Pastoral Musings

Practically every time someone such as I warns about the effects of denying the Genesis Creation Narrative as being a true historical narrative we are told that we are employing a slippery slope argument.

No, it’s not a slippery slope argument to say that the logical results (though one may not carry his theology as far as what would logically follow- people are often inconsistent) are the denial of certain fundamental Christian doctrines which have been held by most Christians throughout the history of Christianity.

Today Peter Enns has proven my point by denying that the Old Testament anywhere speaks of original sin. He gives five reasons why original sin should be reconsidered.

1. Inherited sinfulness is not one of the curses on Adam.

Ok. Granted.

But why should the text spell out what is obvious? Adam and Eve sinned, thus all of humanity sinned. What would Adam’s children then be? Sinners. As a matter of fact, Genesis 5:1 specifically tells us that Adam’s’ son was in Adam’s image; so, though the Imago Dei remained, yet there was that tarnished, sinful, Adamic image in the son of Adam.

Then there’s that statement that David made saying that he was conceived in sin and shaped in iniquity. No, he was by no means implying that the sexual act of procreation was sinful. David was stating that he was by nature a sinner. (Psalm 51:5)

Then, of course, there is the anecdotal evidence that shows that Adam’s offspring were sinful people.

2.True obedience to God is both expected and doable.

Amazing! Pelagius would be so proud of Peter!

If true obedience were doable (This is much different from that which is expected.), then why was there provision made for sin? Why were sacrifices performed immediately after Adam’s fall? Why did men offer blood sacrifices before the law was given? Why was Abel spoken of as being justified by faith- faith which was demonstrated when he offered the blood of an animal, which was a symbol of Jesus Christ crucified for us?

Why, then, does Jeremiah say, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” (Jeremiah 13:23)   Jeremiah was telling us that we are by nature sinful, just as a leopard is spotted by nature. Being by nature sinful, it is natural for us to sin; thus consistently doing good is impossible.

Further more, wise Solomon himself said, “there is no man that sinneth not.” (1Kings 8:46)

Why is Peter so hell-bent on denying  determined to deny what is so very obvious?

3. With one exception,Adam disappears after Genesis 5.

4. Adam is not blamed for Cain’s act of murder.

5. Likewise, Adam is not blamed for the flood.

I wonder if Peter realizes that he is arguing from silence. Does he not understand that is virtually no argument at all?

Remember: I am only looking at the Old Testament here. I know people will respond, “But what about Paul!?” Fair enough–but–even if Paul sees Adam as the cause of human misery and alienation from God, we still need to grapple with why the Old Testament doesn’t see it that way.

Hmmm…so Peter would have us believe that there is a controversy between Paul and Moses? Oh, wait! Peter doesn’t accept Moses as either author or compiler of Genesis.

Obviously Peter is denying that the Bible is without error, because he has just pitted one portion of Scripture against another; thus he has denied that Scripture is free from error.

Nothing new here. Feel free to move on to the next point. This is classic Ennsianism.

Others will respond: “But if Adam isn’t the cause of it all, we no longer have a good explanation for why people are so messed up?” Fine, but the fact that questions arise that muddle our theology doesn’t make the Old Testament magically fall into line.

What an interesting sleight of the hand/keyboard. Enns moves from contrasting his view of the OT with Paul’s view of inherent depravity and now simply speaks of it as our theology being muddled.

No, we are not expecting the Old Testament to magically fall into line. We understand that Paul knew the Old Testament far better than we or Enns shall ever know it. We expect Paul to exegete, explain, and apply the Old Testament correctly. In fact, once we’ve honestly looked at the Old Testament without our modernistic blinders, we find that it does more than magically fall into line- it drew the line and Paul walked the line.

Still others will respond: “But without Adam as the cause of human sinfulness, the entire gospel falls apart.” Rather, I think only a version of the gospel that needs this kind of Adam falls apart. Perhaps there are other ways (and there are).

Well, now! What have we warned about? The importance of the gospel being diminished.

Now we see that Enns proposes another gospel. It would be well if Enns takes the time to remember the words of Paul:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8–9)

Yes, Enns is taking a slide down the slippery slope; except, as far as logic is concerned, it isn’t a slippery slope- it logically follows that a denial of the Genesis Creation Account as an accurate historical narrative could have profound effects upon how we view the gospel.

To close with the wise words of a lady who has taken the time to read Enns’ books:

there is always a domino effect when one begins to “reinterpret” Scripture. Dr. Enns does not believe that God created the world and all things in six days. Therefore, Adam cannot be an historical figure who is literally the first man created by God from the dust of the earth. Therefore, Paul must be mistaken. And, therefore, the doctrine of original sin must be “rethought” as well.

As his understanding of Scripture and doctrine continues to unravel, what will Dr. Enns be left with when he’s finished?

God’s act of creation is the foundation for the entire biblical history.

ESVSB Gen 1:1

If the foundation of a house is not square, or level, the whole house will be difficult to build correctly. There will have to be serious adjustments to the rest of the building, the building will be unlevel or not squared, or the foundation will have to be reworked.

It is the same with our understanding of the first three chapters of Genesis. If we get them wrong, the whole of our biblical understanding will be out of line to some degree.

An update of this post.

Notes And Outline Toward An Understanding Of The Genesis Creation Account

1. The occasion and purpose of the writing of Genesis.

2. Ancient Near Eastern myths and Genesis’ account of the creation.

3. An Old Testament theology of creation.

4. The Apocryphal texts and the creation account.

5. The Pseudepigrapha and the creation account.

6. Philo and Genesis.

7. Josephus and the creation account.

8. The Dead Sea Scrolls and creation.

9. A New Testament theology of creation.

10. A survey of the Apostolic Fathers’ view of creation.

11. Augustine and Genesis.

12. Luther And Calvin

13. The Genesis Hermeneutic Since Darwin

1. The occasion and purpose of the writing of Genesis.

2. Ancient Near Eastern myths and Genesis’ account of the creation.

3. An Old Testament theology of creation.

4. The Apocryphal texts and the creation account.

5. The Pseudepigrapha and the creation account.

6. Philo and Genesis.

7. Josephus and the creation account.

8. The Dead Sea Scrolls and creation.

9. A New Testament theology of creation.

10. A survey of the Apostolic Fathers’ view of creation.

11. Augustine and Genesis.

Related articles

• Blog Update and Life Update (pastoralmusings.com)

When Is A Prophecy A Commandment? When A Commandment Is A Prophecy.

Odd title, isn’t it? Odd, and now it’s one that must be explained and justified.

One of the things with which we struggle (and I think God’s people have struggled with this for years) today is how to understand the way the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. (By the way, I highly recommend The Commentary of The NT Use of The OT.) I ran into this when I read the following passage.

“Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.” (Acts 13:46–47, AV 1873)

Notice that Paul stated that God commanded the church to carry the Gospel to the Gentiles. The issue is, however, that Paul actually quoted a prophecy concerning Jesus.

“And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles. That thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:6, AV 1873)

How does this prophecy become a command?

Well, let me take a bit of an odd route to get to my conclusion.

The prophecy becomes a commandment in essentially the same way that a commandment becomes a prophecy.

“What in the world do you mean, Jason?”

Well, I mean that this is not the first instance in which a text has been understood by the apostles to be of a bit of a different nature than you and I would understand it.
Consider how John understood Exodus 12:6

“In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.” (Exodus 12:46, AV 1873)

John spoke of this as a prophecy, saying,

“But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.” (John 19:33–36, AV 1873)

 

Note how that John considers the command to be a prophecy. Why? Because John understood that the Passover lamb was a type of Jesus, the lamb of God (John 1:29;1Corinthians 5:7), and that the fact that there was a specific command regarding the bones of the lamb pointed to Jesus and His bones not being broken. Thus the command was also a prophecy.

What does this have to do with the text before us? Much, because this text shows something that is the inverse of what we just saw. Here the text sees the prophecy becoming a command instead of a command becoming a prophecy.

The prophecy was that Jesus would be a light unto the Gentiles, showing the glory of God unto the ends of the earth. That prophecy was not fulfilled during Jesus’ ministry. That prophecy had to be fulfilled, though, so how was that going to happen?

This prophecy had to be fulfilled, but how would that be done without Jesus being present to do so? Wait! The church, the body of Christ, is present. This can be fulfilled by Christ through His people. Did He not command the church to go into all the world and preach the gospel? Indeed He did.

Seeing that prophecy must be fulfilled, it was imperative that the prophecy of the light of the gospel reaching the Gentiles be fulfilled. The necessity of fulfillment means that the evangelistic mission of the church to the Gentiles was a must. For this reason, the prophecy was also a commandment, because the church had to do the work of Christ to the glory of God.

There was no alternative.

There was not another option.

There was only the issue of whether the church would do what she should, or not.

There was only obedience to the prophetic command, or disobedience to it.

Thus it is that a prophecy became a commandment in essentially the same manner that a commandment became a prophecy.

My online friend, Marv, says “no.”

we see Jesus, quite literally, rising up, when ascending to the Father. Did he need to do this? Who knows? But He did. And we have the same upstairs downstairs theme in visionary revelation of otherwise invisible spiritual realities: Gen. 28:12, 17: is the a vision of Jacob’s “ladder.” In Rev. 5:3 there is a door opened through which John, in the vision, accesses a heavenly throne room. And verse 13actually refers to heaven, earth, under the earth, and the sea. That makes four, of course, not three. And we don’t need the TTU drawing to see this listing is intended to cover the entirety of the cosmos. But again, this is within a vision. Manifestation of spiritual entities in corporeal form, with surrounding environments in the form of physical objects is questionable evidence for the form of the physical cosmos.

Phil. 2:10 is not visionary, but it is an eschatological context, and we do believe that the dead will “rise” from their burial places in the earth, unless you’re a vicar, perhaps. And again, spiritual conception, as of angels in heaven, and possibly “fallen” angels, if this be the “under the earth” reference are depicted according to their respective realms. Whether spirits have knees, in the ancient people’s conception is open to question. But even if spiritual realities are spoken of by this language, it is hard to employ this for an understanding of physical cosmology.

Ex. 20:4: it is difficult to understand why this is included here. The sky is indeed above the earth, the earth is below the sky, and the sea is lower than the land. The text is forbidding idols in the shape of birds, beasts and fish. Where exactly is the ancient cosmology?

Luke 16:19-31 is a parable, also eschatological, at least in terms of the place of the departed dead. It nowhere says where this happens, however. It does say the rich man “lifted up his eyes.” But this is not an indication of looking upward, into the sky, unless it specifies this direction. It simply means to direct one’s eyes (Gen 33;5; 43:29, Ezek 8:5.

Yes, there is a persistent spacial metaphor, dealing with realms of spirit in language of verticality–and more than mere metaphor, as Christ’s ascention and His promised return “in the clouds” makes clear. What the objective reality may be, we are hardly better able to elucidate today than in ancient times–and certainly not due to the advance in science, nor the mapping of the globe.

 

He continues and says,

Image via Wikipedia

Yet to concoct the detailed dreamland depicted in the line drawings from these kind of expressions is like extrapolating a dragon from a single fossilized femur. And the fanciful features of this imagined model will prove to be a product of modern myth-making–so far may they be derived from any propositions of Scripture.

Solid dome over the earth?

This notion derives, I think from the Hebrew word raqia’, introduced in Gen. 1:6, and rendered in Latin firmamentum, giving us our traditional English firmament. No clause in the text identifies the sky as solid. We merely have the etymology of the word, from the verb RQ’ meaning to “beat out, spread.” Etymology, as someone has said, is not ontology.

We do have an instance where the word is used–not of the sky at all–but of a small dome, albeit in a vision (Ezek 1:22-26). Elsewhere, the word seems to be a synonym for shamayim, the more usual word for “heaven” or “sky.” (See some discussion about it here.)

Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer insists: “The term raqia’ does not mean a beaten-out metal canopy, as some writers have alleged–no ancient culture ever taught such a notion in its concept of the sky–but simply means “a stretched-out expanse.” Several translations, such as the ESV, render it “expanse.”

I suspect this is just another instance of the etymological fallacy at work however. Whatever the derivation of this word, it refers to the sky. A word’s etymology, often an extended meaning from another usage, really serves as a kind of mnemonic to tie this form with that meaning. “Dome” is an appropriate designation for the sky because this is the aspect it presents to us, as real, at least, as the “fact” that it is blue. This appearance is particularly true at night, where on close observation of the stars, the track they inscribe, an arc, is smaller as you look to the north, and also to the south, than it is in between. Indeed, to set up an artificial duplication of the night sky you need a room with a domed ceiling–a planetarium. To refer to the sky by a word “meaning” dome is neither a manifestation of cosmological naivete, nor an indication that one believes it to me solid.

More than mere appearance, however, we do have, in “objective” reality a dome-shaped structure over our heads, a “sphere” of which we perceive approximately half. Even in the 21st century we refer to “spheres” of all kinds surrounding the earth, atmosphere, stratosphere, hydrosphere, etc. Modern astronomy employs a celestial sphere as an orientation device, an imaginary structure, just as real as the equator and the meridians. And though a sphere is a type of “solid” we scarcely think of our “spheres” as solid.

 

So Gen. 1:6-8, 20 simply uses the word raqia’ without asserting solidity. It’s the sky.

Click here to see parts one and two of Marv’s post.

I think that there is more to be said concerning this issue, and it is this:
Often those who speak of the Bible as teaching a three-storied universe claim that folks such as I take the Bible too literally. If one takes the time to seriously consider the issue, he will realize that the wooden literalism is actually the failure of those who hold to the dome theory. They take figurative language as well as the phenomenological language of folks and seek to make it literal. To then claim that we take things literally is certainly more than a little wrong.

It is, in fact, holding to a double standard.

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Jesus, John And The Scriptures

In a previous article we studied the synoptic gospels and how they viewed the Scriptures. We also saw how Jesus viewed the Scriptures. In this article we shall study the gospel according to John to see more about Jesus’ view of the Scriptures, as well as examining John’s view of the Scriptures.

“And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” (John 2:17)

“When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” (John 2:22)

Notice that Psalm 69:9 is quoted as prophecy, and it seen to be of the same force as Jesus’ own words.

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:14–15)

Here Jesus is seen as accepting Numbers 21:1-9 as a reliable historical narrative.

“Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)

“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46)

Jesus and the Jewish leaders of His day believed the Old Testament to be authoritative. Jesus also understood the Old Testament to be speaking of Himself.

“Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (John 7:42)

Both 2Samuel 7 and Micah 5:2 recognized to be authoritative prophecy.

“It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.” (John 8:17)

Deuteronomy 19:15 quoted as authoritative.

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:34–36)

Psalm 82:6 is cited as being part of the law. Though not in the Pentateuch, the “law” was evidently a euphemism for all of the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Word of God came to Israel, Jesus said in reference to this Psalm. The statement may even be a broader statement that speaks of all of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Not only does Jesus view the Psalms as the Word of God, but He also states that the Scripture cannot be broken. That is, the Scriptures are the Word of God and cannot be destroyed or rendered of none effect.

This shows that Jesus viewed the Scriptures as infallible, because they will not pass away. He also viewed them as inerrant, as they will not be voided in any manner.

“But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:37–38)

Isaiah 53:1 is quoted as having been authored by Isaiah and to have been predictive prophecy concerning Jesus.

“For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.” (John 19:36)

“They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it.” (Numbers 9:12)

These verses are laws that are contained in historical narratives, yet they are cited as predictive prophecy. This demonstrates John’s firm belief in the reliability of the Old Testament Scriptures.

“And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.” (John 19:37)

Zechariah 12:10 is viewed as reliable predictive prophecy.

“For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” (John 20:9)

Is we compare Acts 2:25-32 with Psalm 16:10 and Acts 13:34 with Isaiah 55:3, we have a hint of the Scriptures to which John was referring.

We can be certain, however, that John was convinced of the reliability of the Old Testament Scriptures.

If we but allow Scripture to speak for itself we find that the evangelists and Jesus viewed the Scriptures to be the Word of God, reliable in both prophecy and in historical narratives, and without error in that which it affirms.

Related articles

• Inerrancy: The Testimony Of Jesus And The Synoptics Regarding The Word Of God (pastoralmusings.com)
• A Few Questions About Inerrancy (pastoralmusings.com)
• Inerrancy, Rationalistic Thought And Empiricism (pastoralmusings.com)
• Presuppositions And Inerrancy (pastoralmusings.com)

Image via Wikipedia

As we consider the inerrancy of the Scriptures we must address what the Scriptures say about themselves. While some may say that it is circular reasoning and arguing to declare Scripture to be the Word of God based upon the testimony of Scripture itself, we declare that it is not necessarily so. We also have the testimony of history which shows to us that Scripture was accepted as the Word of God by holy people of old. Couple this with the presuppositions that we have mentioned in a previous article and we have good reason to read the Scriptures and take their words as reliable testimony.

In this article we shall consider the testimony of Jesus and the synoptic gospels regarding the Scriptures being the Word of God. We shall use Matthew as representative of the synoptics. As we do so we shall see that Jesus and the evangelists took the Old Testament texts to be reliable, authoritative, and the Word of God. Not all passages in Matthew will be considered, but we shall look at enough texts to show us what view Jesus and the evangelists held regarding the Old Testament Scriptures.

“Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Matthew 1:22–23)

This first text is an excellent text for us to consider. Liberals who do not believe that Jesus was conceived and born of a virgin would certainly desire to excise this verse. They would love to take the passage quoted (Isaiah 7:14) and tell us all about the Hebrew not necessarily meaning a literal virgin. This passage, however, shows us that Matthew accepted that there was a literal virgin who conceived and bore a child, and that it was also the meaning of the text in Isaiah. Not only so, but he also tells us that the Lord spoke by the prophet. In other words, Matthew viewed the writing of Isaiah as the speaking of the Lord.¹ He saw this as God’s Word.

“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

“Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” (Matthew 4:7)

“Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matthew 4:10)

While there have been diverse views regarding the writing and composition of Deuteronomy, one thing is certain: Jesus’ quoting of Deuteronomy shows that He viewed it as authoritative. He also showed His belief that Scripture is the Word of God by quoting that man shall live by the Word of God (Deuteronomy 8:3), and then quoting other Scriptures as authoritative. Had Jesus not believed them to be the Words of God He would not have believed them to be authoritative. Yet, Jesus embraced both the Divine origins of Scripture as well as the authority of Scripture.²

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17–19)

This passage quotes Jesus as upholding the enduring nature of the Old Testament Scriptures in the most minute of points as well as the authority of the Scriptures. Considering what we have already seen of Jesus’ response to Satan, it is obvious that He is once again asserting that the Scriptures are the authoritative words of God.

“that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” (Matthew 8:17)

Here we see that Jesus does not present to us multiple authors of the prophecy of Isaiah, but accepts that Isaiah was author of the latter as well as the former parts; and this is, of course, contradictory to much liberal scholarship today. Jesus, however, saw Isaiah chapter fifty-three as being authoritative, and as Matthew wrote he made no distinction between Isaiah 7:14 (See statements on Matthew 1:22-23) and Isaiah 53:4, thus accepting both as God’s Word.

“At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were a hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was a hungred, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.” (Matthew 12:1–8)

In this one passage we find Jesus affirming the reliability and truthfulness of 1Samuel 2:16, Exodus 25:30, Leviticus 24:5-9, Numbers 28:9-10, Hosea 6:6, and even the Genesis creation account (Genesis 2:3)! He does this in opposition to the Pharisee’s claim that He and His disciples were acting unlawfully. Jesus simply shows them that the historical narratives of Scripture are authoritative as well as the law, and certainly of greater authority than the Pharisee’s interpretation of the law. At the same time Jesus asserted that it was He who was the Creator who made the sabbath holy, thus insinuating to the Pharisees that it was His word of which they were speaking.

To put it briefly, Jesus presents the Old Testament Scriptures as His Word.

“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan; and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:1–6)

In this passage we find Jesus presenting the Genesis creation account as a reliable historical narrative that is also the authoritative Word of God.

No doubt there are some who would love to argue about my conclusion here, but they must certainly deal with the person of Jesus before they go any farther. If Jesus is indeed the sinless Son of God, we must accept the absolute truthfulness of His Words. Jesus did not deceive the people by accommodating His speech to the errors of their day. In fact, Jesus was on the offensive against their errors (See Matthew 19:1-9 for an example.). Neither was Jesus ignorant of the truth regarding the origins of mankind. To embrace a such as this would be to diminish Jesus’ perfections as well as His deity: a position that is unacceptable to those who believe the New Testament Scriptures.

Our presupposition is that Jesus is the sinless Son of God who speaks truly. Thus we accept Jesus is truly referring to the Genesis creation account as a reliable and authoritative historical narrative.

“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any moe questions.” (Matthew 22:41–46)

Jesus here states that David spoke in the Spirit, i.e. David was inspired. Jesus viewed the Psalms as the inspired Word of God given to us through David.

“And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.” (Matthew 27:35)

Matthew also considered the writings of David to be the Word of God. Here he states that David was a prophet whose words were being fulfilled in Jesus.

Having taken the Gospel According To Matthew as representative, we have seen that the writers of the synoptics as well as Jesus viewed the Old Testament Scriptures as the inspired, reliable, and authoritative Word of God.

Related articles

• Presuppositions And Inerrancy (pastoralmusings.com)
• A Few Questions About Inerrancy (pastoralmusings.com)
• Inerrancy, Rationalistic Thought And Empiricism (pastoralmusings.com)

Image via Wikipedia

This post which references this news article has me thinking.

What if the issue that appears to show multiple authors in various Old Testament books actually shows sections that have been edited by later folks such as Ezra?

Can a computer ever tell us that?

Related articles

• Bible’s Different Authors Revealed By New Language Software (pastoralmusings.com)
• USA Today: Has the Geneva Bible made a huge comeback? ” Better Bibles Blog (pastoralmusings.com)
• New York Times on the King James Version of The Bible (pastoralmusings.com)

Image via Wikipedia

I’m enjoying my study of Greek, though it will take me a long time to truly have any sort of mastery because of the pace at which I’m able to go.

Nevertheless, this evening I remembered a statement that I once heard an older minister make.  It was something like this:

I hear men say, ‘If only our brethren knew the Greek.’  Well, when Jesus was crucified, the sign on His cross was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.  It didn’t say anything different in any of the languages.  Each language said, ‘this is the king of the Jews.’

I have an idea about what I would say in response to this, but plan to reserve it until later.

What would your response be?

Related articles

• NT Greek and Southern English (pastoralmusings.com)
• Bibical Languages (thedeezone.wordpress.com)