We all know that in the letter to Timonthy, Paul writes that "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." (2Tim 3:16) A common question to this is, "what Scripture is Paul referring to?" It is easy to argue that, the Scripture Paul is referring to is that found in the Old Testament, because that is the only one that was available, in a compiled form. Also, that is what they called the Scripture--they did not call it Bible nor Old Testament. I don't know when Tanakh was employed, but TANAKH is only the acronym for [T]orah, [N]eviim, and [K]etuvim.
So, it is easy to conclude that what Paul is referring to here is to the Old Testament.
But where does that leave Paul's own writings? We know that Paul was gifted by the Holy Spirit; he spoke in tongues, he prophesied* (<--meaning unclear), etc. However, there is a huge difference between the writings of the Prophets (OT) and the Apostles (NT); in the OT we see the use of phrases such as, "The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem" (Isaiah); "Now the word of the LORD came to me saying" (Jeremiah); "the word of the LORD came expressly to Ezekiel the priest" (Ezekiel). On the other hand, in the NT we don't find these uses, except in a few places, for example Peter's vision, John's vision (Revelations), and Paul's own vision of Christ. But even in those uses, they are very much different from the uses found in the OT. Furthermore, the proportional difference between the two (NT and OT) is great.
Of course, not all Scripture in the OT has this present, such as Proverbs, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes. The structure of these is quite different from that of the Prophets, however. These are "inspirational", (category of Writings; ketuvim) that is why they were categorized differently, from that of the Prophets (neviim), because they are in a different style. And we also have the historical books, which also have a different writing style. But when it is in the strictly prophetic books, these phrases (the ones listed previously) are found with frequency.
In the NT we often find differences between the writers, though these may be minor differences in some occasions, there is one interesting account in the Acts of the Apostles. Acts 15 tells us of a dispute between the believers. On one side, we had those who were advocating a direct introduction to strict adherence of the Law, and we had those who opposed this. Then the dispute is taken to Jerusalem, where the greater body of the Church resided. After serious thinking, we have Peter making the decision, with the statement, "therefore it is my judgment."
Now, please, do not read anything I have not said, into this post. I am not saying that we should disregard Peter's statement, as being but a man's opinion. Nor am I saying that we should disregard the whole NT, because Paul's reference is to the OT. And much less am I saying that we can't rely on any of these writings to serve a purpose in understanding the history of the Church. But what I am asking is this. What do we consider to be "inspired by God"? Was Peter's 'reasoned judgment' inspired by God? And were the Pharisees, who had also received the filling of the Holy Spirit, were they not inspired by God?
Again, it seems like we need to find a definition of "inspiration", because if all the Scriptures, both OT and NT are inspired by God, then the word 'inspired' has a totally different meaning from what we have all come to believe.
So, it is easy to conclude that what Paul is referring to here is to the Old Testament.
But where does that leave Paul's own writings? We know that Paul was gifted by the Holy Spirit; he spoke in tongues, he prophesied* (<--meaning unclear), etc. However, there is a huge difference between the writings of the Prophets (OT) and the Apostles (NT); in the OT we see the use of phrases such as, "The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem" (Isaiah); "Now the word of the LORD came to me saying" (Jeremiah); "the word of the LORD came expressly to Ezekiel the priest" (Ezekiel). On the other hand, in the NT we don't find these uses, except in a few places, for example Peter's vision, John's vision (Revelations), and Paul's own vision of Christ. But even in those uses, they are very much different from the uses found in the OT. Furthermore, the proportional difference between the two (NT and OT) is great.
Of course, not all Scripture in the OT has this present, such as Proverbs, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes. The structure of these is quite different from that of the Prophets, however. These are "inspirational", (category of Writings; ketuvim) that is why they were categorized differently, from that of the Prophets (neviim), because they are in a different style. And we also have the historical books, which also have a different writing style. But when it is in the strictly prophetic books, these phrases (the ones listed previously) are found with frequency.
In the NT we often find differences between the writers, though these may be minor differences in some occasions, there is one interesting account in the Acts of the Apostles. Acts 15 tells us of a dispute between the believers. On one side, we had those who were advocating a direct introduction to strict adherence of the Law, and we had those who opposed this. Then the dispute is taken to Jerusalem, where the greater body of the Church resided. After serious thinking, we have Peter making the decision, with the statement, "therefore it is my judgment."
Now, please, do not read anything I have not said, into this post. I am not saying that we should disregard Peter's statement, as being but a man's opinion. Nor am I saying that we should disregard the whole NT, because Paul's reference is to the OT. And much less am I saying that we can't rely on any of these writings to serve a purpose in understanding the history of the Church. But what I am asking is this. What do we consider to be "inspired by God"? Was Peter's 'reasoned judgment' inspired by God? And were the Pharisees, who had also received the filling of the Holy Spirit, were they not inspired by God?
Again, it seems like we need to find a definition of "inspiration", because if all the Scriptures, both OT and NT are inspired by God, then the word 'inspired' has a totally different meaning from what we have all come to believe.
