The point of bringing up those OT passages is that throughout the OT, & well into the NT, God continually instructs Israel, & then to Church not to “add” to His Word, not “take away” from it.
Very true. That leads us, I think, to a few important questions:
- How are we to understand the midrashim and Talmud in the context of Jewish authoritative teaching? The Jews, too, had non-Scriptural tradition which they considered binding.* What would be considered ‘adding to’ or ‘taking away’ from God’s Word? Is it merely a prohibition against altering Scriptural texts (a la Ehrman’s in Misquoting Jesus)? Or is it a prohibition against teaching things that aren’t explicitly in Scripture?* Does this notion of ‘adding to’ and ‘taking away’ touch upon the question of preaching in any way? That is, unless one preaches by merely quoting Scripture, can’t it be said that he ‘adds to’ and ‘takes away’ from the things taught there? Surely, since there are doctrinal differences by Christian denomination, we might look at one preacher and say “he’s preaching the Word” and another and say “he’s adding to the Word!”… and we wouldn’t be able to come to an agreement on these opinions!* Is there any opportunity – given the witness of Scripture – to demonstrate that some individuals have God’s express permission to speak a Word that’s not contained in Scripture?
It’s a complex question, to be sure. However, one question stands above all: although we can discuss the ‘adding to’ and ‘taking away’ question, it is a subtly different question than the one that SS raises: even if we don’t alter the Word of God, where’s it written that this Word is the only thing that we can teach?
And to extend of what we “know” about God is revealed in the pages in Scripture, because as the apostle later states “ALL Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:15-16), which - specifically - he’s referring to the OT Scripture.
Amen to that – all Scripture
is God-breathed! But, that doesn’t imply that
only Scripture is God-breathed, does it? Or is there a citation that you can give that explicitly makes this claim (since 2 Tim 3 doesn’t make that claim!)…?
if you read the whole of 1 Corinthians 4, it’s clear the “not beyond what’s written” that Paul is referring to is the letter Paul has written to them.
Hmm… I’m surprised to see you mention this! Usually, SS adherents make the claim that it’s simply an assertion about Scripture (OT and/or NT)!
IOW, there is no indication in Paul’s first epistle the the Corinthians, or anywhere else in the NT, that it’s “permitted” to ADD to God’s Word, any more than it was with Israel in the OT.
We could probably start a whole thread on just this verse! However, you’d have to make the case that Paul is talking about
Scripture here. Yes,
γέγραπται usually is used in contexts that have to do with Scripture; yet, it always serves to introduce a literal quotation from Scripture. That’s not what’s going on here – there is no Scripture quote that it’s pointing to. So, some exegetes and scholars have suggested that this is not a reference to ‘Scripture’, per se, but anything from a reference to an aphorism that would have been well-known in that day to a warning to stick to his teaching in 1 Cor 1-4. Nothing, though, that suggests that Paul is talking about Scripture; and, it takes just a bit of eisegesis, don’t you think, to interpret it that way?
In Revelation Ch.1, Jesus instructs John to write “what he’s seen” (John’s past), what he “is seeing” (John’s present), as well as what John “will see” (John’s vision of future events) - John’s past, present, & future.
Well, that’s one interpretation, and I think you’re extrapolating quite a bit to make this a statement about all of Salvation History. Given that John had already seen a vision – the seven lampstands, and Christ, and the seven stars – it’s more reasonable to suggest that this is what “he’s seen”. In fact, I think it’s rather difficult for you to pull off this interpretation: if John is commanded to write what he’s seen and (as you assert) what he’s seen is his past… then John fails in his commission. He doesn’t write about the OT or his past in the book of Revelation!
Moreover, we have direct correspondences – in the text! – to the commission John receives:
The commission: Rev 1:19 –
γράψον οὖν | ἃ εἶδες | καὶ ἃ εἰσὶν | καὶ ἃ μέλλει | γενέσθαι
Write, therefore | those (things that) you saw | and those (things that) are | and those (things that) are about | to happen.
What John saw: Rev 1:20 –
τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων | οὓς |
εἶδες … | καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ λυχνίας τὰς χρυσᾶς.
The seven stars | which |
you saw … | and the seven golden lampstands
What is: Rev 1:19 –
οἱ ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες | ἄγγελοι | τῶν ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησιῶν |
εἰσίν,
καὶ | αἱ λυχνίαι αἱ ἑπτὰ | ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαι |
εἰσίν.
The seven stars | [the] angels | of the seven churches |
are,
and | the seven lampstands | the seven churches |
are.
What soon will happen: Rev 4:1 –
δείξω | σοι | ἃ | δεῖ |
γενέσθαι | μετὰ | ταῦτα
I will show | to you | what | must |
happen | after | these [things].
I think I can make a much stronger case – using the words of Revelation itself – about what “John saw”, what “is”, and what “must happen”. And, all of these things are things that are within the Book of Revelation, and all of them are things that John wrote about there. None of these require us to believe that prohibition against adding or subtracting speaks to anything else but the words of the book of Revelation.
And… it looks like I’m out of space in this post. 6000 characters ain’t what it used to be…
