 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
In-depth study on my part, as well as others for over 15 years, have led us to the inescapable conclusion that the New Testament writings were never to be understood as Scripture on par with the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), the Law, the Prophets, or the Writings. I have taken a lot of heat for this from many who have failed to study deeply enough to see the truths to which I bow my knee. Let me exonerate myself and others from the slander of many because we recognize that the ONLY Word of God is the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings….the Bible Yeshua used.
In many attacks upon myself by other Christians they inevitably get around to quoting Peter where he classes Paul's Epistles with "Other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Taken at face value as read in the English my opponents seem to have a good case…that Peter considered Paul’s writings as Scripture.
Answer for yourself: Did the writer of Second Peter intend to say Paul's writings were Scripture? Lets go a little deeper than the English shall we?
2 Pet 3:16 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (KJV)
Let us examine the word for “other” in the Greek: First from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
3062 loipoy- remaining, the rest
Notice the ideas of "contrast, distinction from, and not belonging to a specific class. The word carries the idea of separation and not inclusion. Since the word carries the idea of "separation" then the idea of identification of both being contrasted as the "same" is impossible. Thus the verse, instead of saying both Scripture and Pauline writings are "the same" it says just the opposite; they are not the same because one is not in the same "class of documents" as the other. Since there is no doubt that the Jewish Scriptures are "NOT Scripture" then the other must be by definition of the word. Simply said the Pauline writings were not understood in the first century to be on par with the Jewish Scriptures; in fact much in them was vehemently opposed by the Apostles and the Jerusalem Church.
If we are to be truthful to the word used in the New Testament writings of Peter we should now clearly see that he was referring to a group of writings in CONTRAST to Paul’s writings. No where in the understanding of the word are we to force the precept that both writings [Jewish Scriptures & Pauline literature] are to be considered the “same.” The contrast in the intent of the word is very important in this regard. The idea from the word used in the Greek is the contrast of Scripture to documents "NOT" of the same class..see the definition above!
Notice also the concept within the word to things that “remain." Inherent in Peter’s idea is a contrast to a fixed set of documents which remain in his day and are identifiable. In referring to “the rest” of something it is apparent that the knowledge of them and their identity are known and the contents of them identifiable. Such cannot be said for the writings which comprise our New Testament today for at the time of Peter’s comments about Paul’s writings the four Gospels had not been written, nor had Hebrews, Revelation, and many other books which are in our Bibles today. What I am saying is that to interpret Peter to mean that Paul’s writings are considered “other Scriptures” is a violation of the truth behind the words. The complete set of writings had to exist and be recognized in order to speak about the “rest” of them which completes the whole of them. Obviously such cannot be said about the documents comprising our New Testaments today as about half of the New Testament had not been written at this time, nor would be it be considered “Scripture” officially until early in the fourth century.
Let us now examine the word for “scripture” from 2 Peter 3:16 as well. Having demonstrated above that the only “set” of existing Scriptures at the time of Peter’s comments to which he referred to the “rest of them” was the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, let us continue.
The Greek word for “scripture” is as follows as taken from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
1124 graphe-
Let us never forget that we read the Bible today from hindsight, a terrific advantage today, but also a great liability as I hope to show you. We must understand that it was not until the fourth century that we have an official New Testament Canon. Up until that time we have oral traditions, many varying from place to place which was circulated among the peoples. In times these oral traditions were written down, many varying to some degrees. These were not books by any means, but small parchments or vellum that contained such oral traditions put in writing to preserve them. It would be much later before we would have codexes or books whereby all the writings recovered could be chronicled in somewhat of an order as we are accustomed to day.
Having said that, please understand that when the writer of 2nd Peter referred to “scripture” he was not referring to a “book” as given in the definitions above, but rather the collection of parchments containing references to the oral traditions which had by that time been committed to writing.
At the time Peter spoke what is recorded in 2 Peter 3:16 the canon of the official canon of the New Testament was over 300 years away in the making. He had no idea at all of “other Scriptures” as we understand the concept today. His reference, as determined by the wording, as well as the absence of recognized “Scripture” other than the Law, the Prophets, and the Writing, reveal to us the only conclusion plausible considering the time and the facts…that he was referring to other “written things.”
Let us re-read the verse understanding that the more correct understanding of the word “graphe” would be “written things.”
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other WRITINGS, unto their own destruction.
As you can now see such an interpretation is just as credible as saying “other Scripture.” To force the translation to say “other Scripture” must necessitate the completed set of New Testament writings be in existence (“the rest”) [which completes the whole]; they dear child of God the vast majority of them were not existence when Peter referred to Paul in 2 Pet. 3:16.
This may be hard for you to swallow, but in the context of 2 Peter 3:16 Peter could easily have been referring to and CONTRASTING Jewish Scriptures (Law, Prophets, Writings) with Paul’s “other writings” which were hard to understand and had no intention of calling Paul's writing "Scripture" or hold any notion that Paul's writings were on the par with the Jewish Scriptures.
So, I hope you have seen for yourself that to force the conclusion that “other Scriptures” in English must refer to our New Testament is not only in error, but an impossibility owing to the lack of their existence at the time Peter spoke. Shalom
Answer for yourself: What is the tragic implication of this for the Christian to finally realize?
Simply that our Bibles should be what they always were in the days of Jesus....a collection of the Law, Prophets, and Writings ONLY and any other such "writings" are secondary to say the least and when these "secondary" writings contradict or conflict with the Law, Prophets, and Writings (as they often do) then they are to be discarded and neglected as spurious documents and frauds. This is a major problem for the New Testament and those who understand the context and wording of 2 Peter 3:16.