Subtitle: Did the Apostles Always Grasp What They Wrote?
(Part 2 of a Series: Here is Part 1
The Question of Apostolic Understanding (Yes, I’m Still Talking About This)
I suppose I could put my current discussions about whether or not the apostles or the writers of the New Testament fully understood everything they were writing this way: does having the canonical whole of Scripture give us any advantage over, say, Paul? And if so, what?
Does the Canonical Whole Give Us an Advantage?
In other words, when we interpret individual passages of the Bible written by a single author, is it advantageous to have all the other books of Scripture to interpret with?
In other words (again!), does having the analogia scripturae—”Scripture interpreting Scripture”—give us a better ability to understand the Bible? And if so, what does that mean for the understanding of the biblical authors themselves, who did not have a canonical whole?
[Interlocular Sophist: It would seem, “Genral” Patton, that you may be saying we can understand Paul’s words better than Paul!?]
[Patton: …Don’t call me that! He was a distant cousin. I guess you can.]
If we say that it does give us an advantage, then I think the answer to my first question becomes clear: the individual authors of Scripture—while inspired and inerrant—may not have had a complete understanding of what they wrote, albeit an accurate one.
[Interlocular Sophist: Wait, wait, wait…Are you saying the Gospel writers could have gotten something wrong?
[Genral Patton: Not at all. I’m trying to be as clear as I can. This is not an issue of inerrancy. But this does not mean that in the author’s current stream of progressive revelation… Just hold on and be quiet. I was about to get there.]
Does Having the Whole Canon Give Us an Advantage?
I think the answer is yes—though with careful qualifications. Having all of Scripture allows us to read any given passage within the fullest possible context. The principle of analogia scripturae (“scripture interpreting scripture”) presupposes that later revelation sheds light on earlier revelation, and vice versa.
[Interlocular Sophist: Hey, hey, General, how about this: The New is in the Old concelaed; the Old is in the New revealed.” I just came up with that.]
[General Patton: Ummm…no you didn’t. Been around for a long time. I think it came from C. S. Lewis, just like every other quote.]
This means we have access to interpretive progressions that each individual author may not have had. Here are a few ways this plays out:
- Progressive Revelation – God’s revelation unfolds across time. Earlier authors (e.g., Moses, Isaiah, even Paul) wrote with true understanding, but not necessarily final understanding. We, however, can see more clearly how themes, types, and prophecies were fulfilled because we have the whole canon.
Interlocular Sophist: Are you talking about “progressive revelation”? Isn’t that something those crazy dispensationalists talk about all the time?
General Patton: “I am a dispensationalism.”
Interlocular “Sophist: …. I think I left the stove on.”
General Patton: “Hold on there, Sophist. Get back here. Everyone incorperates progressive revelation, even Covenant theologians (…thanks to dispys).”
- Theological Coherence – An individual writer, say, Peter, might not have been able to fully integrate Paul’s theological insights, or vice versa, simply because they didn’t have access to the entire New Testament corpus the way we do.
- Canon as Context – When interpreting any passage, we can bring all of Scripture to bear on it, while the human authors were limited to what they had received up to that point. This doesn’t mean they were in error—only that they were situated in an unfolding drama.
Interlocular Sophist: “Now you sound like one of them postmodern Christians. What are they called? Emergers?”
General Patton: “No. First ‘Emerger’ is so 2006, RIP – 2009. But Scripture must be seen as an unfolding story. This is key to understanding what I am saying here.”
Caiaphas: The Poster Child for Saying More Than You Know
We actually see examples of this in Scripture itself. One of the most evident, I think, is Caiaphas in John 11:49-52. In this passage, Caiaphas declares that “It is better that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” John explicitly tells us that Caiaphas prophesied (i.e. was inspired; spoke on behalf of God)—but he didn’t say this of his own accord. That’s the key. His words were true in a deeper way than he himself understood. He meant it in a purely political sense in the moment, but the Holy Spirit was speaking through him and revealing to us something much greater: Christ would die not just for Israel but to gather the children of God from all nations.
Interlocular Sophist: “Stop…Caiaphas was not an author of Scripture, so he does not apply.”
General Patton: “You are correct. Caiaphas was not an author of Scripture, and he may not apply. But he does illustrate that an inspired prophet of God can reveal something through someone while not too someone. Caiaphas did not fully understand what he was saying. Maybe this can apply to the authors of Scripture to varying degrees. What is you principle that say this is impossibe? What doctrine says this is false?
Interlocular Sophist: “…”
Paul and the Timing of the Second Coming (Or: “We’ll Figure It Out Later”)
Paul, for example, writes in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 about Christ’s return with a tone that almost suggests he might expect Christ to return in his own lifetime. Later, in 2 Timothy 4:6-8, we see a shift—he now recognizes his imminent death and writes accordingly. Was he wrong at first in Thessalonians? No, like Caiaphas, he was inspired, but did he have an exhaustive understanding of the timing of Christ’s return at the time of writing? It was not revealed to him. He was writing true words, but his understanding was still finite.
Interlocular Sophist: “But I’m a Preterist! I think Christ did come in A.D. 70!”
General Patton: “Yeah, I figured. But this still applies. He thought Christ was coming in his lifetime. And no—Christ didn’t come in A.D. 70… Never mind.”
The Analogy of Scripture: Why the Canon Interprets Itself
And that brings me back to the analogia scripturae. As a Protestant, I affirm that one passage of Scripture helps interpret another. One author can clarify another. [Interlocular Sophist: I see where this is going] [Gereral Patton: “Be quiet. Keep your comments to the quote boxes. I think people are getting sick of this was of supplemental didactic dialogue.] Not only do we have the completed canon, but we also have a framework for understanding it as a unified whole.
But that raises the question: Did each apostle have the whole canon in mind when they wrote? Did Paul fully grasp what Peter would later write? Peter himself admits that some of Paul’s writings were difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). And could Peter have anticipated what John would record in Revelation? Does Revelation have any bearing on our understanding of 2 Peter?
If we take a step back, it seems clear that the canon as a whole sheds light on itself, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that each biblical author had the entire drama at the moment of writing.
The Chicago Statement Agrees Seems to Allow for This
Even the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy acknowledges this.
Interlocular Sophist: “Oh, I love the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy! James Montgomery Boice helped with that. My hero!”
General Patton: “Yeah, he was great. My dad—who wasn’t a believer—once said to me when I mentioned Boice, ‘Isn’t that the guy who talks like a frog?’ That was the moment I knew my dad had been listening.”
Interlocular Sophist: “Oh, don’t worry. He was a believer. Anyone who listens to Boice was chosen before all time.”
Let’s take a look at a couple of the Articles from the CSBI:
- Article IX states: “We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.” That is exactly the point—while inspiration ensured accuracy, it did not grant the biblical authors omniscience. Their understanding was real, but not exhaustive.
- Article V affirms that “God’s revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive.” That means divine truth was revealed over time, and each writer was part of that unfolding process.
Conclusion: Perfect Writing, Limited Understanding (And Now I’m Done With this Subject and the Weird Writing I Started Here… Maybe)
So if the analogia scripturae is correct and Scripture interprets Scripture, and we—the church—have the benefit of the completed canon, then I think it’s fair to say that while the biblical authors wrote under divine inspiration, they were not necessarily aware of the full significance of everything they wrote. Their writings were perfect in content but not exhaustive in their personal understanding.
Interlocular Sophist: “….How do I become a Dispensationalist like you?”
General Patton: “Well, if you agree with me here, your not that far off. I’ll change your name to ‘Junor Dispy'”
