Can We Believe St. Paul Was Divinely Inspired? (December 25, 2005)

Last installment from my son’s letter from college:

"The professor challenged the assumption that Paul's words could be thought of as divine...Now obviously, Paul's word is not absolute, as women don't wear cloth over their heads, but with what seems to us such faulty morality [regarding Paul's words on slavery], why are we to believe that Paul was, in fact, divinely inspired?"

I replied:

There must be an explanation for what turned Paul from a murderer of Christians into a man who spent the last 30 years of his life as a ruthlessly persecuted Christian himself. Maybe he was just a nut - and a very unlucky one at that to have had religious hallucinations that worked so vigorously to his disadvantage. I think it is more reasonable to believe that he was telling the truth, that the risen Christ had appeared to him on the road to Damascus and turned his life around and commissioned him to speak God's word to the Gentiles.

Ultimately it is a matter of faith whether one accepts that Paul (or any other biblical writer) was inspired by God. Can you know it for sure in the same way that you know that two and two are four? Can you prove it like Pythagorean theorem? No. You can simply read Paul's words claiming divine authority ("If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is
the Lord's command" - 1 Corinthians 14:37), and then either accept it or reject it. Maybe Paul was a mouthpiece of God, or maybe he was an ego-drunk, power hungry, manipulative gas bag. Choose.

Do you remember the scene in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader where the crew came to Ramandu's island and saw a magnificent feast laid out but were afraid to eat it? They thought the food and wine were the cause of a deep sleep that had settled (for years, apparently) over three figures seated at one end of the table. Ramandu's daughter appeared and told the hungry crew to eat. They explained their fears of enchantment, and she told them that the sleepers had never touched the food. When Edmund asked how they could know this for sure, she told them they could not. They could either eat the food or leave it alone. They could trust her and risk that she was deceiving them; they could distrust her and go hungry.

Noble Reepicheep broke the silence that followed by saying, "I will drink to the lady." He partook and suffered no ill effects and the rest joined in.

It is kind of like that with Scripture. The Bible itself says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good" (Psalm 34:8). To press the metaphor of feasting, I would likewise say that we must "eat" the Scriptures - but we must do so wisely. Though everything on the table is good, that does not mean we eat all of it the same way. (We eat teaspoonfuls of pudding, not teaspoonfuls of salt). Some examples might help explain
what I mean.

I take St. Paul's word as inspired and authoritative, but that does not mean that I have got a room ready for him in obedience to his command in Philemon 22: "And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me..." We all know that that was a temporary, specific command for Philemon and it does not apply directly to us. (Though indirectly we might draw from it a lesson about hospitality.) Likewise, I don't kiss anyone at Faith Bible Church - despite Paul's insistence that Romans and Corinthians "greet one another with a holy kiss." A handshake and a "Good morning!" are what get the job done today.

You mentioned the head coverings for women that Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 11. Here it gets interesting. In some Christian fellowships women still wear head coverings in submission to Paul's command. But I think I can safely argue that head coverings carry no more meaning for us than holy kisses do. A womanly hat meant something to the Corinthians but means nothing to us. So then should we simply ignore this admonition? I don't think so - we must re-interpret it in light of today's cultural practice. This is what we do with Jesus' command to wash one another's feet. I think it would be silly to obey that command literally (I'd rather wash my own feet, thank you), but hopefully we obey the principle of humble service that lies behind it.

I think it is reasonable and right to ask what principles lie behind the culturally specific mandates of Scripture. This does not deny the biblical writer's inspiration - rather it affirms that inspiration by seeking to submit to it in the most meaningful ways possible.