:

      "You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to the innumerable company of angels." In the church we are in "heavenly places" (Eph. 1:3) and "Our citizenship is in heaven" (Philip. 3:20). And Gal. 4:25 seems to relate the "Jerusalem that is above, which is the mother of us all" to the church.

      Jesus was aware of the vision of the patriarchs: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" (Jn. 8:56) And he, like they, knew where home was, but was even closer to it. He told the penitent thief with disarming confidence: "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Lk. 23:43).

      He was equally certain that "In My Father's house are many mansions," which must have been the homeland that the patriarchs saw dimly. It is the home Jesus left to visit planet earth, and the home to which he was returning "to build a place for you." He even promised "I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am there you may be also" (Jn. 14:2-3).

      This hope is based upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The apostle Peter put it plainly: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pet. 1:3).

      The "living hope" is the expectation of one day seeing the risen, living Christ and being with him in our heavenly home. In 1 Cor. 15:19 the apostle Paul describes what it is like to have no such hope: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." If this life is all there is - even if we are Christians on earth for a time - it is all a miserable failure. The grave will be our home, not heaven.

      Notice how in the next verse Paul ties hope to the resurrection: "But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." Since Christ is risen we have a hope that reaches beyond this world.

      That is why the apostle could write to the same church:   "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present (at home) with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8). The apostle has simplified it: When we leave the body (death), we are at home in heaven with the Lord.

      This means that with the resurrection of Christ death died. Because he lives we do not really die. We only leave the body. We go home!

      With a hope like that don't you think we can keep everything in perspective, whether things we don't like at church or what to make of the mess in Washington? — Leroy

The unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates

SOMEONE IS AT THE (JUDGMENT) DOOR

      Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. Rev. 3:20

      It may appear odd that Jesus would extend an invitation to those who are already Christians. He is standing at the door of his own church seeking entrance! This is not a call to the world but to the church. It is saying that the church too needs to accept the call of Christ.

      It is a theme that goes back to the Old Testament. When the prophet Amos cried out "Prepare to meet thy God" (4:12), he was speaking to Israel, not to the world, calling God's own people to judgment. When God called Ezekiel to prophesy to the nations, he was to "Begin at My Sanctuary" (9:6). When Micah laid down "What God requires" in terms of "Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God," it was to God's covenant people.

      This theme becomes awesome in 1 Pet. 4:17: "The time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel?" The world will indeed be held accountable when it rejects the gospel, but the accountability begins with the church itself.

      And Jesus made an astounding distinction when he upbraided his own town with "And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades, for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day" (Mt. 11:23). He went on to say that in the day of judgment it would be more tolerable for Sodom. More tolerable for a city of sodomites than for enlightened Capernaum?

      This distinction is apparently drawn from our Lord's inexorable principle: "Everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more" (Lk. 12:48). Or in the way Paul puts it in 2 Cor. 8:12: "It is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have."

      Just as much was given to Capernaum much has been given to the church, and so judgment begins with the house of God. Do we find it unthinkable that it may be more tolerable for Sodom than for us, the Lord's church?

      The letter to the Church of Christ at Laodicea is disturbing. The Lord wanted them to be either cold or hot, and since they were lukewarm "I will vomit you out of my mouth." They considered themselves rich and in need of nothing, while in fact they were "wretched, miserable, poor, blind, naked."

      Some description for a church! But can we be sure that we are all that different? We may not be cold, but are we hot?

      But there is grace in the letter: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent" (Rev. 3:19). The call to repent and transform one's life is grace.

      Then he stands at the door knocking. "If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in." What glorious grace! We only need to open the door. He is not going to impose himself on us, as in Calvin's "irresistible grace." We have a response to make, an accountability. Once we open the door and invite him in, we dine with him.

      The metaphor of an open door and a communal meal refers to an intimate relationship with Christ. He becomes our friend as well as Lord and Savior. He is present in the deeper recesses of our hearts.

      This is what is really important about being part of God's community, accepting from Jesus Christ the bread of life and the living water. Fame, position, wealth, security are impostures in comparison to the riches that come through the transforming presence of Christ.

      Yes, judgment begins with us, and rightly so since we have been blessed so abundantly. But once we invite Jesus into our hearts he bears us through the judgment.

      After all these years in the church is it something that you have thought about doing? Opening the door of your heart and inviting Jesus to come in? —Leroy