Should You Listen to Bible Teachers?
Should You Listen to Bible Teachers?
Or should you interpret the Bible for yourself?
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
There is an old saying in Christian circles:
Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
Its surprising simplicity hides a significant statement - that we can find true knowledge about God in the Bible.
But how can we know what the Bible actually says?
In our time, there seems to be two extreme solutions to this problem.
On the one hand, we have individualism which claims that you are able to understand the Bible on your own and don’t need help from anyone.
On the other hand, we have communitarianism which claims that you cannot understand the Bible for yourself, but need to rely on your community to interpret it for you.
Examples of individualism are quite common in the West and can be heard in statements such as:
‘Well, that’s what the passage means to me.’
‘That’s just your interpretation.’
‘I don’t need anyone to tell me what the Bible says.’
On the other hand, communitarianism is present in communities such as the Roman Catholic church, which decreed at the Second Vatican Council that:
The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ
Dei Verbum 10.2
In the Catholic view, there is only one place you can look with confidence for knowing what the Bible says - the teachers of the Catholic Church (its magisterium).
While each extreme position provides a clear-cut answer, most people are somewhere in-between the two - and that can be confusing.
Scenario: James the Confused
Consider the following practical illustration:
James felt confused. It was Sunday afternoon and he had just finished having a meal with his family, but the minister’s words from his sermon were still ringing in his ears:
In Jesus, God’s answer is always yes! He will always say yes to everything you ask him in prayer!
James had trouble swallowing this - there were quite a few times he had prayed and God’s answer was actually ‘No’. Sometimes the prayer was not super serious, like that time he wanted to go out with Stacey. Other times, the prayers were deep and heartfelt - when his grandmother fell ill and he desperately prayed for her to get better. She never did.
How could God’s answer always be ‘Yes!’ when they had not always been ‘Yes’?
Bothered by these thoughts, James went and spoke to his minister after the sermon:
James: Thank you for the sermon! But I didn’t understand what you meant by saying that God answers all of our prayers with ‘Yes’?
Minister: I meant that God answers each real prayer with a ‘Yes!’.
James: But what about the times I have prayed for something and it hasn’t happened?
Minister: If God hasn’t answered your prayers, you shouldn’t blame him. The problem is with your prayers - not with him.
James remembered feeling hurt and slightly offended by the minister’s response. At the same time, he didn’t trust what his minister was saying:
James: Is there a Bible passage you could point me to?
Minister: Of course! It’s what I preached on this morning! 1 Corinthians 1:19 says:
‘For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in him it is always Yes.’
You see? God always says yes. So the problem is not with him.
At that point, James wasn’t sure what to say. The minister had just quoted Scripture and it seemed to say exactly what he claimed. But something didn’t feel right.
The Role of Bible Teachers
I think many Christians experience something similar to James.
Your minister says something you find wrong or offensive. Your denomination makes a public statement that you disagree with. Your older brother invokes the privileges of the firstborn from the book of Deuteronomy.1
When that happens, what should you do?
On the one hand, you could just dismiss it: ‘The minister doesn’t really know me or my situation. Who is he to tell me what to believe?’
On the other hand, you might question your own disagreement: ‘Surely, they know more about God than I do. Who am I to question them? What if I’m missing something and they just want to make sure I believe the right thing?’
These are hard questions. And they have a significant impact on the life of a Christian.
In order to address them, I am going slightly modify the well-known saying above into a question:
Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible teacher tells me so?
In this article, I am going to try and answer that question. What is the legitimate role of a Bible teacher? If any?
In order to do that, I am going to work through what Paul says to the Corinthian church in 2 Corinthians 2:12-4:12.
Paul the Bible Teacher
From the beginning of 2 Corinthians 2:12-4:12, it is clear that Paul has a habit of teaching people about God: he shares the gospel (2:12), speaks in Christ (2:17), states the truth (4:2) and proclaims Christ (4:5). As a tidy summary of his teaching role, Paul says:
But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.
Paul isn’t sharing his mere opinions or ideas here, he is sharing the actual ‘knowledge’ of God. What does that mean? If you reject Paul’s teaching, then you reject the knowledge of God.
Application to James the Confused
Could James simply not listen to his minister? Could he just say: ‘I know God personally so I don’t need to listen to you’?
If James were living in Corinth when Paul visited, this attitude would actually keep him from gaining the ‘knowledge’ of God that spread ‘through’ Paul and his co-workers.
As we find throughout the Bible, God normally uses Bible teachers to spread knowledge about himself.2
If James simply dismisses what his minister says, he runs the risk of actually dismissing the knowledge of God.3
Who Does Paul Think He Is?
But how can Paul claim that he is spreading the actual knowledge of God? After all, the knowledge of God is a question of life and death (2:15-16). As Paul himself says: ‘Who is sufficient4 for these things?’ (2:16)
Is Paul actually qualified to be spreading this knowledge? How can someone be qualified to spread the greatest and most valuable knowledge in human history?
Actually, the Corinthians had a few qualifications in mind:
letters of recommendation (3:1)
skill in speaking (11:6)
strong bodily presence (10:10)
being good enough to charge visitor speaking fees (11:7)
At the time, letters of recommendation were key to being esteemed and well regarded. Equally, only a great teacher could charge money for the privilege of being his audience.
And yet, Paul wasn’t just any teacher. He claimed to be teaching the knowledge of God out of the Jewish Scriptures. Surely, the following qualifications could bolster his pedigree:
Underlying the question of Paul’s qualifications is a deeper concern: Can the Corinthians trust what Paul is saying?
Paul rhetorically voices this concern:
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you?
A written ‘letter of recommendation’ is the kind of proof that the Corinthians were looking for.
The diagram below represents the logic behind the Corinthians’ view:
(‘Authorises’ is another word that could be used to describe the relationship between these circles.)
At its heart, the Corinthian view seeks ‘Man’ (leftmost circle) to authorise or validate their faith. The final authority in this picture is human.
It is interesting to note that Paul could have provided the Corinthians with a potent letter of recommendation from the council in Jerusalem.5 Paul also had plenty of other qualifications that he could have used to convince the Corinthians of his validity.6
Yet Paul sidesteps these opportunities entirely:
You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
In other words, the Corinthians were looking for the wrong kind of letter.
A physical ‘letter of recommendation’ would validate Paul’s message on the basis of the authority of the humans who wrote it. Whereas a spiritual letter validates Paul’s message on the basis of the authority of the Holy Spirit who wrote it.
The diagram below represents the logic of Paul’s source of validation:
The Holy Spirit ‘writes’ his message on the ‘hearts’ of the Corinthians. This message is valid simply because it comes from the Holy Spirit. And so the Corinthian’s faith is valid because it is an inscription of the Holy Spirit’s message.
Meanwhile Paul is only valid because the message he preaches is valid (resulting in a valid faith among the Corinthians).
In other words, it is Paul’s message (and the effects of that message) that validate his role. It is not Paul’s role that validates his message.7
The final authority in this picture is the Holy Spirit, not men.
Application to James the Confused
So James should not just dismiss what his minister is saying.
Does that mean he should just accept it then?
James might have many reasons for just accepting what his minister says. For example, maybe his minister is:
a biblical scholar with many published papers to his name
a well-known speaker who has published several bestsellers
ordained in a church with deep historical roots with established biblical interpretations, developed over the centuries (eg the Roman Catholic Church)
just a minister while James is not
If James chooses to accept what his minister says because of one of the reasons above, he would see his minister (or his church) as the source of validation for God’s message.
Ironically, if James took such an attitude in Corinth, it would have kept him from gaining true knowledge of God.
Reviewing Paul’s qualifications, he might have concluded with the other Corinthians that:8
‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account.’
And so, James can’t resolve his problem by simply dismissing (individualism) or accepting (communitarianism) what his minister said.
James has no choice but to try and find out if his minister’s message itself is valid.
True Understanding of Scripture
But then how does someone find out if a teacher’s message is from God?
Paul makes this question quite difficult to answer since he removes the possibility of looking at the qualifications of a teacher as a measure of his message.
Even more challenging is the evidence that he does provide: Paul says that ‘you yourselves are our letter of recommendation’ (2 Corinthians 3:2). So he uses the fact that the Corinthians were convinced by his message as proof that they should be convinced by his message. Isn’t that a circular argument?
Meanwhile, the other evidence that Paul provides is that his sufficiency and the message itself come directly from God the Holy Spirit:
Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
But how does this constitute evidence? One could imagine a rival teacher to Paul saying exactly the same thing.
Who is right if two people disagree while both claiming to be messengers from the One God? Again, there appears to be a form of circularity here: ‘This message is from God because it is from God’.
At this point, it might be tempting to escape the circularity by introducing other criteria for measuring Paul’s message (apart from Paul’s own qualifications). For example:
Does the message itself make sense?
Is it logically coherent, or are there contradictions?
Does the message work in practice?
Does the message feel right?
The above criteria and their relationship to the message could be represented as the diagram below:
(Again, the term ‘validates’ could equally be replaced with the term ‘authorises’.)
Interestingly, this diagram again places man as the source of validation for the message. The final authority in this picture is still human.
Looking back to our two extremes, this approach represents individualism, while the Corinthians’ approach above represented communitarianism. However, both these views actually share the same core assumption: authority ultimately comes from humans.
And yet Paul does not appeal to any of the above (individualist) criteria.
Instead, Paul proceeds to build an argument that takes the truth of his original message for granted: he has been given a ‘ministry of the Spirit’ and ‘righteousness’ which must ‘far exceed’ another ministry in ‘glory’:9
Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
It is significant that here Paul actually acknowledges the existence of a rival message: there is another message which was ‘carved in letters on stone’ and undergirds a ‘ministry of condemnation’.
Even more significantly, these two different messages derive from the same words of Scripture, originally written by Moses:
Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
In other words, Paul is presenting to the Corinthians a different interpretation of the ‘old covenant’ which is heard when the books written by ‘Moses’ are ‘read’.10 Paul describes these two interpretations of ‘Moses’ as:11
Interpretation by the Letter: The ‘old covenant’ is understood in a way that brings ‘condemnation’, misses ‘Christ’ and does not take place by the ‘Spirit’ of God.
Interpretation by the Spirit: ‘Moses’ is understood in a way that brings ‘righteousness’ as it reveals the ‘glory of the Lord’ by the work of the Holy ‘Spirit’.
And so, getting back to our question: how is a member of the Corinthian church supposed to know which of these interpretations is the right one?
Paul’s answer here is profound: Those who follow the interpretation by the letter are actually unable to realise that they are wrong. Their ‘minds’ are ‘hardened’ and a ‘veil lies over their hearts’. The diagram below represents an interpretation by the letter:12
One could use words to explain what a sunrise looks like to a person born blind, but such words would never be able to transmit actual sight of that sunrise. A blind person does not receive sight via letters and words, and indeed cannot.
Those who follow the interpretation by the letter are simply blind.
This handicap puts into context the futility of a ‘hardened’ person relying on his own abilities or the qualifications of others for understanding God’s message correctly. Both individualism and communitarianism are doomed to failure.
On the other hand, those who follow the interpretation of the Spirit have ‘all’ been given ‘freedom’ for ‘beholding the glory of the Lord’. The diagram below represents an interpretation by the Spirit:
Each man is not blind, but individually sees the correct interpretation when ‘Moses’ is ‘read’, since it is the Holy Spirit who is interpreting and teaching the Scripture to him. The individual is active, but not as his own authority.13
Equally, the teacher passes on a correct message to the man because the Holy Spirit first teaches the teacher via Scripture and then teaches the man via his teacher. The community is active, but does not act as its own authority.14
In other words, the correct interpretation of Scripture is a ‘light bulb moment’:
For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
So correct interpretation happens when the Holy Spirit reveals his message internally to a man, whether by the direct reading of Scripture or the relaying of Scripture through a teacher.
Paul’s description of the work of the Holy Spirit explains his earlier unflinching circularity: the messages of God authenticate themselves by the work of the Holy Spirit. True messages from God are neither validated by, nor interpreted by man: they are validated by the Holy Spirit and interpreted in the mind of man by the Spirit.
As Paul so clearly states in his earlier letter to the Corinthians:
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Application to James the Confused
So James doesn’t simply ignore or take his minister’s word for it. He wants to know if the message itself is true: does God answer every prayer with ‘Yes’ if we pray ‘correctly’?
But how will he find that out?
At this point, James might be tempted to use some individualist criteria: does the message feel right? Does it work out practically? Does it ‘make sense’?
Yet relying on such an analysis of his minister’s message is foreign to what Paul did with the Corinthians. Quite simply, Paul opened Scripture to and with the Corinthians, showing from the Scriptures the ‘glory of the Lord’.
In other words, James needs to do a Bible study.
Should James do the Bible study on his own, or with other people (his minister included)?
Paul’s approach with the Corinthians makes it clear that the answer is both! On an individual level, the Holy Spirit revealed the ‘glory of the Lord’ to ‘all’ as ‘Moses’ was ‘read’. And on a community level, the Corinthians did not see this interpretation in Scripture before Paul came and showed it to them - the Holy Spirit worked through Paul to teach them.
Yet there are warnings here for James. While studying Scripture individually, is he actually relying on the Holy Spirit to interpret it for him? Is the Holy Spirit his final authority? Or does he have a veil over his heart that keeps him from seeing God’s message while he relies on himself and his own interpretations, thereby establishing himself as the final authority over his interpretation?
Equally, when he studies the Bible via the teaching of others, is he actually relying on the Holy Spirit to ultimately interpret and teach it to him? Is the Holy Spirit his final authority? Or does he have a veil over his heart that keeps him from seeing God’s message for himself, so instead he merely goes along with what someone else says about the Bible, treating others as the final authority over his interpretation of Scripture?15
If James refuses to study the Bible in a community (for example out of pride and self-sufficiency) he is denying one of the ways that the Holy Spirit teaches - via teachers in the church. On the other hand, if James refuses to study the Bible individually (for example, out of fear that he will get it wrong or fear of becoming self-sufficient) he is also denying one of the ways that the Holy Spirit teaches - via the individual reading of Scripture.
Finally, James might fear standing in ‘judgement’ over his minister - thereby not respecting the minister’s authority. And yet that hesitation contradicts the role of the Holy Spirit in correct interpretation. If James is being taught a correct interpretation by the Holy Spirit, then his judgement of his minister would not be on his own authority, but on the authority of the Holy Spirit.16
Bible Teachers Are Jars of Clay
At this point, another question arises: if it really is the Holy Spirit who teaches someone the correct interpretation of Scripture, what is the role of a teacher in a church? Is a teacher redundant? Equally, if it really is the Holy Spirit who teaches me the knowledge of God, why should I read the Bible? Isn’t Bible reading then redundant?
You could imagine Paul entering a form of despair at this point: ‘There is nothing I can do to make someone understand God’s message, only the Holy Spirit can do that. So why should I keep teaching if what I do does not determine whether someone believes?’
Instead of following such logic, Paul does the exact opposite:
Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, Let light shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Paul does not lose heart. Instead, he has ‘renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways’. He does not ‘practice cunning’ or ‘tamper’ with God’s word.
Why would Paul be tempted to use underhanded ways to convince people of God’s message?
Referring back our earlier discussion of validity, if Paul were to derive the validity of his message from his own qualifications, then the cogency of his message would depend on his own ability to convince others of its truth. Such a situation could be represented as the following diagram:
In this situation, God’s message is not transmitted untarnished and intact to a man. Instead, the teacher changes the message into his own. More specifically (especially when the hearer is hesitant to accept it) the teacher will ‘tamper’ with God’s original message through ‘cunning’ and so use ‘underhanded’ ways in his teaching.17 Such an approach is ‘disgraceful’.
But Paul says that he has ‘renounced’ such ‘underhanded’ ways. He and his co-workers ‘refuse’ to ‘tamper’ with ‘God’s word’. Instead he makes an ‘open statement of the truth’ in the ‘sight of God’. Paul’s approach could be illustrated with the following diagram:
Instead of trying to manipulate the message, Paul seeks to keep the message completely intact and unchanged. Not only this, he seeks to express the message as an ‘open statement of the truth’: as clear, understandable and public as possible.18 Unlike the ‘cunning’ of the false teachers, Paul’s approach has a clear simplicity to it: what you see is what you get.
The end result is that Paul can say:
For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.
In other words, a false teacher wants you to put your faith in the false teacher. He wants to be your Lord. So he blocks your view of Jesus and does not say ‘Listen to Jesus’ but rather ‘Listen to me’.
Meanwhile, a true teacher wants you to put your faith in Jesus. He wants Jesus to be your Lord. So he works as hard as possible to get out of the way. He does not say ‘Listen to me’ but rather ‘Listen to Jesus’.
This understanding is precisely what enables Paul to ‘not lose heart’. His role is not to gain authority over his listeners, control their response to his message or even get them to understand his message. Rather his role is simply to ‘make an open statement of the truth’.
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Which leads us to Paul’s well known metaphor of the role of a teacher:
But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.
The Holy Spirit’s message, the ‘gospel’, is a ‘treasure’ that comes with ‘surpassing power’. But it is delivered through weak, unimpressive and not very valuable containers: ‘jars of clay’.
Why does God choose containers essentially made of dirt? Paul says:
To show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.
Imagine if an invaluable treasure were hidden inside a beautiful, gold-painted, ornamental vase - itself worth a fortune. Could a casual observer mistakenly be distracted by the glory of the vessel and forget to look inside? Paul says ‘Yes’.
Therefore, Paul puts on full display that he is ‘afflicted’, ‘perplexed’, ‘persecuted’ and ‘struck down’. Not a very impressive vessel. But by carrying this ‘death’, the ‘life of Jesus’ may be clearly seen by the Corinthians:
For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you.
In summary: Paul shows the Corinthians how unimpressive he is, so that the Corinthians focus on Jesus and his message instead.
Application to James the Confused
After the sermon, James asked his minister if he could show his views from the Bible.
This put his minister to the test. How will he react? Will he:
Say that James should not question those in authority over him?
Compare his theological qualifications to James’s?
Bring to bear the authority of the church tradition that the minister is ordained in?
Backtrack and qualify what he said previously?
Will James’s minister present himself as an empty, unimpressive vessel but point James to the surpassing treasure of God’s message, found in Scripture? Or will the minister seek to hide that treasure from James and encourage James to focus on how glorious and impressive the vessel is?
Will James’s minister open a Bible and study it openly, simply and clearly with James and point him to the message contained therein? Will he act like a true Bible teacher?
If his minister does not do so, then he is out of step with Paul. Whether he realises it or not, such a minister will be ‘proclaiming’ himself (or his church19) as ‘Lord’ over James instead of Jesus. He will just be getting in the way.
A Real Life Example
The above analysis of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is both deep and, at times, abstract. Do we have any examples of Paul practising what he preaches in these passages?
The book of Acts contains many such rich examples, one of which being when Paul teaches in Thessolonica and Berea.
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ. And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus. And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things. And when they had taken money as security from Jason and the rest, they let them go. The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds. Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.
By way of highlighting pertinent parts of this passage:
It was Paul’s ‘custom’ to go to a synagogue and then ‘[reason] with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving’ the message about Jesus. Pointing people to Scripture and seeking to have them see that message of Jesus for themselves is not just one of many approaches that Paul takes - it is the very bedrock of his ministry practice.
In Thessalonica, there were those who did in fact see the glory of Christ for themselves in the Scriptures, and there were those who were blind to that glory. Instead of trying to assert his authority over those who rejected his message or trying again with a modified version of the message, Paul went ‘away by night to Berea’. His role began and ended with an open statement of the truth.
Paul does not lose heart after being persecuted and chased out of Thessalonica. He does not start to doubt his message due to not having the esteem of men. Rather, he knows that rejection of God’s message is fundamentally a rejection of God and only incidentally of him.
Paul goes to Berea and again goes to a synagogue to explain from the Scriptures God’s message about Jesus.
The Bereans are praised by the author of Acts as being ‘more noble’ than those in Thessalonica because ‘they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.’ Through constant study of the Scriptures, the Bereans sought to see for themselves in the Scriptures whether Paul’s interpretation was true. They were not content to just take Paul’s word for it and did not take into account Paul’s qualifications or status. Instead, the core question was: ‘What has God said in Scripture’? Instead of being a vehicle for pride or self-sufficiency in their reading of Scripture, this was in fact a vehicle by which the Bereans received Jesus as their Lord: ‘Many of them therefore believed’. The Holy Spirit taught them through Paul and they submitted to the Holy Spirit’s message.
Application to James the Confused
James should not hesitate to imitate what happened in Acts 17:1-15. The open study of the Scriptures in community as we seek to know God’s message is intended by God to be a normal part of church life.
At the same time, James should not be surprised if the open reading of Scripture still leads to unreasonable and strong rejection by others of what is clearly written. Blindness to what is clear in Scripture is not a new phenomenon and has continued to be motivated by entrenched religious traditions and jealousy since the time of Paul.
So James should not lose heart. The Holy Spirit is at work today to give ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ to all believers.20
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing
Conclusion
So, can a Christian say:
Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible teacher tells me so?
Well, it depends. What does the word ‘because’ mean here? There are two options:
‘Because’ means that ‘Jesus loves me’ is true simply because my teacher said it was true.
‘Because’ means that I learned the truth that ‘Jesus loves me’ through a vessel (a Bible teacher) who carried that message from God to me.
If ‘because’ is used in the first sense, then I believe that 2 Corinthians 2:12-4:12 clearly condemns the statement. According to Paul, a Christian should believe the message of God on the authority of the Holy Spirit alone. It is ‘self-authenticating’ and does not need the competencies or authority of a church teacher to be true.
If however, ‘because’ is used in the second sense, then I believe that 2 Corinthians 2:12-4:12 clearly justifies this sentence. God used Paul as a vessel to bring the good news of Jesus to the Corinthians, and he continues to do this through his elect teachers today.
Let us not deny either the individual reading of Scripture or the communal reading and teaching of Scripture as means by which the knowledge of God is passed on. At the same time, let us not fool ourselves into thinking that my mere reading of Scripture or the mere teaching of Scripture leads to our knowledge of God. Rather, it is solely the work of the Holy Spirit, through each of these means, that reveals to us God’s message in our hearts.21
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Thoughtful Orthodox
See Deuteronomy 21:17.
See for example Peter in the book of Acts.
Ephesians 4:11-13 speaks about teaching as a normal role within the church used to ‘equip’ God’s people so that they might ‘attain’ the ‘knowledge of the Son of God’.
The term translated ‘sufficient’ here is the Greek term hikanos which can also be translated as ‘worthy’ or ‘deserving’ (STEP). It is related to the term hikanoō in 2 Corinthians 3:6 which means ‘to qualify’ or ‘to authorise’ (STEP).
For example, the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:22-29 wrote a letter to Gentile believers specifically commending Paul’s ministry. The Jerusalem council was composed of ‘apostles’ and ‘elders’ and so their letter would constitute a significant commendation.
In other places in Scripture we find that Paul was incredibly ‘qualified’ to teach from the Jewish scriptures due to his tutelage under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) and his surpassing adherence to Jewish religious practice (Philippians 3:4-6).
2 Corinthians 11:4 reveals the invalidity of the ‘super-apostles’ because they proclaimed a ‘different gospel’. Galatians 1:8 makes this even more clear where Paul says he himself should be ‘accursed’ if he preached a ‘contrary’ gospel.
Another possibility is that James would actually accept what Paul says because of his impressive credentials (Philippians 3:4-6) and letter of recommendation from the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29). However, this would mean that James would believe that Gospel is valid simply because Paul preached it. James would be confident in Paul first and the Gospel second, with little regard for the Holy Spirit. Paradoxically, he could end up agreeing with Paul without ever having Paul’s message written on his heart by the Holy Spirit, thus having never truly understood it.
Notice that Paul does indeed use reasoning in this passage, however that reason does not validate his core message. Instead, it takes his core message for granted and then expands upon it.
See ‘whenever Moses is read’ in verse 15. These books are the first 5 books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).
My use of the term interpretation here reflects Paul’s usage of the word ‘interpretation’ (Greek sunkrino which means to compare, express or explain) in 1 Corinthians 2:13 where the ‘wisdom’ of God is being ‘understood’ via ‘words’ ‘taught’ by the Spirit.
This diagram reveals both the individual and communitarian versions of incorrect interpretation. The direct interpretation of Scripture by a man is impeded by the veil between his mind and Scripture. Meanwhile, the teaching of the teacher, which seeks to point the man to Scripture, only ends up pointing him to the veil, unable to reach the truth of Scripture underneath.
The term ‘all’ in verse 18 is of great importance: it implies that each person, freed by the Spirit, individually sees the glory of the Lord for themselves in the Scriptures. For an external human observer, this form of revelation appears to be indistinguishable from the individualism described earlier. However, the key difference does not lie externally but internally: the person freed by the Spirit is being taught by God’s Spirit. Meanwhile, an individualist is only being taught by himself.
The role of the teacher here might also look, on the surface, indistinguishable from communitarianism. However, as in the case of individualism, the difference is both real and internal: a communitarian is not internally taught by the Holy Spirit (and will many times have a teacher who himself is not being taught by the Holy Spirit). Rather, the communitarian is taught merely by the teacher, who often just teaches himself.
There might be an objection here that a man who refuses to believe something in Scripture unless he ‘sees it for himself’ is an ‘individualist’. Yet, if that man does not see the correct interpretation for himself, that means that the Holy Spirit has not revealed it to him. In this case, he would not gain anything by going along with someone else’s interpretation - the veil would remain. Unless the Holy Spirit reveals it to him, there is in fact nothing that can be done to remedy the situation, either by himself or others.
Note what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:15-16: ‘The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.’
It is important to note that the term ‘underhanded’ is the Greek term kruptos which literally means ‘hidden, unseen, secret’. The teacher who seeks to validate his message through his own qualifications actually hides and keeps the original message secret and unseen. In this way, the teacher is not ‘transparent’ but rather ‘opaque’: a man is not able to see God’s message through such a teacher, but only sees the teacher himself.
The Greek term that underlies ‘open statement’ is fanerōsis means ‘manifestation, disclosure, revelation’. It is the opposite of kruptos since it makes something as visible as possible. In this sense, Paul is ‘transparent’: it is easy to see God’s message through him. He does not block or get in the way of God and his message.
Such views are reflected in the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which considers itself ‘necessary’ for the salvation of anyone in the world: ‘Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation… Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.’ (The Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 14).
At this point, the reader might be wondering if I will present an answer to James’s specific question: Does God answer every prayer that is prayed correctly with a ‘Yes’. In the spirit of this article however, I will leave the answering of that question as an exercise for the reader with the following hint: Read, study and understand 2 Corinthians 1:15-24 individually, with others and with the help of teachers in the church both present and past.
When reading a work, it is sometimes interesting to ask the question: ‘Can I apply what is being said back onto itself? Does the work live up to its own principles?’ My hope is that this paper has precisely been an exercise in providing teaching that opens the Scriptures to help the reader see God’s message for themselves.