From: Defending
Biblical Inerrancy Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2016
Defending Biblical Inerrancy
by:
Roland H. Worth, Jr.
Copyright © 2016 by author
Reproduction of this book for non-profit
circulation
by any electronic
or print media means is hereby freely granted
at no cost—provided the text is not altered in any manner
and author credit
is given.
If accompanied by additional, supplemental
material
--in agreement or disagreement—
it must be
clearly and visibly distinguishable
from the original
text.
Contents
Chapter One: Objections from the Contents of Scripture
I. The Existence of Alleged Contradictions
II. The New Testament’s Method of Quoting
and Using the Old Testament
III. New Testament Texts that Allegedly
Repudiate Inspiration
IV. “Needless,” “Trivial,” and “Emotional”
Comments
V. Differences in Style, Native Ability,
and Eloquence
VI. Use of Pre-Existing Sources
VII. The New Testament Writers Did Not Consider
Their Writings as Scripture
Chapter Two:
Objections from the Preservation of Scripture
I. The Existence of Textual Variants
II. The Lack of the Original Autographs
III. “Missing” Epistles and Books
Chapter Three: Can We
Know the True Canon?
I. Old Testament Canon
A. The Age Equals Canonicity
Theory
B. The Hebrew Language Equals
Canonicity Theory
C. The Jamnia
Council Theory
D. The Ezra/Nehemiah
“Canonization” of the Mosaical Law?
E. The “Three Step” Theory
F. Inspiration:
The Essential Pre-Requisite for True Canonicity
G.
The Testimony of Jesus as the Criterion of Canonicity
II. New Testament Canon
A. To Be Canonical, a New
Testament Book Must Have Survived
B. The Book Must Be of First
Century Origin
C. The Writer Either Claimed
Inspiration, Inspiration Was Claimed for
Him, or He Was in a
Position to Secure Inspired Information
D. The Internal Contents Must be Consistent with the Doctrinal Stance
of
Those Who Unquestionably Had Credentials of Inspiration
E. Lacking Other Evidence—or as
Confirmatory Evidence to Reinforce
Other Indications—There is
the Testimony of Post-Biblical Writers
F. For Thought: A Minimalized,
“Worst Case” Scenario for a Shorter
New Testament
Addendum: Did Paul Create, In Effect, the First New
Testament Canon?
Chapter Four: Are
Jesus’ “Verifications” of Old Testament Inspiration, Authorship, and Events
Absolutely Reliable?
I. Kenosis Theory
II. Accommodation Theory
III. Infallible Only on Spiritual Matters?
Chapter Five: The
Practice and Ethics of Pseudonymous Literature
I. The First Century Situation
II. The “Acts of Paul and Thecla”
III. The “Gospel of Peter”
IV. Anonymous Literature that Became
Pseudonymous?
Chapter Six: Verbal
Arguments and the Ability of Language to Communicate
I. The Shotgun of Loaded Terminology
A. Bibliolatry
B. “Paper Pope”
II. Verbal Distinctions
A.
Christ is
the Word of God, not the Bible
B.
The
Scriptures are the “Record” of Revelation Rather than
the
Revelation Itself
C.
The
Scriptures “Become” the Word of God through Our
“Encounter” with It
D.
If All “Verbally Inspired,” All of Equal Value?
III. The “Inability” of Language of Fully
Communicate Truth
Bibliography
Introduction
Unbelievers and semibelievers—those who claim a “Christian” religious
orientation while essentially denying the Bible as supernatural revelation from
God—challenge the Old Testament narrative on a number of grounds. The three that are of importance in this
study are these:
(1) They deny the inspiration of the Old
Testament. The term may be used but only
in the limited sense of “inspiring” (to the reader) or the author’s tapping of
alleged inner depths of spirituality.
“Inspiration” as an external act by God with the human recipient as the
beneficiary is typically denied or “tap danced” around.
If conceding its presence at all, the
critic carefully denies that that “revelation” has been conveyed in a manner
that assures the human author’s preferences and desires have not altered the
precise contents that were originally given.
One might rightly say that whatever Divine element was placed in the
recipient’s mind struggled to reach the surface and what we have are Divine
fragments encased within the limitations and prejudices of the writer’s
intellect and attitudes.
An analogy with mining would be
useful: yes there is uranium inside that
ton of ore, but it typically runs way under 1% of the total weight! Similarly
the element of genuine objective Divine revelation would be viewed as modest
though certainly far higher than the particular example we gave--but we still
have to laboriously “dig” through it in order to find that genuine Divine
element. In short, the minimalist
approach has us mere mortals attempting to discover the precious Divine
fragments that are buried within the “mountain” of Scripture.
(2)
They deny the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. The rejection ranges from the “moderates” who
accept parts as historically accurate—in broad outline, if not in detail—to the
“annihilationists” who accept only the barest scraps
as reflecting the actual events. The
basic operative rule seems to be: unless
you can prove an assertion by some external additional source it is open to
question or outright repudiation. From
the Bible being the standard to judge the reliability of other sources, we are
now at the point where without those other sources,
the Bible itself must be dealt with extremely tentatively.
(3)
They deny that the writers whose names are attached to the Old Testament
books actually wrote all of them or insist that later unknown and unidentified
authors added their own material and passed all of it on as the work of the
original author. Isaiah becomes the work
of at least two individuals, possibly three—or, possibly, an unidentifiable
large number as a variety of fragments were pieced together by compilers, and
done so yet again in the future as more was added. And, of course, all passed off as by
Isaiah!
The Pentateuch, going on two centuries ago,
was dismissed as the sole work of Moses but presented as the work of at least
four different sources (J, E, D, and P) and multiple authors involved in all of
those four sources. Somewhere in that
pile of fragments their might well be some Mosaical
elements, if one is of a generous turn of mind.
In my Concise
Handbook on Biblical Inspiration: Almost
800 Internal Claims of Accuracy and Revelation, we documented at length
that such approaches are anathema to the Bible itself—totally inconsistent with
its repeated claims of inspiration, authority, and endorsement even by Jesus
Himself. In short, the Modernist and
Secularist scenarios attempt to drive a stake into the heart of the Bible,
reducing it to a piece of antique history, full of ignorance, prejudice, and
bigotry.
And I say “the Bible”
because the New Testament does not fare well in this approach either. Indeed, it was after establishing the
precedent of the propriety of the destructive approach to the Old Testament,
that it became fashionable to take the same approach to the New.
Here, too, inspiration
is reduced to an essentially irrelevant matter.
Historicity is often questionable.
And the authorships of various books must, of course, often have been by
somebody else—anybody else—than those they are traditionally attributed
to. We exaggerate. Mildly.
In the current volume
our intent is to survey the assumptions make by skeptical analysts of the Bible
and point out some of their weak points.
Thousands of pages could be—and have been—written concerning what we
will be covering. So in one sense our
treatment will be “superficial.” But we simultaneously
aim to provide a conceptual summary of a significant cross-section of commonly
encountered arguments used against the Biblical text so the reader can consider
them and how to counter them.
We will be dealing
with what have become the “established truths” in certain theological
centers. Let it be noted, however, that
in no way does this author attack the scholarly credentials or intelligence of
the semibelieving scholars whose conclusions we
reject. The author does, however,
challenge the validity of their conclusions and the process of reasoning—often
based on anti-miraculous assumptions—that produced their conclusions.
Throughout this
volume, the author embraces “verbal” or “word” inspiration, though I would be
the first to concede that neither probably does full justice to the subtle
interweaving of the Divine with the human in the canon of sacred literature. The terminology I’ve suggested is open to
misunderstanding and misrepresentation, yet these remain the plainest and
simplest terms for the average person to understand.
They place front and
center in our minds that the kind of inspiration being defended rises far above
the mere thought being inspired, but that it so penetrated the minds of
the Biblical writers so deeply that even the words they ultimately chose were
those the Holy Spirit concurred was best for them to use to convey the Divine message.
Of the several
outstanding modern translations widely available, the author has used the New
King James Version (1982) in this draft though I had utilized the New American
Standard Version in the original.
Note: This book was originally composed in the
1980s, mid-80s I believe. Selected new
resources were added in 2012 and the original discussion expanded where
elaboration seemed appropriate—from originally about 22,000 words to three
times that length. And far, far more
could be added, but I wished to contain this down to a size less likely to be
passed over due to its length. Here in
2016 I have simply reviewed and “polished” the previous work to be sure it was
ready to be “passed on” to the reader.
Most
of my work from the 1990s to 2012 was scholarly in nature and in format, but in
this volume I’m going to retain the more casual language and presentation found
in the original. I feel like a
relatively concise treatment would be most appropriate for most readers—at
least as an introduction to the subject, which this is aimed to be--while my
normal approach would have required a more formal and restrained
presentation. And about two million
footnotes. All appropriate in their
place, of course, but not here.
Picture yourself sitting
at my kitchen table with the two of us having a good chat over the matter. I’m not going to do much “playing scholarly,”
mainly the back and forth language associates or friends would use in arguing
the case for what they believe to be the truth.
So if I think an argument is rather outlandish, I’m probably going to
say it. If I think an argument is worth
thinking about, but still falls short, I’m likely to say that as well.
I have no objection with “playing
scholar”—it is an honorable and desirable role.
But sometimes calling a spade a spade and silliness silliness
is worth the time as well. This is
simply the everyday talk of individuals chatting over contested matters and
bluntly describing it—mocking it even, as is deemed appropriate in honest human
conversation.
Be a grownup. Be a man.
Be a woman. There is countless
bilge being poured out about the impropriety of hurting someone’s “feelings.”
But there is a profound difference between gutting like a fish bad arguments
and gutting an individual’s self-respect.
The simple fact is that in this harsh and cruel world where dissenters
can be stomped into the ground by powerful self-interest groups and government
repression, you had better learn the arguments.
Or learn how to keep your mouth firmly shut
except when chanting the latest government and media approved anti-religious,
anti-Christian distortion of the month.
For don’t forget: the heroes
today are those who scorn Bible faith and Bible morality; the moral giants are
those who quietly but firmly insist as Martin Luther did, if I remember his
words correctly, “Here I stand. I can do
nothing else.”
This nation was once
one that took pride in its Christianity.
It can be so again.
Roland
H. Worth, Jr.
Chapter One:
Objections from the Contents of Scripture
I. The Existence of Alleged Contradictions
The idea that genuine
contradiction and genuine inspiration are incompatible concepts is no new
doctrine. In the first century, the
Jewish historian Josephus wrote in his Against Apion (1.37-38),
“. . . Through the inspiration which
they owed to God, and committing to writing a clear account of the events of
their own time just as they occurred—it follows, I say that we do not possess
myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other.” (As quoted by
On this, Josephus’
reasoning cannot be faulted.
If a book was written
contemporary with the events—as he asserts those of the Jewish canon were—then
they represent a bundle of source documents from their respective eras. The concept, for example, that the Pentateuch
was “really” written hundreds of years later—indeed written, sometimes in
fragments, pieced together and then merged with later document streams similarly
pieced together—would have been utterly abhorrent to his doctrine of
scripture. To insist that J, E, D, and P
were all written with a pious imagination hundreds or more years later and
compiled in such a manner as we have described (and which is the dominant
scholarly hypothesis among semibelieving scholars)
would have been rejected as a hideous insult on the integrity of the writers of
the text, inspired or not.
Granting they were
contemporary (or, at worst, some one of the next generation compiling the
original author’s material together for circulation), then one could still
argue a “biased viewpoint” of the author.
Of course, one would not, for example, normally expect a priest to write
in the same style or with the same central themes as a member of the royal
court. However due to them “having been
there,” inherently, the odds were extremely high that they would get their
facts right, however unique the individual’s writer’s style and social position
might have been. In
other words, reliability even if not inspiration.
One result of the semibelieving stance in favor of later authorships is that
they get around their real objection to the miraculous element that is
recorded. This way they don’t even have
to talk about it, except perhaps in the vaguest terms, because the long time
between event and recording “obviously” makes the text subject to miraculous
acts being added by pious souls convinced that this is what “could” or “should”
have happened. Hence, they “must” have
regarded it as fair and reasonable to record these pious fictions as if real
world events.
In short if one
believes the miraculous both could and did happen, then one’s natural
“prejudice”—or presumption--is in favor of a close correspondence between event
and recording unless the text itself makes clear a distinction. If one is convinced it is all “legendary” and
“pious fiction” the prejudice is against the two being in the same time
frame.
Josephus argues not only that
the events and their composition were contemporaneous, but that they were also
inspired by God. He doesn’t provide some
theological definition; he’s content with the result: “we do not possess myriads of inconsistent
books, conflicting with each other.”
His reasoning cannot
be faulted if one accepts his premise. A
book that is conjured up from the depth of one’s own religious consciousness or
which is deliberately written in spite of near total ignorance of long past
events—that kind of work might easily contradict that written by someone else
with a dramatically different background and environment . . . whether the
second is trying to literally tell the truth or similarly spinning out his own
well-intentioned tall tale of religious fantasy. However, if both were recording only what God
wanted them to write, one would expect them to be factually and doctrinally
consistent, however differing in style and emphasis they might be.
On the other hand we
would still expect there to be some things that look like contradictions. This could be caused by such things as:
Superficial reading on our part, lack of
thought and careful analysis of the differing texts, the inability to
distinguish between paradox and contradiction, and even some limited textual
corruption (especially when numerals are written as letters, as in the Hebrew
language)—all of these we would expect to produce pseudo-contradictions. Which is exactly what
happens in regard to the Bible.
We should also recognize that just because
we can not reconcile the two texts does not rule out the
possibility/probability that someone else can.
No two individuals come to contested passages with the same identical
background in depth of knowledge or of how parallel situations have been
successfully dealt with. This is nothing
to be ashamed of since no one can know everything. But we can seek those who know more or have a
different background in Biblical subjects they have studied and tap their
resources as well. Not to mention the
various fine analyses that are in print or available
nowadays on line that can tap the wisdom of a vastly larger body of
individuals.
We should also remember that the Bible has
many dedicated enemies, a goodly number of whom are not about “straining at a
gnat” to manufacture a contradiction or embarrassment where there is none. The very day I was typing the original draft
of these words some 40 years ago, I happened to be reading a volume that
“proved” anti-Semitism in a certain Biblical text. Not because of what it said, oh nothing so
simple. It was because of its “subconscious”
and verbally unstated intent! One who feels
free to act that contemptuously of the actual text is obviously unlimited in
the “errors” that will be detected, never recognizing that they are far more
likely the result of his or her own twisted vision
than the passage itself.
Even those who avoid such self-disgracing
rhetoric are often so convinced that the Bible “can’t” be right that the
simplest difference in emphasis is rapidly ballooned into a major
contradiction. So be forewarned: Working against such individuals, you are
never going to convince them. Don’t feel
too bad about it. Those who accuse you
of narrow-mindedness and prejudice are often the last who want to base a
decision on the actual evidence rather than a predetermined outcome.
Remember that the vast bulk of the “contradictions”
that will be hurled at you today, were hurled at your grandfather, and his
grandfather and even his grandfather as well. With modest exceptions, the contradictions
are the same retinue paraded forth in 1950, 1900, and 1850. And typically the justified explanations
remain the same as well.
All of this would—and should—remove any
temptation to panic when faced with apparently discordant teachings. It’s a time for reflection and study
instead. Never be too proud to say,
“I’ll have to think about that for a while.”
And if the annoyer should be persistent, it never hurts to make the
challenge, “Have you ever taken time to read a book that takes the opposite
approach—that the Bible is fully consistent?
You know, these things should be a two way street, that we both pay
attention to the evidence.”
Bible contradictions
are invented by unbelievers and semibelievers—those
who may actually go to church regularly but don’t regard the Bible as authority
over their lives and convictions. It provides
the later with the aura of “Christian spirituality” without the Biblical
commitment that used to be irrevocably tied to it. They walk hand-in-hand with outright
unbelievers . . . typically using the same arguments and premises, but they
have not had the forthrightness to leave Faith fully behind as more consistent
critics have done.
The cynic in me can not avoid adding that
it also permits them to remain on seminary payrolls and collect a decent pay
while (mis)educating a new generation of ministers to
follow in their steps. If they sincerely
believe their propaganda—and the vast bulk genuinely do—one would think that
consistency would require them to leave behind anything smacking of such
pretense.
Perhaps the strongest incentive not to,
lies in their ability to substitute “social justice”—in whatever its latest
ideological formulation may be—and hitch it to broad Biblical principles while
ignoring any and all texts that repudiate the details of what they use the
slogan to justify. That way they use and
bend their religion into the human form they prefer just as the Biblical
writers supposedly did. They call it
piety while the rest of us view it with horror.
But, as they say, that is life. We can’t control it but we would be extremely
unwise not to recognize its reality.
These folk manufacture Bible contradictions
in many ways. Limitations of space
require us to only consider three of them as representative of the entire
super-critical mindframe.
1. Some “contradictions” occur because the passage
of time is overlooked or ignored.
At the time of creation God was extremely satisfied with everything that
He had made, including man: “Then God
saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening
and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis
Yet a mere five chapters later we read the
exact opposite being claimed: “Then the
Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually. And the Lord was sorry that
He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart” (Genesis
6:5-6). Hence the vow
of God to destroy all mankind by flood (verse 7).
Otherwise perceptive
individuals will sometimes overlook two key differences. First, that sin had not yet entered the world
in chapter one. That doesn’t come until
chapter three and with it the potential to morally devastate the creation.
Think of a typical French hamlet in c. 1300
A.D.: self-sufficient, reasonably
prosperous, and life going on routinely.
Then think of the Black Death (burbonic
plague) sweeping through c. 1350 and the description of that same community
would be horrendously different. Sin was
the spiritual burbonic plague that destroyed
mankind’s relationship with God, turning it from peace to alienation with
God. Hence God would inevitably view the
human species considerably differently!
Second, we should not
overlook the fact that a vast amount of time passed between Genesis 1 and
Genesis 6. Read through chapter 5 and
the various lifespans listed. Are we not looking at 1,600-plus years
between the two events? Would it be unexpected if God’s evaluation of mankind’s core
character shifted over such a long period of time, as mankind slid from utopia
into barbarity?
Does not our own
legitimate evaluation of people and events shift even in a matter of short
years? To those to whom Richard Nixon
was a hero in 1968 (and liberalism notwithstanding, quite a few did), their
opinion was slowly gutted under the scars of Watergate and less than eight
years later his reputation lay in shreds.
In 1942 the
Or perhaps one example
with a lengthier time frame: in 1814 the
British torched the District of Columbia and the White House and American
resentment went deep; less than 130 years later they were the valiant heroes
whose Spitfires were providing the narrow margin that kept western Europe from
completely being crushed by the Nazi onslaught.
Of course our
illustrations could go on and on, but these few will surely suffice to prove
the point that the passage of over a millennium and a half means that the
evaluation of mankind’s moral status could easily change for the worse. Indeed, the amazing thing might be that it
had not happened even sooner.
2. Some
“contradictions” occur because we reason in terms of exclusion (either/or)
rather than in terms of inclusion (this/plus that). Sometimes “difference” is equated with
“contradiction” rather than looking for how both statements may simultaneously
be true by representing different “angles” or “aspects” to the same
subject. The various texts, in other
words, may supplement each other and provide a fuller and more developed
picture than any of them by themselves.
Ignoring this original intent is a guaranteed method of producing
“Bible contradictions.”
For example, there are
many Bible texts that speak of salvation by faith. “For God so loved the world that He gave His
only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have
everlasting life.” Thus teaches John
On the other side is
James’ teaching of salvation by works,
James
2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does
not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and
destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace,
be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are
needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself,
if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But
someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I
will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God.
You do well. Even the demons believe --
and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O
foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
“Contradiction”
hoarsely cry the critics.
But is it
contradiction or supplementation? Does
not even the fervent advocate of salvation by faith repeatedly warn that faith
is not enough if you do not carry out God’s moral standards as well? Reread 1 Corinthians if you have not thought
of it from that standpoint. They had
faith—Paul never denies it—but they lacked the Christian lifestyle that is
supposed to go with it.
The same failure James is attacking. He could prove the reality of his faith by
how he acted—by his “works” (
Furthermore, both
“faith” and “works” need to be defined in light of their Biblical usage and not
in light of their theological misuse today.
The “works” praised by James are those authorized and
demanded by God rather than any ecclesiastical organization. But the Medieval and later usage of the term
“works” as synonymous with actions demanded by a religious body, has
twisted the usage of the term to the point where many have to make a conscious
effort to set the language back into its Biblical setting. In that setting faith and works are two sides
of the same coin—embracing God and the gospel as manifested both intellectually
and in behavior.
The rigid either/or
scenario has also produced many complaints about the compatibility of the
gospel accounts of Christ’s life. One
version will mention only one individual as participating in a dialogue or
healing. When a second account reveals
that there were additional individuals present as well, the skeptic protests,
“Contradiction!”
What is actually
happening is one account is being supplemented by another source. It is not a matter (say) of Matthew or Luke
being right, but of combining the facts of both in order to secure a fuller and
more complete picture.
We can find this
illustrated in the White House news room where correspondents from various
television networks and print media gather to question the White House
spokesman. If there is a major issue or
major event, you may well have questions from three or four or more
correspondents. On NBC you’ll likely
hear their interviewer asking a question.
On Fox you’ll hear a different correspondent pursuing the same
matter. And on CBS, you’ll have their
rep doing the same.
They will often omit
anything said by the others, making it their questioning that is front and
center to the viewer or to the one who reads their report in print form. By the critics’ standard of omission (which
equates to denial that anyone / anything else was involved), these folks are
engaging in a massive misrepresentation.
They only mention their questioner and no one else. Hence the others weren’t there, right?
Now
on television you can see at least some of those other reporters—though you
still can’t tell who (if anyone) asked questions on the same subject. And in a text form of their report which you
find online you have even less hint of the presence of anyone else. By the criteria of the critics, those
reporters are guilty of (flagrant?) misrepresentation by omitting the presence
and contribution of the others.
Yet none of us would be so silly as to make
that charge. We know it doesn’t have to
carry that conclusion. Why then do we
think we can justly make it against the Bible?
3. Some
“contradictions” occur because people overlook how words are used in real life. The classic example is found in the
conversion of Paul on the road to
This may, indeed,
constitute a “verbal” contradiction but it certainly does not constitute a real
one.
Is there any adult
among us who has not hollered for our children in the adjoining room to do
such-and-such (take the trash out, clean up some mess—you fill in the blank)
only to have the child insist they “didn’t hear” us? Sometimes they mean this literally; in most
cases, however, we find that what they claim to mean is, “I heard someone
speaking but I did not understand the words.
I had no idea of what was being said.”
(To avoid understanding the almost certainly unwanted intervention, they
decline to ask about it of course!)
They may or may not be
telling us the truth but all of us has eventually experienced, for real, that
embarrassing situation of “hearing” but “not hearing”—not understanding. Or even hearing it “wrong,” i.e., thinking
they said one thing when they really meant something else.
Yet this is the double
usage we routinely give the word “hear” in everyday conversation: (1) to recognize that something has been said
and (2) to recognize clearly and with comprehension what has been said. Why deny this privilege to the Bible writer?
In light of this dual
usage, the New American Standard was quite justified, though slightly
editorializing, in rendering Acts 22:9 as, “did not understand the voice of the
One who was speaking to me.” The International Standard Version renders it
slightly more idiomatically, “but didn't understand the voice of the one who
was speaking to me.”
Such are representative
of the faults in critical attacks on the consistency of the Biblical
records. If God be unalloyed truth, we
expect Him to reveal nothing out of character with that nature. We expect Him to teach with one voice, with
consistency. Hence we would naturally
expect to find in the record of that revelation no untruth,
no contradiction for truth is—by its very nature and essence—self-consistent.
However we hasten to
add that the complete lack of contradiction is the final step in our
reasoning. It logically comes after the
credibility of the Biblical narratives is accepted and after an acceptance of
the reliability of the Biblical claims about the nature of its revelation.
In dealing with
unbelievers, semibelievers, and the spiritually
immature this is the only way to proceed.
Only when the individual is convinced of the basic reliability of
the Scriptures is he or she going to be willing to consider their total
reliability. Then as the individual’s
faith matures and he comes to see the Bible proved right on particular after
particular, then and only then is he likely to feel comfortable with firmly
embracing the inerrant nature of the Biblical revelation as it came from its
original authors.
So long as the
individual can be convinced of the usual and normal accuracy of the Scriptures,
we have plenty to work with in leading that person to Christ.
In our judgement common sense requires this approach: Did we come to the spiritual knowledge at the
beginning of our discipleship that we (hopefully) gained by twenty years
later? Give folk growing room. Build on their faith like you build a
building. The growth is inevitable if
they are convinced the foundation is sound.
They begin with basic reliability and end with complete acceptance. Give them time to grow.
Furthermore prudence
requires it as well. There are a
multitude of things that can be made to look like contradictions. If we hinge our entire case on the total lack
of contradiction in the Bible, all he or she needs to discover is one of these. Then he can use it to reject the redemptive
message of the Savior or to bog us down in an endless discussion of questions
that are not really central to the life and death situation he himself faces: his relationship to the Lord.
We must be careful not
to let skilled opponents paint us into a corner on this point: It is easy for them to accuse us of teaching
that if the Bible is wrong in one point it must be wrong in everything it
says. They are guilty of
oversimplification, to put it mildly. As
Edward J. Young has written:
The
Bible believer does not maintain that if there is one error in Scripture, then
all of Scripture must be erroneous. What
he maintains is that if there is one error in Scripture, he cannot be sure that
there are not more. If the Bible has
once proved itself to be false, is there any guarantee that it will not err
more than once? (2-104f)
On the other hand, if
the Bible establishes a track record of being right time and again, then the
inherent odds are that on other contested issues, it is at least just as
likely to be right as in the other cases.
Having failed in past cases to establish “error,” there is no particular
reason to anticipate it in the next passage to gain their attention.
The Bible critic desperately needs a
situation in which the Bible can be proved wrong time and again. Then and only then can he proceed on the
reasonable assumption that any contested text must be in error as well. But he still must deal with each questioned
passage on its own merits, just as we must.
We can neither manufacture consistency—or inconsistency—out of
nothing. The actual evidence must remain
supreme.
And if there isn’t enough evidence to make
a definitive judgment of condemnation? Well, in the American judicial
system, the judgment—wisely established for centuries—must be “not guilty.”
II. The New Testament’s Method
of
Quoting and Using the Old Testament
A.
Paul’s use of the Septuagint (LXX) shows he regarded it as inspired,
which it obviously was not?
Certain Jewish legends
attributed the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament to Divine
revelation. In one form of the story,
the translators worked separately and when they compared their work they discovered
that each of them had produced exactly the same renderings. That all seventy concurred in the accuracy of
the work of the other translators on their own sections seems a far more
likely situation to have occurred than that they all translated the entire
text identically. One can easily see how
puffery of a far later generation transformed this concurrence in the
reliability of what they had produced into a claim for its
inspiration—something far more extensive and different.
This pious myth, however, is hung around
the neck of the apostle by asserting that his use of the LXX shows that he
considered it miraculously inspired. And
since the story is obviously mythical, Paul can’t be taken seriously as to any
inspiration claims of his own that he might make.
As one studies the quotations one
encounters, renderings that appear clearly taken from the Septuagint
unquestionably occur. One also finds
translations that appear to have been made directly from the Hebrew, either by
the apostle Paul or someone else. The
LXX was the overwhelmingly dominant translation of the day, but, historically,
not the only one only one available, and in some cases it is suspected that he
utilized such an alternative source in whole or in part in some renderings. In other words there is a distinct lack of
the uniform pattern that this argument requires.
There is an old adage that battle plans
never survive first contact with the enemy.
In this case, a traditional unbeliever old argument can’t survive first
contact with the barest outline of reality.
One could reword their approach and argue
that Paul’s use of the Septuagint was his dominant one and that reflects a
“high view” of its inspiration—though that is “walking back” the initial
argument quite a ways! However is it a
“high view” of the translation’s reliability or of its inspiration?
For one thing, Paul’s normal use of the LXX
no more proves that he (erroneously) believed it inspired than did the popular
use of the King James Version in the 1950s prove that they regarded it as
miraculously inspired. Yes, there were
some who came perilously close to the belief.
Just as when the Constitution is discussed there are some whose belief
in “Divine guidance” of its authors perilously skirt the same thin age.
Yet most recognized then as well as today,
that “inspiration” terminology is used in such places in far looser fashion
than one uses it in regard to the original Biblical text.
Furthermore, there is a world of difference
between being so widely used—and for such a long time—and so basically reliable
as to be the preferred text of the age for quoting and evidence--and the very
distinct belief that God worked concept and word shaping power on the written
formulations that are being used.
Quotation proves inspiration attributed to
the original document, but only reliability as to its
translation. If Paul considers the
author a prophet or uses terminology like “God said” one would be well
justified in making the inspiration conclusion of the original text. Even the broad expression “scripture says” makes
that a responsible deduction since scripture writers are repeatedly quoted as
presenting that which “God” said or as producing authoritative teaching. But as to the translation he invokes,
that argues the lesser (but not insignificant fact) that he regarded it as
reliable.
But by mere quotation alone, as definitive
proof of inspiration of the translation? Not at all. Paul himself once wrote, "For in Him we
live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said,
‘For we are also His offspring’ ” (Acts 17:29).
Did he regard those poets as inspired?
(Note that he says “poets” not “prophets.”) No, but he does embrace their accuracy on
this point.
So because Paul quotes something favorably
does not automatically prove its inspiration.
It does, however, establish that he counted it as reliable. Hence when that involves embracing the events
surrounding the crossing of the Exodus, for example (1 Corinthians 10), he
endorses the history as valid, credible, and accurate. Not as strong an attestation as directly
citing it as inspired, but it should be sufficient to any one to make them
hesitant to dismiss that history as mere mythology.
Paul
saw the substance of real history—real tragedy as well as triumph, truth be
told. Shouldn’t we be willing to do the
same? But sadly those who reject these
Old Testament events as genuine history, usually
reject Paul as reliable as well. In
their theology precious little of anything is reliable except whatever provides
an excuse for disbelief.
Sad folk, aren’t they? Where nothing can establish as “truth” what
they have “scholarly” or prejudicially determined can’t be.
B.
The New Testament writers could not have considered the Old Testament
verbally inspired since they felt at liberty to quote it in a very “free” and
inexact sense?
I believe the Bible to
be verbally inspired—substitute some conceptual equivalent if you wish, we are
talking about the underlying concept not mere semantics—but when I stood in the
pulpit over several decades before my heart condition took center stage, I
would quote some verses, paraphrase others, and (occasionally) even alter the
tenses so that the quotation would match the rest of my sentence. Such techniques arise quite naturally from
using a pre-existing text that the audience is acquainted with in order to
convey the desired message.
It in no way reflects
upon one’s conviction as to the true nature of Biblical inspiration or compromise the speaker’s convictions on the matter. It is produced, virtually inevitably as a
matter of course, through the use of the Biblical text as our sermonic
tool.
The same situation
existed in both the apostolic and Christ’s personal use of the Old
Testament: they were using the
Scriptures to get the truth across in the most effective way possible. Making the desired point was far more
important than verbal precision in the quote.
Just as we advocate a strong definition of Biblical inspiration yet feel
no need to avoid using the scriptures in this “free” fashion, the apostles did
the same thing while upholding a stringent doctrine of inspiration:
1
Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the
Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given
to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which
man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual
things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man
does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to
him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Yet the same man who
wrote these words is a prime “culprit” in quoting texts less than
precisely. If he saw no inconsistency
between his belief and his practice, why should we?
Oh, yes he was--some band of theologians have objected. Perhaps they are wiser and more spiritually
insightful than the apostle Paul? The
way they repudiate his reasoning and reject his doctrines it would seem that,
in a very real way, they do so regard themselves, though (I suspect) would be
hesitant to confess such arrogance publicly.
But if you judge by their works and words—well, we see what
happens!
Oh, and notice why
Paul says that this written revelation can’t be understood properly: “they are spiritually discerned” (verse
15). A popular expression a few decades
ago is surely appropriate here: “they
are on a different wavelength.” The
critics are simply not thinking with the same presuppositions and assumptions
that Paul did—indeed are fundamentally hostile to them even when transferred
into a more modern idiom--and therefore can have little sympathy with the
conclusions he arrives at. They come
from a different world not only chronologically but also spiritually.
But we have drifted a
little. Let’s see, we were considering
“proper” quotation. The rules of
“correction” quotation that we utilize today did not exist in the first
century. This doesn’t make us better
than them or them better than us: It
does make them different. And
since the principles of quotation they went by permitted free adaptation, where
appropriate to the subject, their going by their own standards does nothing to
undermine the reality of the Divine superintendence of the contents of
scripture. (Or are we to arrogantly
contend that God had to have done it by our standards?)
As to their more
generous criteria of usage, some have preferred the term “citation” to the more
explicit word “quotation” in describing Paul’s use of the Torah and prophets:
Quotation
immediately gives one the picture of our present linguistic conventions of
quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, and footnotes. None of this was a part of the Hebrew and
Greek of Biblical times. When we quote,
we quote with verbal exactness, or we note that we have deviated from this
through one of the aforementioned conventions.
(3-10.29)
Hence the New
Testament may well “cite” an Old Testament in substance without any intention
of being a verbal quotation, as we today would understand the term. But it was a quotation within their
intellectual framework. And we,
typically, recognize its original source easily enough.
C.
The New Testament writers misuse Old Testament
quotations to prove their point, thereby showing they could not have been
supernaturally guided in their interpretation?
It is highly tempting
to indignantly reply that at least these “erroneous” users of the Old Testament
could heal leprosy, make the blind see, and raise the dead while their modern
day critics can (far too often) only be barely understood by a
non-theologian! I remember a religious
liberal almost growlingly sharing with his class in the history of theology—it
was supposed to be a class on modern theology, but that explanation would take
us too far afield—and how he was annoyed at
theologians who write books that just can’t be understood. “I finally figured out,” he shared with us,
“that if I’ve read a book three times and it still doesn’t make sense, it’s the
author’s fault and not mine!” Too many
theologians, alas, are written for the intellectual “elite” and no one else.
Hence their obscurity
is often an indication of their own sense of having no obligation to write with
comprehensibility—even for the well-educated.
Our problem with Paul is typically the opposite: We understand too well what he says, but we
don’t like what he says! But those
miracles he and others worked give him an inherent credibility that semibelieving scholars can never have.
But, of course, to these
contemporaries of ours, the miracles are fables, myths, exaggerations,
misunderstandings, duplications of Old Testament ones—which, of course, didn’t
really happen at all either. Or so they
tell us.
But, if they did occur
as narrated (or anything close to it), what right do we have to challenge their
interpretation of scripture as inappropriate, improper, or out of place? Different from how they—or even many
conservative writers—might interpret them today, but quite proper none the
less. They had raw power to back up
their interpretation; we have mere speculation.
Which should win in such a contest?
So we see why they
have to deny the miracles, too. Leave
anything substantial intact and the credibility of their semibelieving
theology collapses into ruins.
But let us lay all
those legitimate concerns aside. For there are passages where few if any of us would think to use
them in the same way unless modern miracles were still being worked to give us
accuracy in approach and usage.
Yet the New Testament writers did so.
(Though with miracle working capacity to back up their
credibility, as already noted.)
However a difference
in exegetical approach neither indicts their theology nor proves them wrong in
how they conducted exegesis. Different
than us—quite often that may well be true.
But wrong? That’s a totally
different matter entirely.
Furthermore the
assumption of extreme semibelieving theology is
typically that genuine advance prediction of events is inherently impossible in
the first place. The apostles believed
it was. Is it any surprise that semibelieving scholars find it impossible to find credible
use of the Old Testament as prophecy when they inherently reject the
impossibility of its presence in the first place? And they have the audacity to contend that it
is they who are being scholarly while it was the apostles who were carried
forth by their ignorant conviction that the Torah and prophets were intended as
forming precedents for New Testament age events!
In short, there is
just as much “bias” in much of modern interpretation as well. Both find what they expect is there—precedent
(either a verbal match or directly predictive) in the apostles or idle text abusing.
D.
The New Testament writers misattribute Old Testament prophecies?
At last we have
something more substantial and more relevant.
The most appealed to proof of misattribution is found in Matthew
27:5-10:
5
Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went
and hanged himself. 6 But the chief
priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them
into the treasury, because they are the price of blood." 7 And they
consulted together and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers
in. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this
day. 9 Then was fulfilled what was
spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces
of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel
priced, 10 and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."
It is rightly
asked: Isn’t this quotation really from
Zechariah rather than Jeremiah? Indeed,
in Zechariah 11 we do read something very like this:
12
Then I said to them, "If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not,
refrain." So they weighed out for
my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the Lord said to me, "Throw
it to the potter"--that princely price they set on me. So I took the
thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter.
14 Then I cut in two my other staff, Bonds, that I might break the
brotherhood between
The problem with
saying that Zechariah is being quoted is that the purported source (though
close) doesn’t match on a key point what is found in Matthew 27: Zechariah records the throwing of 30 skekels of silver, but makes no mention of it being used
for any purpose in particular, much less the purchase of a piece of property .
. . nor that it was done at the Lord’s direction. Ironically, Jeremiah does record the purchase
of a piece of property at the Lord’s direction, both the land purchase and the
Lord’s direction being major points in similarity with Matthew 27.
Although long for here it is worth quoting Jeremiah’s
words in more detail, due to its parallels with the Matthew citation:
Jeremiah
32:6 And Jeremiah said, "The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 7
'Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum
your uncle will come to you, saying, "Buy my
field which is in Anathoth, for the right of redemption
is yours to buy it." ' 8 Then Hanamel my
uncle's son came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the
Lord, and said to me, 'Please buy my field that is in Anathoth,
which is in the country of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance is yours, and
the redemption yours; buy it for yourself.' Then I knew that this was the word of the
Lord.
9
"So I bought the field from Hanamel, the son of
my uncle who was in Anathoth, and weighed out to him
the money--seventeen shekels of silver. 10 And I signed the deed and
sealed it, took witnesses, and weighed the money on the scales.
11"So I took the purchase deed, both that which was sealed according
to the law and custom, and that which was open; 12 and I gave the purchase deed
to Baruch the son of Neriah, son of Mahseiah, in the presence of Hanamel
my uncle's [son,] and in the presence of the witnesses who signed the purchase
deed, before all the Jews who sat in the court of the prison. 13 Then I charged Baruch before them, saying,
14 'Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: "Take these
deeds, both this purchase deed which is sealed and this deed which is open, and
put them in an earthen vessel, that they may last many days."
15 For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of
Note that the action
of buying the land was a symbolic prophecy—a prediction of the future embodied
in one’s conduct. The very act of buying
land in a nation destined to be conquered is a prediction that one day it will
be freed and yours again.
So we have in Jeremiah
(1) the purchase of land by (2) a Divine commission in (3) an act intended at
the time as prophetic. All this argues
that Matthew had this passage in mind.
On the other hand, this passage from
Jeremiah is not fully adequate to explain the Matthew attribution because the
wording is so different and because only seventeen shekels of silver were
involved (Jeremiah 32:9) and not the thirty referred to by Zechariah. The potter element is also lacking.
The fact that it is
(1) thirty shekels that are mentioned in Zechariah and (2) a potter and—and
those elements are clearly cited by Matthew—not to mention (3) that the
language itself sounds far more like a quote from Zechariah, strongly argues
that Zechariah must be under consideration.
But Zechariah lacks the elements Matthew includes that are found in
Jeremiah!
In short, neither
passage by itself is fully adequate to explain Matthew’s reference. On the other hand, the two together are more
than adequate. The Biblical writer, for
reasons of his own, has combined the two passages into one single reference.
Since Jeremiah was by
far the more prominent of the two prophets, if only one was cited wouldn’t we
expect it to be him? Hence the
misattribution accusation seems profoundly overstated and functioning in a
context not respectful of how the authors themselves reasoned.
Would we do the same? Extremely unlikely. But to be valid citation or quotation does it
have to match our methodology of doing such things? Aren’t we supposed to judge documents and
cultures within their own context and be extremely cautious of arrogantly
assuming they can’t be right because we’ve chosen to do things
differently? Oddly, those who are
normally the loudest in affirming such things today,
rarely seem to grasp that it undermines their ruling out of hand the Biblical
methodology!
We might still come to
the conclusion they were inadequate or even outright wrong. But just because it was dramatically
different means the critic must first present a compelling case why the ancient
approach should be ruled out of order.
If you feel justified in falling back upon “modern research proves” (as
if research motivated by the same anti-reliability assumptions of yours
must be right and that of those who are far more conservative than you can
safely be ruled out of court because of their assumptions) then you
haven’t advanced your case one iota.
Aside on the nature of
prophecy: Note that “prophecy” is used
of a past, accomplished historical event.
Indeed, it is the “good guy” Zechariah that does the casting in that passage
(and Jeremiah in his) and not the “bad guy”--in the New Testament of course it being
Judas. Hence we find here that prophecy
had been used of a prefiguring of or a paralleling with what later
occurred—something in which there is an obvious major similarity between what
had happened and what is happening in the New Testament.
There is no way the
original readers did not know this—it lies right on the surface of the
texts. Hence we have here a useful
insight when studying other usages of Old Testament prophecy. They may be directly prophetic of events not
already occurring, but (depending upon context) they may also be on this kind
of nature where the imagery and language is so perfect that it “fits” well with
the more recent event. Their unstated
argument seems to be that the original prophet used the language both so it
would fit the immediate occasion but also because God also wished the language to fit something far in the future
though not involved in the immediate discussion.
III. New Testament Texts that
Allegedly Repudiate
Inspiration
A.
Paul’s contrast of the letter and the spirit
Paul’s use of this distinction has been
cited as proof that he did not believe in inspiration that assured the words
utilized were fully compatible with what God wanted spoken. The language, we are assured, shows that Paul
adhered to a much vaguer and more ambiguous concept of the “thought” being
revealed by the Spirit but not the substance.
Is this because God is incapable of doing
better? (In that case, the old book
title “Your God Is Too Small” would seem to fit the
doctrine.) But if He is capable of doing
more, why not do so? If he doesn’t,
isn’t that showing a bizarre unconcern that His creation should be shown clear
cut distinctions between right and wrong rather than left in a fuzzy cloud of
vagueness caused by the nature of the way He has chosen to communicate?
Laying aside such obvious obstacles, let us
examine 2 Corinthians 3:6, which is one of the texts that uses the expression,
“Who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the
letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives
life.”
What does this have to do with inspiration
or the nature of inspiration? Paul tells
us that he is talking about the “new covenant” and how being a servant of it
produces life while yielding to the “letter” of the Law given at Sinai (verse
7) produces death. The point is not
inspiration but the superiority of the new religious system (“new covenant”) to
that which was given at Sinai and during the Exodus.
Romans 2:29 also makes the same contrast,
“But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in
the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” Again the contrast is not between two methods
of revelation but of two religious systems.
The “circumcision” found under the New Law
is one “of the heart” while the circumcision that all males had to undergo
under the Mosaical system was simply of the
flesh. If they had that, they were part
of
In making the “letter versus spirit”
contrast the opponent of “verbal” inspiration is using a Biblical phrase in a
most unbiblical manner and in blatant contradiction to its contextual meaning.
B.
Paul’s “forgetfulness”
1 Corinthians
The Bible, however,
claims to be a complete revelation in a specified area: “all things that pertain to life and
godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). It does not
claim to be a complete revelation of history.
It does not claim to be a complete revelation of science. It does not claim to be a complete revelation
of everything that happened to all preachers of the gospel—not even of all that
happened to any individual minister, such as the apostle Paul.
If the Bible had made
such a commitment to full recall of such events, then Paul’s lack of memory
might well be a valid concern.
Furthermore, inerrancy
and infallibility involve only what is stated or represented as fact; it does
not envolve that about which no positive claim is
made by the given writer. For Paul to
have erroneously claimed a given figure as the number of his converts would
constitute an effective criticism. But
for him to simply say that he did not remember—on a subject that has no direct
bearing on “life and godliness”—that in no way affects the doctrine. Total recall and inerrancy are not synonymous
terms.
C.
Treasure in “earthen vessels”
In 2 Corinthians 4:7,
the apostle refers to the fact that “we have this treasure in earthen
vessels.” This is used to prove that the
human element is so pronounced in revelation that there is no reasonable way
that we can consider the gospel to have had its very words shaped and approved
by God before they were spoken. To make
a reverse analogy: Just as passing
through a filter purifies water, passing through the human speaker introduces
an “impure” element.
If this line of
reasoning is correct, how can any of us know how great was the damage inflicted
upon the revelation? We could deny not
only “verbal” inspiration but even insist that the “humanizing” element was so
great that even the “thought” itself had been twisted beyond recognition. If God has so much difficulty breaching the
human-Divine gap with words, why would we expect much greater success with mere
thoughts, which, by their nature, are typically disorganized, rambling, and
often do not make a coherent—or even consistent—unity? At heart, isn’t this really an argument about
the inherent inability of communication between the Divine and the human?
Another objection
comes from a consideration of the vastness of God’s power: If God could create humankind, wasn’t He wise
and capable enough to neutralize any weakening of His message as it passed through
the minds of His apostles and prophets?
If God is powerful enough to create intelligent life from inanimate
earth, is He not able to pass along a coherent and understandable message as
well? Is He not powerful enough to pass
His revelation in such a way that it reflects both the peculiar human
characteristics of the specific individual and the exact message as well? The question is not whether mortals are
limited, but whether God is as well.
The God we worship
isn’t crippled in communication ability.
If the God you worship is so incapable of adequate communication,
perhaps you should revisit the God of
It should also be
noted that the use of this passage is “proof texting”
of the most abhorrent kind: presenting
as “proof” a passage that does not even discuss the doctrine under
consideration! Yes, religious liberals
are just as capable of it as the fundamentalist. Yet we’ve seen this already, so perhaps we
should not be all that surprised.
Annoyed, yes; surprised, no.
The irrelevancy of
this passage to the current controversy can clearly be seen by examining its
context in 2 Corinthians 4:
5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord,
and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6 For it is the God who
commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give
the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the
excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. 8 We are hard
pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; 9
persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed-- 10 always
carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus
also may be manifested in our body.
Inspiration is not the
subject here; it is not introduced at all.
Rather the thrust of the passage concerns God using such weak creatures
as we are to proclaim His redemptive message to mankind. By using such “weak,” “earthly” vessels,
God’s power in the gospel was that much more abundantly vindicated—for by human
strength alone the gospel could neither have been composed, popularized, nor
triumphed over its multitude of powerful enemies.
D.
The ability of the apostles to err
Some have confidently
considered the ability of the apostles to err as clear-cut evidence that they
could have erred in their teaching canonized in the Bible. The success of this line of reasoning hinges
upon keeping the rhetoric vague: For
what do we mean by saying that the apostles could “err”? Err--in what way?
The only example we
have of an apostle in clear-cut error after the ascension of Christ can be
found in an incident from the apostle Peter’s
life. Under pressure from what we might
justly call the most “traditionally Jewish” elements in the church—and, yes,
the church had pressure groups and factions even then—he hypocritically reversed
his past conduct in
There is nothing in
the record, however, to indicate that Peter erred in what he taught as truth;
his error was one of example, of hypocritical inconsistency.
An error in conduct
shows his humanity; it in no way proves that he got his doctrine wrong or even,
when under the inspiration given by the Spirit, could err in his teaching.
There are two things
concerning the incident that deserve special comment:
Galatians
2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because
he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat
with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself,
fearing those who were of the circumcision.
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that
even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not
straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all,
"If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews,
why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?”
First note that when
an apostle was in the wrong and contradicting his own past behavior, he was fair game to be
publicly rebuked. (Though, yes, few
would have had the guts to do it as openly or as bluntly as the apostle
Paul. Would you?) But his behavior did not become precedent for
altering his doctrine; the doctrine remained authoritative and not the actions
inconsistent with it.
I suppose one could
argue that our text doesn’t explicitly say he had been teaching that social
equality with Gentile believers was acceptable.
But if he wasn’t, why was he practicing it in the first place? And how could Paul have hoped to make a
successful hypocrisy accusation in its lack?
Sorry, it just doesn’t work.
Second, note that
Peter nowhere suggests—nor Paul—that there was the slightest idea that Peter
considered himself as being guided by the Holy Spirit in his
inconsistency. Peter had not been told
by the Spirit to act the hypocrite. He
had no grounds to even pretend it. (If
he had then he would have had to answer the impossible question: “how then do we know which of these
contradictory teachings really came from the Spirit?”)
If we may be permitted
to offer a text that strongly argues that such a scenario would have been
impossible for him to embrace: “For God
is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the
saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Do you
really believe Peter could have denied the principle or been so malicious
egotistical and self-centered to deny its validity to protect himself?
So, yes, Peter and the
other apostles could “err” but let’s not import that into their teaching
without directly relevant evidence to try to prove it. The fact they could “err” is simply too broad
to make the desired point.
(In all fairness to
the unbeliever position: And how did
Peter react if challenged by the locals as to whether these individuals should
be shunned . . . what teaching did he give . . . which could have been
taken implicitly as inspired?
First, we don’t know that he was challenged. Secondly, precedent in Jewish society made
his action the logical de fault position and unlikely to be challenged in the
first place . . . any inconsistency in his behavior being dismissed as a
temporary and perhaps needed aberration from the proper norm.
(And if some local had done so,
unless we are going to assume that he did not remember the lesson about lying that
he had learned when denying the Lord . . . then you probably had him shift the
topic to “this is what Jews have always done traditionally” or engage in some
other discrete “tap dancing” around his inconsistency. Openly repudiate his own words is utterly
improbable.)
E.
First Corinthians, Chapter Seven
At last we get to some
texts that have a real relevance. At
least they sound right—like they might or could have a
relevance. No disrespect intended
(honestly) but these are like the “Fool’s Gold” that deceived so many in the
(1) First Corinthians 7:6
Older writers
sometimes quote the King James Version of 1 Corinthians 7:6: “But I speak this by permission, and not of
commandment.” Hence the argument: Paul was given a commandment what to say
here. It can’t come from God. He was by his own admission speaking without
revelation and the guidance of the Spirit.
Or so it was said, in substance.
Even granting this was
true, then it is concrete proof that when Paul was
speaking without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he was honest and candid
enough to point it out directly to the reader!
Would not the flip side of this have to be: when he did not make such cautions he
intended to be taken as speaking with the overseeing guidance of the Divine
Spirit? I mean, you can’t have it both
ways in a genuine dispute. If the
initial assumption was right, then both of these statements are true.
And since those texts are
so limited in number in which there is even speculative evidence for his
denying the guidance of God, then one is forced march backwards to the
admission that the vast bulk of his teaching was intended to be read as
originating with God’s approval, endorsement, and authority.
Arguments that hurt
one’s position far more than help, really aren’t so good are they?
But let’s return to
our text for we have been exceedingly generous.
(If a man wants more rope to hang himself
should we be so cruel as not to give it to him?) Our KJV text reads, “But I speak this by
permission, and not of commandment.”
Now the critic has an
even greater problem. “I speak this by
permission.” Although he hadn’t been given
a “commandment” whereby he had to say it, he had been given
“permission,” approval, endorsement to say it.
Perhaps the Spirit was yielding to Paul’s desire to say it specifically
at this particular hour rather than wait until a different occasion. Whatever the case may be, he still had Divine
endorsement in saying it!
Those utilizing newer
translations will note that this whole particular sub-controversy never
actually had a root in the text in the first place. The New American Standard Bible renders it,
“But this I say by way of concession, not of command.” This plainly shows that Paul’s real subject
matter is the permissive nature of his teaching in verses 1-5: He was allowing rather than demanding. God demands a specific action in some cases;
in cases like this, both approaches were inherently moral and acceptable. No one had the obligation to bind either.
The question of
whether God told him to speak these words is not even under consideration—just
whether one had to go by it. We have
here an important point for Biblical interpretation, however: God demands what He regards as essential but
he gives us liberty of choice in everything else. When God specifies we yield; when God says,
in effect, it doesn’t matter what you do on this particular matter, we have the
full right to act within the boundaries of human preference and desire.
I’ve only encountered
one translation that indirectly repudiates inspiration by altering the thought
from concession / permission versus direct instruction to something else
entirely. Hence the Contemporary English
Version unwisely renders, “In my opinion that is what should be done, though I
don’t know of anything the Lord said about this matter.” When does a “concession” or “permission”
becomes a mere “my opinion,” as if God had nothing at all to do with what is
being instructed and as if Paul would have felt confident even giving a mere
opinion if there were the least grounds to suspect it could be in defiance of
the Divine preference!
The lack of a direct instruction becomes an
avowal of ignorance, “I don’t know of anything the Lord said about this
matter”—vastly altering the thrust of the verse from “I’m not giving an order
or the Lord isn’t giving an order.” A
profound difference between there being a lack of command and Paul being
ignorant on the subject! Put this in
your notebook under the heading “even well meaning translators make
mistakes.”
(2) First Corinthians 7:25
Verse 25 is another
verse in this chapter that Modernists, unbelievers, and semibelievers
have found quite attractive. And here,
at least initially, they seem to have a tad more to work from than in the
earlier cases. Certainly, from our
standpoint, it at least gives us something to think about whether it rises to
the level of being quite what they need could well prove to be a different
matter--as in earlier cases.
Paul notes in this
verse, “Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give
judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.” “Judgment” is commonly replaced in
contemporary translations with “opinion,” though “judgment” does often carry
with it the overtone of well thought out, carefully considered “opinion.” Certainly Paul was not likely flipping
something off the top of his head on such a matter without thinking about
it!
But does he intend it
to be taken as “non-inspired (= guesswork?)” as versus inspired? Perhaps.
On the other hand,
first consider that he regards this “opinion” as “trustworthy.” In other words it’s not just an “opinion”
it’s an opinion one could put full confidence in. “Trustworthy” is a common rendering but
alternatives reinforce the point: Consider the “worthy of trust” of the Today’s
English Version and the “deserving of your confidence” of
Isn’t this about as
close to claiming inspiration as he could get without explicitly saying
so? Indeed, wouldn’t his readers have
taken it as assurance that his words could not lead them astray, i.e., had
Divine approval behind them?
Next consider his
comment in
We saw in 7:6, how the
Contemporary English Version seemed to prefer a blunt undermining of Pauline
inspiration. Intriguingly, here they
make it far more clear-cut by translating, “However, I think I am
obeying God’s Spirit when I say she would be happier to stay single.” Although I happen to believe that Paul did
regard himself as directly inspired when writing 7:40, that is really exegesis
(interpreting the text) rather than translating it.
And if he was really even this modestly
“unsure” that he had the seal of the Spirit’s revelation, doesn’t that require
that in other cases where no such “limitations” are made, that he was fully
convinced that he had the Spirit’s whole hearted endorsement? Does one really want to prove “err-ability” on
a narrow single topic, while establishing infallibility on everything else? “If he even speculated that there could
be a problem, he candidly revealed it!”
Furthermore, should “I
think I also have the Spirit of God” be taken as a denial or should it
be taken as cautious restraint in claiming authority in this very
personal area of marriage and remarriage and where it would be very easy to
impose a “one size fits all” on everyone when it was really a “one size fits
most” matter? People react differently
to different things; a policy that fit most most of
the time would not necessarily fit all all of
the time. Paul’s language easily accepts
that reality.
What would anyone who
had read
11
For what man knows the things of a man except the
spirit of the man which is in him? Even
so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we
have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God,
that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches
but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with
spiritual.
Although this is a
major pointer to an implicit claim of inspiration lying behind Paul’s “opinion”
in 7:25, I would suggest that a major—the overwhelmingly dominant?—reason for
his verbal restraint lies in the fact that what he is about to teach about is
similar in nature to that of verses 1-5:
It is permissive (perhaps even desirable, cf. verse 7), but it is not
obligatory.
As he makes plain in the verses after 25,
though there is a course that Paul prefers there is (to use the language of
verse 25) “no command of the Lord” binding it.
What better way to show that though it is the best course, that it is
not a sin to do otherwise than to label it as a “judgment” or “opinion”?
(3) First Corinthians 7:10-16—The
Discussion of Divorce
The third text that is
appealed to in chapter seven is the section that deals with divorce in believer
marriages as contrasted with those in mixed believer-unbeliever marriages. Does Paul repudiate the guidance of the Holy Spirit
in what he has to say about those with unbelievers?
10
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.
11 But even if she does depart, let her remain
unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.
And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
12
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not
believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband
who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce
him. 14 For the
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now
they are holy. 15 But
if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under
bondage in such cases. But God has
called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your
husband? Or how do you know, O husband,
whether you will save your wife?
The initial part of
this section is a blanket prohibition of divorce (verses 10-11). This represents the course of conduct Jesus
desired and taught during His earthly ministry.
Mark
But was this an
absolute or were there any, at least limited, exceptions? In the Old (as contrasted with the New)
Testament, Malachi
Does that mean a prohibition or “merely”
anger that humans are such that it takes place?
Yet even there we find specific divorce conditions specified, “When a
man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his
eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a
certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, sends her out of his house”
(Deuteronomy 24:1) . . . and then she remarries (verse 2) and is divorced yet
again (verse 3) . . . “then her former husband who divorced her must not
take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled” (verse 4).
Hence even though God
“hates divorce”—even in this circumstance—there was still a limited divorce
right and remarriage right in the case of “uncleanness.” Whether that is moral uncleanness or
something else we leave to other folk and other occasions; our purpose is to
show that it was far from unprecedented to lay down a generalization—no divorce—but to permit a specified
exception. (Note that the exception was
specified and not merely taken for granted.)
So it comes as no
great surprise that even though Jesus could speak in absolute terms in regard
to the same subject, He would also make an exception: “But I say to you that whoever divorces his
wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit
adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery”
(Matthew 9:32). He makes the same
exception later in Matthew 19:9.
In both Deuteronomy
and the Matthew/Luke New Testament passages, Christ was addressing those who were
Jews. He did not address the
question of divorce among Gentile nonbelievers because His mission was not to
them. Does He not Himself tell us of
this limitation and how it was binding, at the time, on both Himself and His
apostles?
Matthew
Matthew
10:5 These
twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way
of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 "But go rather to
the lost sheep of the house of
Hence when Paul faced
the question of divorce envolving unbelievers, he had
no legislation of Christ to guide him.
It is for this reason that he says in verse 12, “but to the rest I, not
the Lord, say”—because the Lord had never spoken on the subject about
unbeliever divorces during His earthly ministry.
Truth be told, most of His listeners would
have been horrified at the very idea of such marriages to outsiders. Hence if Jesus had brought up the
subject, how could this possibly have avoided a self-created (by Jesus) stumblingblock in their minds: “Why in the world is He even bringing up this
subject? It’s hideous. Can He really be the Messiah or the great
prophet we sought?” Jesus had no
reservations about conflict when it was essential to conveying His truth, but
there was no reason for Him to stir up unwanted and needless questions by
raising matters that His audience couldn’t imagine in the first place!
To return to our core
point, “but to the rest I not the Lord say,” is not given as a denial of
inspiration. It could just as easily
mean—and far more likely does mean, for the reasons examined—to the time
of revelation, that it was coming through Paul rather than from Jesus during
His earthly ministry.
Furthermore, if there
was any degree of significant Divine guidance in what Paul wrote, would we not
expect Paul to have been conveyed the message, “You going wrong here, boy. That’s not what you are supposed to
say.” Hence the very fact that he said
it without any indication of hesitancy or guilt surely carries with it the
implicit assurance that God approved of this teaching whether he specifically
instructed Paul to write it or not. Or
are we now to downgrade the very concept of “inspiration” to the level that a
direct contradiction of the Divine will was inadequate for God to intervene
against?
You see, here we get
to the actual nitty-gritty. It is not
really whether the Bible was “verbally” inspired. It is whether God was so minimally involved
that we can’t be sure that any of it truly reflects His will.
IV. “Needless,” “Trivial,” and
“Emotional” Comments
In one sense many
Biblical remarks are indeed “needless” and “trivia”—if what you want as revelation
is a law book that reads like the State Code of
Or, if you will, consider some particular
piece of legislation. Say the 2,000-plus
page “Obamacare” medical legislation in 2010—did even
the most passionate supporters want to even take the time to read it? Because of its great length, a few even
openly laughed at the very concept.
First of all a “law” is typically written in alleged English—the words
are English—but good luck figuring out what they mean. Being a lawyer helps and having plenty of
time to hash out the real meaning over time. Would this kind of boring, tedious,
specialized work have made sense as Divine revelation? Of course not! Who would want to even take time to read it?
Furthermore, those
dismissed “needless,” “trial,” and “emotional” comments play an important role
in “humanizing” the Bible. As such they
serve a useful and valuable function. They
remind us that we are dealing with real people, not paper-mache
myths.
Men
and women with hopes and dreams, with hurts and pains. People who went through the
whole gauntlet of human emotion, just like you and me.
On the emotional and
psychological level, their accomplishments and heartaches touch something with
us. They become real people to us, not
mere cardboard figures out of history.
We learn that if they made it through their adversities, then we can too
even when we become just as discouraged and abused as they were.
These criticized
comments also remind us that there is far more to life than “religion” in its
narrower and more limited sense. Friendship, the physical condition of one’s compatriots and kin,
one’s own physical well being.
All of these are legitimate and honorable concerns in and of
themselves—and the Bible treats them that way.
A misplaced
religiosity may lead us to question or demean them. The “trivial,” passing problems of life that
they document warn us against taking such a narrow approach to our religious
faith.
So we hold this entire
approach to be in fundamental error.
Having pointed out a key root problem of the critics, let us examine
some particular texts that are introduced as inadequate or inappropriate for a
book that was truly Divinely inspired.
A.
Paul’s concern for his “cloak” and “books”
In 2 Timothy
Doesn’t the reference
to the “cloak” seem strange or needless in a book intended to be
scripture? On the other hand doesn’t it
actually give us a further insight into Paul’s temporal situation and
priorities? Does it seem to hint either
at Paul’s relative poverty (else he could easily have purchased a new one) or
at his generosity (at leaving it behind for someone else to use)? Or even that he suffered the same limitations
as everyone else in long distance travel--it had been physically impossible to
bring everything he desired and had to make some hard choices?
It might even hint at
Pauline forgetfulness (as the cause for his leaving certain things behind in
the rush of leaving): Remember that
inspiration only guaranteed that the doctrine he taught was totally accurate,
not that his memory of earthly possessions was.
Perhaps we even have
here a suggestion of a deteriorating physical condition in that he needed the
cloak.
Hence in this one
verse we have the outline of what could become a real fine sermon for those who
are undergoing their own modern parallel experiences. It makes unavoidable the recognition that
Paul was not a mere ideologue—he was a genuine human being who had the hurts,
anguishes, and difficulties that you and I have. And often worse. That is without spiritual value for the
ordinary Christian?
Essential,
no. Necessary,
no. But useful, unquestionably!
What then on the
reference to the “books” and “parchments”?
To mock a man for not wanting to be separated from his books is a
strange thing to come from scholars.
What Bible critic would want to be permanently separated from his or her
personal library? Because of financial
limitations I had to leave 90% of my library behind when I returned to
I can feel a bit of
what the apostle did. Anyone who
cherishes their books can sympathize with him.
So are the words really that useless and redundant? Get real.
If one wishes a
directly “religious” lesson out of this in the narrower sense of the word, then
one would obviously be that inspiration was never a replacement for study. Why then would Paul need the books? Surely to meditate upon, learn from, and use
as the basis for his own consideration of the matters
discussed in them.
Which
brings us right to a message directly affecting inspiration. Even the inspired needed to study!
2
Peter 1:10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully,
who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching
what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was
indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the
glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to
themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been
reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy
Spirit sent from heaven--things which angels desire to look into.
They did not have a
full understanding; they worked hard to understand, but even then they fell
short of plummeting it all. In short,
inspiration only gave man what study never could—a completely reliable source
document. Looking at it from the reverse
angle, inspiration was never intended as a lazy man’s crutch to replace the
discipline of study and analysis. Once
again: How can such an important fact be
dismissed as useless irrelevancy?
B.
Paul’s “dietary” advice to Timothy
1 Timothy
The text teaches us,
by example, of the honorability of Christian love toward fellow workers in
God’s vineyard: Paul was concerned with
Timothy and wanted him to stay as well as he could.
It also shows us that
being a Christian—yea, even being a preacher and close friend of an apostle—did
not guarantee good health: Note those
“frequent infirmities,” the wording being so broad as to reasonably suggest that
the stomach wasn’t the only one of them.
(Note how other translations render this part of the verse.)
Those of us who suffer
repeated bouts with a multitude of petty but annoying ailments can well
empathize with that first century and gain profound assurance from his
steadfastness in spite of them.
These can happen at
any age, but they are inevitable as you grow into your last few decades. In my case, these words are revised as I’m
about to have my 69th birthday (2012): I
carry with me a quadruple bypass, a double bypass . . . a modest one and a half
blood vessels (the latter grafted into the other) which is all that keeps me
alive.
Some seriously weird physical sensations
occur and periodically yet new ones throw themselves at me with all too much
enthusiasm! Those I speak to recognize
that kind of thing all too easily. Yet
even for us facing those few final decades, it’s encouraging to know that the
plague of health does not have to hold the battlefield uncontested.
Looking at Timothy’s
case we can also deduce that even in the days of miracles, it was not God’s
will that every sick person be miraculously cured of their illness. Nor did He ever intend that they live a life
perpetually free of sickness. In a world
where we are genetically programmed (so to speak) to ultimately die, how could
it have been otherwise? We still reap
the grim fruit of Adam’s folly.
Need we go on? This text is of “no value” only to those who
do not pay close attention to what Paul actually says and implies.
C.
The fact that inspiration is not required to
express despair, joy, anger, friendship, etc.
This objection can
well be illustrated by the example of King David. In the Psalms he repeatedly pours out his
heart in desperation, happiness, and anger.
Intense, even fiery words.
At the other extreme,
so to speak, is Romans 16 where Paul repeatedly expresses his friendship toward
a number of citizens of Rome: “I commend
to you” (16:1), “greet” (16:3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16), with
a few words typically distinguishing one person or pair from another.
Such examples could be
multiplied many times over from both testaments. The objector contends that inspiration was
surely not needed for these feeling to exist and that inspiration was hardly
needed to make Paul express these emotions.
True—to a point.
However we need to
remember a fact about emotional outbursts, especially of those of a passionate
extreme like David’s: Such an intense
fit of emotion can so overcome our self-control that we say things that we do not
mean to say. Almost anything can come
out of a person’s mouth in such a situation.
I write this revision
during election season of 2012. Keep up
with the video clips that regularly pop up of one politician or another coming
off sounding really stupid, irrational, or absurd? I admit I have the sound turned off on my
computer, so I have to read the text summaries that go with them, but those who
don’t treat your computer in that manner have surely groaned—quite possibly
aloud—“how could he or she (and women have been coming out with some zounders haven’t they?) have possibly said that?”
Without the
restraining hand of inspiration, it could easily have happened to David
also. You insist that David’s words
sometimes still become too vigorous, too outraged, too
vehement? I’m tempted to say that it’s
easy for us to say it, who haven’t gone through the
pain and suffering and humiliation he did.
And that would be a reasonable answer!
Don’t criticize someone else for words when
your own unedited prose might be ten times worse. Note some of those “reader comments” on news
articles? Make David look like a virtual angel don’t they?
But David had His supernatural “editor” looking over his shoulder to
rein him—if He hadn’t been there, wouldn’t David have sounded several times
worse than what you are protesting?
Even in regard to more “temperate” remarks
like Paul’s expressions of friendship, inspiration serves a useful
purpose: First of all, when dealing with
so many people, to get his facts right!
Secondly, to protect him from expressing himself in such a way that
misunderstanding was certain to occur.
Inspiration might not be required to say
many things, but inspiration was always useful to guard the apostle against
excess praise or condemnation that could embarrass those he wrote about. Hence the presence of inspiration still
performed a useful and important service even in such cases as these!
V. Differences in Style, Native Ability,
and
Eloquence
God had two basic
choices: He could either use or replace
the minds and hearts of the apostles (to give a New Testament
illustration). If He had so overturned
their intellectual and emotional abilities so as to entirely strip them of
every characteristic that made them a distinctive and unique individual, they
would have been turned into the functional equivalent of zombies—a live body
but with all the rest of their being, especially the intellect, quite inactive
and quite dead.
Since successfully
guidance of them into full accuracy did not require the setting aside or
destruction of their varying levels of ability, there was no real reason for
God to do so and no good reason for us to object that He did not do so
Furthermore, let us
assume that God had indeed acted in just such a manner and created mere
intellectual robots (or would the right term be living beings with no
functional, independent brains?). Then
the Bible would be written in one style.
One level of eloquence. In no way at any time
deviating from it. Certainly within the New Testament and presumably in both.
And, of course,
skeptics would be beating their chests and insisting that this was proof
positive of collusion and that the Bible could not possibly be inspired of
God. It was all one, gigantic conspiracy
for no group of humans could conceivably produce such a flawlessly consistent
style, mode of speech, and method of presentation. Someone must have imposed on it that very
consistency and since God, a priori, is ruled out since inspiration simply
doesn’t happen, period, then a gigantic conspiracy is
the only alternative. Perhaps
one person having been appointed to rewrite it all in his/her particular
rhetorical fashion? (Subject to
the veto of the other conspiratorialists, one would
think.)
In short, no matter
which course God took, grounds would inevitably have been found to criticize
the written result. In
one case because there are stylistic and related differences; in the other case
because they are missing. Working
from the implicit (rarely explicit) premise that fully and totally accurate Divinely controlled revelation can’t occur, do they have any
choice?
VI. Use of Pre-Existing Sources
The fact that parts of
the Bible either utilize or could easily have used such sources is no secret to
even the casual reader of the scriptures—their existence is clearly referred
to. I hedge between “utilize or could
easily have” because the texts themselves do not seem to be any more specific.
For example, Luke
begins with a reference to how “many have taken in hand to set in order a
narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us” (1:1). Having gained “perfect understanding” of the
chain of events of Jesus’ life himself, he proceeded to write his gospel
narrative (1:3). If he hadn’t consulted
some/many of these, it would be odd indeed for him to have made mention of
them. Even so his point in verse 3 is
neither an embracing of those accounts nor a rejection—simply an affirmation
that he would write only what he had verified as unquestionably true (cf. verse
4).
In regard to the Old
Testament, First Kings provides a fine example.
We have no less than three sources mentioned: The "Acts of Solomon" (1 Kings
Finally, there is
Genesis. Upon the Mosaical
authorship of the Torah scenario, either Moses was given information on this
earlier period or he had pre-existing sources that he utilized in his writing,
being protected from error by the Spirit’s oversight. Either way, the writing either incorporates
or utilizes earlier materials.
The Bible can be
attacked from more than one direction for such usage. For example, it is argued that there was no
need for the use of such sources if the man were truly inspired. This objection certainly contains an element
of truth: God being all knowledgeable
could have provided the writers were everything they needed so they did not
have to utilize anything at all.
But there is more to
truth than just being right; there is also the need to reassure oneself. Would the ability to utilize earlier
resources and to have God’s Spirit confirm or tell you in some manner “that is
right,” not reassure even the most steadfast prophet? For even the most self-assured (if he had
sense) would have wanted to be confident that the “voice” he heard—or whatever
other form it took—was indeed guiding him right.
It is not so much a want of faith as the usefulness
for absolute assurance among those who might well be risking their lives by
what they said. There is a difference
between saying:
I know. And saying I know absolutely
beyond any shadow of doubt!!!
Furthermore even if
you have absolutely assurance the facts are right, you also want to make sure
those facts get accepted. Speaking on
your own is fine and, many times the only way they could handle it. But if they could, in effect say, “I’m not
the only one who has spoken on this; see for yourself”—well
that added even more credibility to their message to those who wanted an excuse
to ignore it.
A Bible that never
alluded to sources or relevant other works would be open to the challenge that
it was all cut out of whole cloth, all a pure invention. On the other hand, a Bible that never dared
say anything without citing a previous source would, by its blatant lack of
self-confidence, indict itself as uncertain and surely not inspired. The approach the Bible takes is to allow a
person to verify some while accepting the rest strictly on the basis of
faith. It allows room to verify enough
that it becomes a rational act to accept the rest on faith.
Our skeptics, however, are even more
determined than the ancient foes of the prophets to ignore anything that might
compel a reconsideration of their irreligion and rejection of God. If a Bible writer utilizes
prior sources that’s proof he wasn’t inspired. If he doesn’t, then there’s the inevitable
“you have absolutely no evidence outside the Bible backing that up!”
You see, the Bible has
to lose.
Otherwise their own unbelief would be lost.
The existence of
likely prior sources being utilized in places is also used to prove that if
the sources were wrong, then we would expect the Bible to be wrong where it
repeated those sources. In other
words, if the cited sources had errors even in the parts not cited, then
the Bible could well be wrong on the parts it does utilize. Or does that really follow?
To digress briefly on
a road that will return us to that question . . . Josephus’ writings are
extremely useful in regard to the Great Jewish War that was crushed at
Yet he is the most
extensive source on the war; he is regarded as useful and essentially
reliable. It is on those assumptions
that the histories of that war are written.
Grant us even that
much--“useful and essentially reliable”—and the case against Christianity
collapses. It would be grand if you
accepted fully scriptural inspiration and authority, but you’ll be driven to
faith by even that lower standard of evidence if you treat it fairly and with
justice.
But, taking it from a
full credibility approach, your conclusion would be even broader and more
emphatic: we would argue that if God
protected the scriptural authors from error in the sections they wrote without
utilizing earlier records, why would it be removed on those occasions when they
had read or examined such materials?
In other words, there is no good
reason to suppose inspiration ceased to be an operative factor when prior data
entered the picture. It would simply
assure that the author utilized them rightly and properly.
VII. The New Testament Writers Did Not
Consider Their Writings as
Scripture
One author I was
reading shortly before I wrote the 1980s draft of this material made her
sentiments quite plain: If the apostle
Paul came back today he would find it highly amusing that his epistles had been
elevated to the rank of scripture. In
certain powerful circles this is accepted as a virtual truism. The New Testament epistles were written only
as “occasional letters” to deal with immediate problems and questions and never
were intended to be authoritative beyond this narrow and limited usage. Unfortunately (?) it can only be sustained by
ruling out of order all Biblical data that points in the opposite direction--that
God and Christ intended the apostolic and inspired writings to be permanently
authoritative.
For example, the
apostles considered themselves as inspired by Christ through the Spirit both as
to the accurate recall of His earthly life and teaching and in regard to the
receiving of all spiritual truth:
John
14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My
name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things
that I said to you.”
John 16:13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide
you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but
whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify
Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that
the Father has are Mine. Therefore I
said that He will take of Mine and declare it to
you.
Hand-in-hand with this
went the right to authoritatively bind and loose, a power that would have
surely been insane to grant to individuals acting independently of close Divine
oversight!
Matthew
16:19 "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever
you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will
be loosed in heaven."
Matthew
18:18 "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
With such concepts
planted deep in their minds, how could the apostles have avoided
thinking they were writing authoritative revelation?
That what they wrote
was supernaturally backed in authority can be seen in John’s warning of Divine
wrath on anyone who dared tamper with the text of his letter to the seven
churches of
Revelation
22:18 For I testify to everyone
who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add
to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy
city, and from the things which are written in this book.
He would
understandably be annoyed if someone redid even an uninspired letter . .
. but could anyone short of the deluded
imagine this kind of Divine wrath unless the writing truly represented
in authoritative and reliable form what God wished to be said?
Indeed the term
“scripture” is directly applied to books of the New Testament by at least two
different New Testament writers. Peter
puts the writings of Paul on that level and Paul considered the gospel of Luke
scripture as well for he so labels a quotation from
that work (Luke 10:7) while writing to Timothy:
2
Peter 3:15 And consider that
the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation -- as also our beloved brother Paul,
according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,
which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they
do also the rest of the Scriptures.
1
Timothy
In light of this
evidence, the apostles clearly knew that their compositions were more
than just “occasional” writings, intended to be of interest only to their
contemporaries. They knew that their
writings rose far above this, to a level of religious authoritativeness where
even the term “scripture” justly applied.