3 Comments
May 2Liked by Cameron Combs

I feel like growing up I just always assumed that the Bible was all of God’s words (maybe that was me being a baby Christian) but I think it is interesting to hear that Paul’s opinions are in the Bible. That there is room for discussion.

Expand full comment
author

On other thought: because something is a human word doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t be God’s word. All of scripture is both human and divine without competition. So the question for 1 Cor. 7 is: what is God’s purpose in Paul’s sharing his human opinions? What does God mean for us to wrestle with in giving us Paul’s opinions (which can be disagreed with!)? Not necessarily that we agree with Paul (Paul’s opinions aren’t necessarily God’s opinions). But what is the Spirit’s intention in these words of Paul’s? This is the great mystery of scripture which is also the great mystery at the heart of Christian faith: that deity and humanity are united in without competition in Jesus of Nazareth. He is both God and human but without being two persons. Scripture is both a divine word and a human word without being two things because it is the word of Jesus. Hopefully that makes some sense. If not, ignore it!

Expand full comment
author

Yes, room for discussion is key with all Scripture! Scripture is meant to make us wrestle with it. It invites us into the work of interpretation, never letting us settle down with one single, final interpretation. Which is why I think we can and should say that the Bible is all God’s word. We just have to understand what we mean by “God’s word.” If we mean something like “The Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it.” then we were never really engaging with Scripture the way it is meant to be engaged. Put differently: Paul giving his own opinions in 1 Cor. 7 is the word of God. Through the Spirit, the living Christ speaks to us through these words today and invites us into wrestling with Scripture the same way Jacob wrestled with God. Chris Green says it like this: God isn’t saving us *from* the work of interpretation but *through* it.

Expand full comment