Jun 3, 2008
Red-lettered Bibles make an unnecessary contrast between Jesus’ words and others’, but…
Doesn’t everyone functionally create a “canon within a canon” by their accidental emphases?
Is this wrong or is there legitimate scriptural hierarchy?
Sadly we do don’t we. I guess the thing with the red letters is that it’s deliberate. But, useful to be reminded that I don’t need someone to do it for me…
Abraham,
This is one of the best questions you have ever asked. I am looking forward to the comments.
Steve
A pitfall for me at times is to allow a newly gleaned truth from a passage become the ONLY thing I see from that passage. I need to take the new and add to the old, and not replace. And, to not view the new as greater than the old.
I can’t think of a good reason for accepting the idea of a scriptural hierarchy. All this has done for me is to keep me out of books like Numbers, for example.
Paul tells Timothy that all scripture is God breathed and profitable. But he doesn’t say that all scripture is equally profitable. Peter describes some scripture as harder to understand.
There would seem to be subjective (I personally focus on these sections of scripture) and objective hierachy (these scriptures are universally more relevant to the contemporary church):
My instinct would be to say that subjective hierachy it’s both inevitable and ok to a point – because certain parts of scripture will be more or less immediately relevant depending who we are, where we are and what we’re doing. But it’s definitely not ok if we start discounting another section of scripture in order to accomodate our pet theories about our pet scriptures.
Objective hierachy would need clearer rules: we’re generally quite happy to allow the NT to dictate interpretation of the OT. (Dispensationalism can take this too far: in extreme forms suggesting that only Paul’s prison epistles are relevant for the gentile church).
It would also seem sensible (in general) to assume that the more frequently mentioned a topic/teaching, the more weight we should give it.
But surely you’ve got some theories about it Abraham?
Very interesting Abraham, I’ve been mulling this over the past few years.
The objective heirarchy that Geoff describes has begun to worry me quite a bit — because I fear that just below the surface is a not very well hidden subjective heirarchy.
Take Romans for instance. Does the protestant tradition give it a place of primacy because it really is primary in some objective sense? Or does the primacy we give it simply reflect it’s unique, corporate, subjective importance in our historical tradition?
This goes to the HEART of how we should do systematic theology.
I’m looking forward to what others say as well, but as for me and my house … I think I’m beginning to be VERY skeptical of any claim of objective heirarchy among the scriptures or (dare I say) among the various complementary theologies present therein.
Geoff,
My theories are all at the gut-level right now.
It seems to me that the Gospels and epistles must in some sense be “more important” than much of the Old Testament simply because you need them to be saved, whereas with just the OT, you don’t have enough.
Obviously the NT relies on the OT, but that doesn’t mean of equal importance. My son’s existence relies on me, but of course I have high hopes that he will be far more significant than me.
I’m by no means committed to this idea—it’s just an intuition right now. I guess that’s why I’m asking.
Abraham,
I’m sure you’re not saying that Jesus’ new teaching to the world like “you must be born again” or “turn the other cheek” or “I am” is REALLY more important than something like this from Numbers:
“Of the people of Issachar, their generations, by their clans, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, every man able to go to war: those listed of the tribe of Issachar were 54,400.”
In all seriousness, if the Bible were all of the same importance, why aren’t the obscure OT verses preached more often at church? I know long-time Christians who don’t even know the book of Numbers is in the Bible, much less heard pastors preach from passages like the above.
Can we really imagine an exegetical series on Numbers 1:1-54 over 6 months? Yet we can on Romans 1:1-32, which JP preached on for almost 6 months. I think that says something.)
That’s not to say red-letter Bibles are right, though. I have no idea.
I doubt red-letter supporters think the words of Jesus are more important than the death and resurrection of Jesus, even though one is red and the other isn’t.
And of course there’s the argument, “If Jesus wrote the Bible, shouldn’t it all be red?”
Abraham,
I think I’m with you on the OT/NT relationship – but that’s the relatively uncontroversial part… :(
Myrddin’s point about Romans is more concerning. In general protestants do seem to have overly focused on the (pauline) epistles. In contrast, Tony Campolo & Brian McLaren challenge this perceived hegemony in their advocacy of Red Letter Christianity.
I can’t see either position as being right: surely we must do our utmost to hold whatever tension there is between the epistles and the gospels in balance? As I understand it, the basic position of RLCs seems to be that they understand the life and teaching of Jesus better than the apostles that he called and sent – which is both arrogant and absurd. But it seems equally (or perhaps more) unsatisfactory to give Paul’s teaching more weight than that of Jesus – not least because Paul specifically condemns such an approach (1 Tim 6:3-4).
I think there’s a difference between -unintentionally- having a narrow view of the canon (for example, I’ll bet most Christians today have never read more than 250 verses of the OT because they find it boring) and intentionally using a highlighter or a pair of scissors to say, “well, -those- are the most important verses in the Bible”.
The -unintentional- canonization can be corrected — by reading more. The intentional canonization sort of sets people up to -not- read more.
IMO. No edicts of anathemization have been issued in this comment.
This is the best blog discussion I have seen in a while. But I have nothing. I’m flummoxed. Now I must make like a Berean and see…
“Can we really imagine an exegetical series on Numbers 1:1-54 over 6 months? Yet we can on Romans 1:1-32, which JP preached on for almost 6 months. I think that says something.)”
But does it say something about the Bible or about us?
Maybe we should code the words of God the Father as well — maybe in purple.
And since we are specifically told that the Holy Spirit spoke through the mouths of Isaiah and David (not to mention the other “holy men” through which he spoke), maybe those words should be in their own color. Orange?
And surely Peter and Paul and John deserve their own colors — perhaps more muted than the others, but strong enough that they would stand out.
Or maybe it would be better to color-code by genre. The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms could be called out in various shades of blue, let’s say. The gospels could be in green. And the epistles of Paul might be brown.
Did I leave anything out?
wow-great comments…
I think I have a hang-up with the word “hierarchy.” At least, it maybe needs to be defined a bit more before I can take a stronger stance. Hierarchy as in “these things are more important and relevant than these,” or as in “these things are more foundational to God’s glory, His nature, and our faith, and these things are more supportive in nature?” (or something like that…) I think I could support the latter statement (until someone pokes holes in it).
I remember coming across a Bible on a shelf in a Sunday school room when I was in Jr. high. I think -every- page had some sort of comment/marking/note/prayer written on it. Some books had no white space left (OT and NT). The markings where not particularly helpful or important, but what struck me was the idea that whoever had owned this Bible loved God’s word–ALL of it. And they poured over it. That was and still is convicting, and has stuck with me for a long time.
So, I say let’s study and have pastors preach on Numbers and pull everything we can out it, and do the same with Romans. I concede books like Romans will take longer–there’s simply more theology to unpack. “More” as is quantity, not as in possible importance of individual theological points.
As others have said – great question…kind of a hard one to nail down.
Josh S. –
I think it’s a mistake, on top of what I have already said, to forget that in any literature, some parts are summaries or critical moments — and these have by nature more “meat” than, for example, the first 4 verses of Luke.
So when it turns out that Rom 1:1-32 is a critical moment in Scripture, refering us back to dozens of pages of other scripture, we shouldn;t highlight them as “red letter” Scripture: we should see them as highlighting the scripture it refers to as critical and necessary for the broader point.
Paul-
Look no further than the “NIV Rainbow Study Bible”
It must be a good idea… :)
“…these have by nature more “meat” than, for example, the first 4 verses of Luke.”
This is what I just reject.
At least the word “by nature.”
That Romans 1:1 – 32 is described in the reformed / Lutheran / evangelical traditions as a more critical moment of scripture than, say, 1 John is an accident of the historical circumstance of the Reformation — not an absolutely valid hermeneutic.
The statement that Romans 1:1 – 32 is more important is the lens through which the statement is validated.
Why is that passage more important?
For no other reason that in our tradition what it said was at one time the banner around which we had to rally against the semi-Pelagianism and culture of works-righteousness in the Medieval Roman Catholic Church.
Luther himself took this so far as to say that he didn’t really consider the book of James to be inspired.
Objectively, Romans cannot be valued above the Psalms.
Subjectively, historically, or systematically it might be taken as more critical or fundamental to a certain doctrine, but to elevate this hermeneutically is very, very dangerous.
James and Paul stand side by side.
Peter and John are no less critical.
That four gospels emerged as necessary should tell US something.
The Pleasures of God has this interesting subtitle in Ch. 6, referencing Rom 3:23-26: “The Most Important Paragraph in the Bible.”
i agree with Geoff Youngs, i think, about the objective and subjective hierarchy.
i would say that we must be careful not to confuse “less crucial” with “unnecessary.” i think churches ought to preach and Christians ought to study Numbers and Leviticus and Obadiah.
but it seems obvious that there exists such a thing as… ‘content potency,’ let’s call it. in my devotions or a sermon i could get through two or three chapters of Leviticus because it’s not so much about the specific content. but a sermon or devotion would want to (or at least could) take Romans just verse or two at a time.
as for the subjective thing – i notice that since our minds cannot fully get around the incomprehensible character of God and the nature of his plan, everybody seems to have their favorite attribute(s) and metaphors and such through which they filter it all. as long as we remain balanced and share with one another our different perspectives, i don’t think it’s a bad thing. i’d say the same about personal Scripture favorites.
I’m completely terrified to wander into such a high browed discussion but…
If all scripture is God breathed and we coded the words of God in purple then wouldn’t ALL the words in the Bible be purple?
I feel like a little kid in a room full of spiritual giants so feel free to smack me down but doesn’t all of scripture point to Christ? Doesn’t it all reveal God and His love and His purpose for creation? Isn’t this discussion simply a discussion about what we each personally find most amazing or significant about God?
I used to be bored silly by the genealogies until I met a Messianic Jew who came to Christ simply by reading the first seventeen verses of Matthew.
Again – feel a bit foolish for wading into this.
The ESV, which most of you all probably read (as do I), and of which JP is the spearhead advocate, has some editions with red letters in it (mine does). Obviously, that team of editors (most of whom have doctorates and are very, very smart) must have had an idea of why they were doing it.
Aside, I’m with Steve on this one. I’m kind of befuddled as far as what it means for us.
Veronica,
You never have to feel foolish for wading into things you don’t know a lot about on this blog.
That’s pretty much all I do.
“Obviously, that team of editors (most of whom have doctorates and are very, very smart) must have had an idea of why they were doing it. ”
Well, that was almost certainly the decision of publishers not the authors or editors.
You are probably right, for the most part. But you don’t think they had a *little* something to do with it?
I really like red letter Bibles, not because the red words are inherently more true, but because it’s easy to find and see what Jesus said. I think of it like I do highlighting my Bible to more easily find certain passages/topics. When you’re sitting down to quiet time thinking, “Jesus, I want to know You more,” it’s nice to know you can flip open to some red letters and find out. (Obviously that’s not the only way you grow in the knowledge of Christ through the Word, but I just wanted to put in a good word for the red lettered Bibles. :) )
I completely agree with the concept of a subjective hierarchy, not because it’s necessarily ideal, but because it’s just the way our brains and hearts work. There is only so much that we can take in at a time and only so much that we can genuinely care about, and that will vary a lot from person to person. For instance, I love the book of Obadiah — not because “it’s the Bible, so it’s important,” but because I started out loving Malachi, and then Obadiah helped Malachi make a lot of sense (1:1-1:4 especially). Everyone will have a “hook”, be it Romans, Hebrews, John, etc., but because all of Scripture is God- breathed, we will find that it keeps running into itself and increasding our capacity to where we appreciate more and more of the Word. So one may start in Romans, but then get fascinated by Hebrews, but then get drawn to the story of Abraham, and then start studying the covenants, and so on. By the time I die, I hope that I will be able to open to any book of the Bible and see something that moves my heart in awe of the Lord.
I believe that it only makes sense for this subjective hierarchy to influence what we preach and teach. Although one could conceivably do a series on a geneaology (since there is valuable information there), such a sermon would not actually hit the hearts of 99% of the hearers. Whereas, if you start with preaching about Jesus, then teach about the promises He fulfills, then teach about the uniqeness of how He fulfills those promises, then you might actually have some people willing to listen to you and process the passage.
Because teaching the Word is just as much about engaging people’s hearts as it is about informing their minds, I think a “hierarchy” of apparent relevance is necessarily going to come into our studying and preaching. People have to know why they care about a passage before they can absorb it — and “you just have to care, it’s in the Bible” doesn’t generally sustain someone’s heart in the long haul.
A final thought before I quit blathering: A lot more scripture begins to look relevant when we are not only reading it to glean doctrinal concepts, but to also see what it might have to say about the emotions, attributes, and leadership of God — when we consciously think of it in terms of a Person, not only a set of ideas.
Wow, that looks a lot longer spelled out than I meant it to be. I apologize.
I think it depends on where you are now. The part of the Bible that I’m reading is most important to me.
you go Amanda!
@Tony regarding the Rainbow Study Bible…
Thanks for the link. Even though I was originally poking fun at that kind of idea, I bet it could be really useful for certain types of studies.
I think there might be something psychological, however, about reading a pre-coded Bible. The colors (or symbols) seem more authoritative when they are professionally printed than when they are hand marked.
Myrrdin –
You changed my example. I might actually agree with you that the first part of 1 John is a more critical moment in Scripture than Rom 1 — and that’s not a hermeneutical issue. You can’t change the example and expect me to say, ‘well, that means my example falls apart and then I have to change my mind.”
However, the hermeneutical issue is whether or not we can read whay was written the way the writer intended it to be read. And in that, we have to recognize the critical moments for what they are — which, I reiterate, is an underscoring of how critical some other part of Scripture is.
Paul-
I was poking fun as well. ;) After looking at my post again, I see that didn’t come out clearly.
It seems a bit like reading Cliff Notes instead of reading the novel.
…which I shamefully did in 8th grade for A Tale of Two Cities.
I’ve had this thought on many occasions. Aren’t all the words inspired by the Holy Spirit? I’m not a big red-letter fan either…
I wonder if some of the apostles considered pulling out a different colored ink when they came to the words of the Lord? The problem that I have with red-letter editions is that the words that were spoken have to be heard within the context of the action to be fully understood. My Bible also has quotation marks around the words spoken by Jesus, which has always made me a little leary….
One other thought: the word accidental is an interesting choice. If the Holy Spirit brings a particular passage to my attention, that is not an accident, it is an opportunity to ponder and meditate upon its meaning. I am not elevating that passage above any other, but I receive insight I might have otherwise missed.
Good question and great comments. We’re in the deep end of the pool with this one….
They may not have treated the words of the Lord differently – but early Christians did see his name and titles as being of significance. I understand that nomina sacra are used in a large number (possibly the majority?) of the earliest manuscripts that we have access to.
Kurios (greek for lord/master) would, for example, be written out in full when refering to a human master, but contracted to KS + a line over it when refering to Jesus.
I find red-letter bibles exceptionally helpful, because the red letters serve as a recognition of Jesus speaking when he is not referred to by name, especially in non-gospels.