Wednesday, October 1, 2008
a commentary on commentaries
In my last post I intended on making the point that commentaries are useful tools, but they are not the end all. I in no way was intending on putting across the idea that learning from preachers and teachers (past and present) are a was of time and a lack of faith and diligence on a bible students part. What I did intended on getting across was the cult following that some have for these theologians. I would be ignorant and fool hearted to say that you should not study from other men, I would not have gon to bible college to attain a degree if this was my heart. Just as many other things in society dumb down the abilities of a person, if you can't sit down with God's Word alone to study then, you are at a great disadvantage in your spiritual walk. Once again I am speaking of extreme position some one who takes a commentary alone with them and uses it like the cultist would use Mary Baker Eddy's works or the Pearl of Great Price. The Bible is the final authority it has the answers to all of life's questions. One thought that has entered my mind is what did the first century christians rely on and the apostles and those closer to them rely on when commentaries did not exist? We must rely on the Holy Spirit as all men and women were meant to do!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Justin,
Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions in the previous post. I agree with you that commentaries are not the "end all", and that God's inspired Word is alone, our final authority on all of the topics it considers. I agree that all Christians (assuming their physical/mental capacity to do so) have the ability to sit down and study God's Word, and (to varying degrees) apprehend the truths contained there. But I would maintain that this is a supplemental format of educating one's self in the things of God; the primary and ordained channel whereby I believe God instructs His children is corporately as a local Church body, under the leadership of godly, learned men who have been ordained into official service. I guess this discussion could quickly go off into a discussion of forms of polity, but the point I am trying to make is that God has put a system in place which is the primary (but not exclusive) means of passing on the faith of our fathers, so to speak. I believe it is the perennial temptation of all legitimately Christian traditions to have idolize their favorite theologians...obviously, idolatry of even the finest gifts of God is idolatry nonetheless. In the cases of non-Christian (heretical) theologies, where cults have been formed around the teachings of certain persons, in most of those cases, the "idol" theologian (whether Eddy, or Smith) was one who was either, not privy to or in rebellion of the historical theology of Christianity, and likewise didn't submit him or herself to the authority of the right teaching of God's Word through shepherds of the Church. So I believe that it can be said that, while the idolizing of heretic theologians will spread their heresies to form cults of persons with itching ears, it is also true that the heretics being idolized are often wholly ignorant or rebellious to the right interpretations of scripture.
As for the 1st century Church and the interpretations on which they relied, we can say that (though they are categorically different because they were inspired) Paul's, Peter's, and John's words largely were commentaries on the life of Christ and the meaning of His coming. Of course we have to admit that during their lifetimes, and until the canon was closed, there was no period of time (regarding the transmission of the Word) since it.
But the Church soon after (as early as the first years of the 2nd century) has been relying on subsequent (uninspired but hopefully, Spirit lead) commentaries to aid in their understanding of Holy Writ.
Post a Comment