Is the NT Reliable? Part 3: Theology
What follows is a continuation of a talk I gave at RTS Washington’s Sed Contra series. The series of is intended to be a casual space for conversation about difficult or controversial topics. Since I decided to write up my presentation “conference style,” I thought I’d chop it up into bits and post it on the blog. Here’s part 3 (and links for the other parts should appear above).
Is the theology coherent?
So much, then for the text of the NT. What about its theology? Here, again, there are two objections. The first objection can be simply put: the NT doesn’t have a theology. This would be a very serious problem since even the soft-inerrantist would argue that the NT can be relied upon in theological matters. Sure, it gets the evolution of Adam wrong; sure, it’s outdated with respect to the authorship of the Torah; but its theological core can be trusted. But what if there is no theological core?
This too is an old claim, and one that seems to have gotten “stuck” in the critical mindset even though it’s been thoroughly debunked. It goes back to F. C. Baur and the idea that there were various schools of Christianity competing with one another. In the NT we have, as Dunn puts it, not Christianity but rather Christianities. Now, depending on what one means by that statement, it’s perfectly true. I daresay it’s even consistent with what the NT says about itself! Jesus and Paul and Peter and James and John all have different audiences, different pastoral concerns, different theological emphases, different personalities and upbringings, different contexts and challenges. The Bible not only acknowledges this, but celebrates it. It even brings it into the foreground of its central message, since Jesus tells his disciples “you will be my witnesses to the ends of the earth,” a promise that all of them see fulfilled, at least partially, in the conversion of the Gentiles (Acts 1:7). As Paul puts it, Jesus “has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier…to create one new humanity out of the two” (Eph. 2:14-16). Indeed, he rebukes Peter, reminding him that he is “a Judean who lives like a Gentile” (Gal. 2:14). For the first time in human history we have a religion that is trans-geographical, trans-national, trans-cultural and hyper global, and yet one in which cultural heritage is not repudiated or absorbed, but saved and glorified. Would we not expect a diversity of expression in such a religion? Vos concludes as much:
It is urged that the discovery of so considerable an amount of variableness and differentiation in the Bible must be fatal to the belief in its absoluteness and infallibleness. If Paul has one point of view and Peter another, then each can be at best only approximately correct. This would actually follow, if the truth did not carry in itself a multiformity of aspects. But infallibleness is not inseparable from dull uniformity. The truth is inherently rich and complex, because God is so Himself.
Vos, Biblical Theology, 14
Truth is complex, patoring is hard, and yet the church is able to unite around its common confession. That, at least, is the testimony of Acts, which is itself anticipated by Jesus’ own teaching. In Acts 15 we have the church speaking with one voice—Baur and others would find here reason to believe that Acts is therefore not historically reliable, which we will get to momentarily, but suffice it to say that we have reason to believe Paul and James and Peter all agree with Luke’s account—the church speaks as one: we are Judean and Greek, we are one body, we will affirm one another’s expression of our common faith in Jesus the Christ. Amidst the diversity of Christian expression–some Christians live like Judeans and are zealous for the law of Moses (Acts 21), and some live like Gentiles (and yet have forsaken the ways of their forefathers, 1 Pet. 1:18)–amidst the diversity there is, nevertheless, a common core: Christ is Lord.
This is the sum and head of Christian theology, not only for Paul and Peter and James, but also for Jesus himself: to approach God in work and worship through the mediation of His risen Son, Jesus of Nazareth. All of the NT teaches this, and it is an incredible and highly specific claim. At its core it is the claim that God has visited his people through his divine and pre-existent Son, now made like us in every respect. He was subjected to the cross for our sins and was raised for our salvation. This Son, who is one with the Father from the beginning, is now Lord of heaven and earth, and has poured out His Spirit upon all who call upon his name, building up the people of God until he returns. This is, in short, the “Apostles Creed,” and what NT book does not teach this? Is this not “Christianity?” Is this not One Faith? Of course there is diversity of expression, both in language and in practice, but that should not distract us from the fact that the NT writers saw themselves as together serving, in complimentary fashion, the One that they called “Lord,” Jesus the Christ.
(That these essential beliefs are shared by all NT writers is now beyond dispute, though some will still appeal to outdated scholarship on the Gospels.)
Is the NT ethical?
Another claim, and this too is an old one, asserts that the NT is not ethically up to our modern standards. There is a moral and social bankruptcy, it is claimed, at the core of the NT. This claim was popularized by “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins, who pointed to the patriarchalism of the NT writings, as well as their seeming endorsement of slavery (1 Peter 2:18ff). Others have argued that the crucifixion of Jesus, an event that the NT itself claims is in accordance with “God’s plan,” amounts to divine child abuse; indeed, the idea of a retributive God, who exacts an eye for an eye in the exercise of his justice, is primitive and contrary to the law of love. More recently, and here it’s worth noting that Dawkins finds himself now in the gallows he constructed for the Bible, LGBTQ+ supporters have argued that the Bible’s view of sexuality and gender is outdated and oppressive.
Like other objections to Scripture that we have examined, these are serious claims and worth point-by-point rebuttal. It is worth making the case, and the case has, in fact, been made time and time again, that the Bible is not sexist or racist and does not endorse slavery (but is, rather, the anthropological and historical foundation for the concept of universal human rights and dignity). It is worth reminding the world that it actually wants justice, and that retributive justice is really the only moral kind of justice. It’s worth reminding Christians that they often have been unloving and uncharitable and even oppressive to image-bearers in the LGBTQ+ community, while also standing pointing out the moral and anthropological bankruptcy of unbiblical views of the self and sexuality. All that is worth doing, but I’m not the one to do it.
My aim, as already stated, is general reliability. While I believe the Bible is more than a generally reasonable guide for human thinking about ethics and morality, that’s all I’m seeking to prove here. And in that respect all we need to point out is that all these criticisms of Biblical morality assume Biblical standards. Multiple historians and philosophers and ethicists and theologians, from Christian and non-Christian backgrounds, have made this point. The morality of the modern world, and especially the west, is historically and philosophically grounded in Christianity. Love as an ethical norm, the idea of universal human dignity, social pluralism and human freedom–these are all uniquely and irreducibly Christian ideas. If you adopt them, then in principle you are adoption the Biblical ethic as at least generally reliable.
Conclusion
In sum, then, the NT presents a cohesive theological vision, a comprehensive view of God, humanity, and the world, and their mutual relations to one another. What is more, that vision has been, and continues to be, a moral and existential guide for humanity, even for those who are strong critics of Christianity and the claims of the NT. It is neither theological primitive or morally bankrupt. As such, the theology of the NT is generally reliable and deserves to be heard and studied charitably.
Next up: the history of the NT.
1 Response
[…] Is the NT Reliable? Part 3: Theology […]