Pastoral Musings

In a previous article I spoke of God as the source of truth and the ultimate standard of truth. We all live as if this were true, whether we accept the foregoing statement as true or not. We live by a standard of truth and expect others to live by the same standard. For example, when I go to the bank to deposit my money, I expect the tellers to come to the same total as I do when they have completed their addition. Why? Because I know that there is a standard by which we operate. Two plus two always equals four. The fact that we live by such a standard points to the reality of the absolute and ultimate standard. There could be no standard of truth if there were no Christian God. The God of the Bible is not only all knowing, but is the source of all knowledge and truth. He is truth.

The above statements may seem to be somewhat of a leap, but consider that morality also exists. There is an ought-ness about certain things in life; and that ought-ness is personal, and presupposes an absolute person who cares about what we do. We do not live in an impersonal world. We interact with persons all the time. We live in a world that is so full of personality that we often give inanimate objects personal names, and many men refer to their cars as “she” and “her”. We have no true moral responsibility to inanimate objects as such. We may have a moral responsibility to God and to others in regard to how we deal with inanimate objects, but we are not morally responsible to an inanimate object itself.

Morals demand one to whom we are morally responsible. They also demand an absolute standard of morality. Since morality is impossible without personality, it follows that there is an absolute person who is the final arbiter and ultimate standard of morality. The God of the Bible certainly fits this description. He is called the God of truth who is without iniquity (Deuteronomy 32:4;2Corinthians 1:18) and all men will give account to Him in the judgment (Romans 14:10-12).

What does morality have to do with truth? That is the question that some will ask. It is a good and valid question. It is also a question that must be answered. The answer is that truth must be respected, honored, and adhered to. If we do not do so we are being immoral. To commit an offense against the absolute standard of truth is to commit a moral offense. An offense against God is an issue of moral consequence. God cares what we believe. It matters to God whether we believe the truth or not. He cares whether we speak truly or not. To stray from the absolute standard of truth is to offend against the absolute person who is the standard of morality and the judge of all men.

It may be argued that there is no moral culpability when one commits an error due to ignorance. We don’t truly live this way, however. Should I be fully convinced that a new bridge which will shorten people’s commute times by fifty percent is opened, and I inform everyone I see that it is opened though it is not; I can assure you that there will be a large number of people who will hold me responsible for giving them wrong information and causing them to be late for work. Ignorance will be accepted as no excuse. We also know that ignorance of the law will not excuse us in court if we have broken the law. Ignorance may be considered by many to be a mitigating circumstance, but it is not an excusing circumstance. Many times we find ourselves gaining new information and thinking, “Well, I’m glad that I know better now.” Scripture does not allow us to do that. Scripture compels us to look back on our ignorance with shame, and then commands us to repent ( See Leviticus 4:1-35;Acts 17:30).

Let’s take this a step further. Scripture intimately connects our loyalty to truth to our morality. You see, we are morally obligated to fear the Lord. That is commanded many times in the Scriptures. At the same time we are told that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). Only by the fear of the Lord will we know the truth. As I am morally obligated to fear the Lord, and I am morally obligated to believe and speak the truth, truth and morality are inextricably connected.

I fear that many fail to see that man’s fall was a rejection of truth, and that man’s sinful state is one in which he suppresses the truth (Romans 1:18). Man’s fall was a rejection of truth in that he did not give glory to the one who is truly glorious (Romans 1:20), accepted the word of the one who is a liar (Genesis 3:1-7;John 8:44), and corrupted their own understanding and knowledge, thus becoming fools (Romans 1:22). This immoral rejection of truth then led, and still leads, to a rejection of the truth of God and a perversion of the truth of God.

The connection between morality and truth could hardly be more plainly seen than in a verse in the “love chapter” of the Bible, 1Corinthians 13. In 1Corinthians 13:6 Paul stated that love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in truth. We would be correct to say that the opposite of unrighteousness is righteousness, but it is also correct to say that the opposite of unrighteousness is truth. Think of it: the opposite of immorality then is truth. Truth is a moral issue.

Paul, speaking to the church at Corinth, declared that he worked to bring everyone’s thoughts under submission to God (2Corinthians 10:5). It did not matter to Paul from what school one originated. What mattered to Paul is that every thought was submitted to the Lordship of Christ, and that is a moral as well as a religious issue.

The letter to the Ephesians most definitely shows that Paul considered truth and morality to be related issues. His desire for the Ephesians was that they would not live by the standards of the world (See Ephesians 4:17-24). He explained to them that those outside of Christ lived in the futility of their thoughts, and that their minds were blinded because they were ignorant of the truth. Their ignorance of the truth was not only a sinful thing, but it led to more sin in that they went head-long after sin and gross immorality.

In common, everyday life we live as if these things are true. We expect our banker to hold to the truth about addition, subtraction, multiplication, because we are relatively sure that, if he doesn’t, he will err on the side of immorality and take our money instead of erring so as to give us more money. When people speak to us, we expect them to speak the truth to us and we don’t accept ignorance as an excuse when someone is harmed due to being given wrong information. Ivory tower academics and philosophers may quibble about this, but they also deposit money in the bank, and their expectations are the same as those of the common man. It is reasonable to conclude that there is an unbreakable link between truth and morality.

There is one application that needs to be made before concluding this article. That application relates to the debate surrounding the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Not only are there some who deny that the Scriptures are inerrant, but they plainly state that there are mistakes in the Bible. Not only so, but some go so far as to say that Jesus Himself erred and ignorantly spoke things that were not true. If that is so, we cannot accept that Bible as what it claims to be: a holy book which is the true Word of God that teaches us the way of righteousness and salvation. Neither can we take Jesus to be what the Bible claims Him to be: the sinless Son of God. To insinuate error in Christ and the Bible is to insinuate sin in them. There is no way to escape that. Those who do so, no matter what they may claim about adoring Christ and accepting the authority of the Scriptures, are grossly in error and would do well to reconsider their position. What true Christian wishes to be guilty of implicitly accusing Jesus of sin and Scriptures of being deceitful and misleading?

If Kant taught the world of secular unbelief the essentials of its own (until then, subconscious) theory of knowledge (“epistemology”), Van Til did

Image via Wikipedia

the same thing for the Christian.

As Kant said that we must avoid any trace of the attitude of bowing before an external authority, so Van Til taught that the only way to find truth at all is to bow before God’s authoritative Scripture.

As Kant presented his view transcendentally, as the inescapable ultimate presupposition of human thought, so Van Til made and defended transcendentally the same claim for the revelation of God: that God’s Word is the only presupposition that does not destroy the intelligibility of human thought.

via The Most Important Christian Thinker Since Calvin? – Justin Taylor.

 

This is the essence of the argument. This is why I speak of presuppositions. It is an issue of our fundamental beliefs about the source of knowledge.

Epistemology is what presuppositionalism is all about.

MT 1:20-23, LK 1:26-33 An angel announces to Joseph and/or Mary that the child (Jesus) will be “great,” the “son of the Most High,” etc., and ….
MT 3:13-17, MK 1:9-11 The baptism of Jesus is accompanied by the most extraordinary happenings, yet ….
MK 3:21 Jesus’ own relatives (or friends) attempt to constrain him, thinking that he might be out of his mind, and ….
MK 6:4-6 Jesus says that a prophet is without honor in his own house (which certainly should not have been the case considering the Annunciation and the Baptism).

It is often only by looking for fault that fault is found.  So it is in this particular case.

All of the Scripture references listed above are true.  Together they do not make a discrepancy or error.  One only needs to remember that it was prophesied that Jesus would not be received by the people:

“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. ” (Isaiah 53:3, KJV)

We also read a statement in the second Psalm that is used to show that Jesus would be rejected:

“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. ” (Psalm 2:2–3, KJV)

The early church recognized this as referring to the Christ (Messiah, anointed one):

“ they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. ” (Acts 4:24–28, KJV)

The glorious thing about being able to refute this “finding of an error” is the fact that once again the Gospel of Jesus can be preached.  God’s love for us sinners was so great that He gave Jesus to die for our sins.  He was raised from the dead and now receives, forgives, and gives eternal life to all who believe Him.

“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: ” (John 1:10–12, KJV)

MT 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
LK 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.

MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.
LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.

Wow!  How simplistic can one be?

It only takes a cursory reading of the text to see that there are two different events recorded.  In Luke the angel speaks to Mary.  In Matthew the angel speaks to Joseph.  The time, the place, and the persons are different.

I must observe that one finds what one wishes to find.  If he seeks errors, he shall find what he deems to be an error.

On the other hand, with the Bible, he will always find truth.  That is why they seek errors in the Bible.  They simply do not wish to face the truth of the Bible.

MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.

Is this truly an issue of an inconsistency or discrepancy?

Could it be that the Biblical writers wrote with a purpose?

Could that purpose not necessitate a strict listing of every person in the lineage of Jesus?

We have already seen that the two genealogies are different, and are different for a reason.

It should be no surprise, then, that there is a difference in the number of generations counted from David to Jesus.

Why?  Because the purpose was simply to show that Jesus was of the lineage of David, and of the seed of Abraham.

In an oral culture it is most likely that only the most important of names were retained in the genealogies.  If Uncle Joe was insignificant, he might have been dropped.  One less name would make the list of names easier to remember and transmit to others.  Uncle Joe was not a significant “missing link”.  He could probably be found it there were need to find him in history.  The fact that he didn’t make the list doesn’t mean that the list was incorrect.  Grandpa Ebenezer may have been skipper for the same reason.  You don’t forget Solomon, though.  Important names are retained along with a few lesser names to show the connection.

The person to person connection isn’t as important as showing that the genealogical connection existed.

These two genealogies are not contradictory or inconsistent.  They serve different purposes and are formed to carry out those purposes.

GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.

On the surface this does indeed look like an inconsistency.  Why is it not?

It is not inconsistent because there is one thing that is very important in reading the Bible- CONTEXT.

There are three basic rules to remember when reading the Bible:
1.  Context

2.  Context

3.  You got it…..Context

Someone once wisely said that ” a text without a context is a pretext”.  How true, especially in this situation.

In the Old Testament passages cited God is putting people to test to refine them and to bring to light what is in their hearts.

In the passage from 1Cor the Scripture is presenting us with encouragement that God will not allow us to face temptation to sin that is more than we can handle, because He will always provide a way to avoid, or overcome in times of temptation.  This does not mean that God sends temptation to sin our way.  It does mean that God does control how much we are tempted and won’t allow us to be overcome.  Thus we are encouraged to trust God who will help us in temptation.

The last passage is totally out of context.  Why?  Because the context tells us that God does not tempt us with evil.  It is obvious, however, from the context of the argument presenting this as an inconsistency that the skeptic wishes us to think that God does indeed tempt us with evil.  If that is not the intent, the only other would be for us to think that God does not test (tempt) us at all.  Either way one looks at it, this is a terrible abuse of the Bible and takes the verse totally out of its context.

Let us be glad that God tempts (tests) us so that He might refine us.  He gives us choices and we are tested by trials and hardships in life, as was Joseph (See Ps 105:15-22).

Let us also be glad that God is for His people (See Rom 8:31) and will not tempt us to sin.  If He were to do so, none would be able to stand before Him (Cf Ps 130:3-4)

Below one will find an exchange between a commenter on this blog and myself.

I stated to him (David) that the Bible has demonstrated itself sufficient to withstand the onslaught of criticisms directed its way.”

David replied to me with the following (my remarks are in blue):

“It has indeed demonstrated itself sufficient to withstand the onslaught of criticisms directed its way”

I have to disagree with this statement. I know that some christians believe it has held up, but there are numerous fallicies the bible contains that cannot hold up in light of modern science.

For instance, the bible teaches that the earth is flat and immovable. This is no surprise since those who wrote the bible had no idea that they were on a spherical planet, within a solar system, within a galaxy, within the universe. They were geocentrists because they simply lacked the technology to know better.

The earth is immovable:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”

David,

We must distinguish between literal speech and figurative speech.

Isa 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

For example, I am convinced that no Jew thought that Heaven was a large chair, or that the Earth is an ottoman. The Scriptures, however, present this. It is a figure of speech.

The above referenced verses point to the fact that God has set this earth in space and intends for it to stay in its orbit. They also demonstrate His sovereignty over the universe.

When one considers the context of the verse in Ps 104, we know that none of us have seen God riding on a cloud as one would ride in his car. That is precisely the picture, however, that is given to us. Ps 104:3b who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind. We do not take this literally, because it is not intended to be taken in that manner. Psalms are poetry. Poetry takes much license with language, and especially uses figurative language.

The earth is flat:

Isaiah 11:12: He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel,and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Isaiah 44:24: Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself”

Again, we are dealing with figurative speech. It is the same Isaiah who stated that the earth is indeed spherical.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

The four corners of the earth, when viewed on a map that is laid out before one, are readily seen to be represented by the four points of the compass.

The spreading out of the earth and stretching of the heavens are nothing more than figurative language. Figurative language is inescapable in the Scriptures. We must take it into account. To ignore it is to miss the point of much of what God is telling us.

The earth is on top of pillars:

Job 9:6: “who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble”

Psalm 75:3: When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants,

it is I who keep steady its pillars.

David,

Consider Job in another place.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

He is not being inconsistent. One simply must distinguish between figurative language, phenomenological language, and literal speech. While I believe in a literal hermeneutic, I do not believe in a rigid literalism that takes everything literally while ignoring the fact that language is sometimes figurative in nature.

Jason, this is the only way they understood their world. These were intelligent men, but they didn’t have the knowledge about the the earth and the universe we do now. They were geocentrists, just as most people were in ancient times. Doesn’t this show you that the bible has limitations and is a product of its time?

I hope that this has at least given you a picture of how easily the Bible is misrepresented and misunderstood. The ancients were not as simple as we would like to think. After all, who has explained the pyramids? Having replied to you concerning your proof-texts I must say that I do understand that the Bible was a product of its times. It is also a product of God and is timeless. Its limitations are not limitations that make it fallible or errant. Its limitations are simply that its main message is to show us the plan, purpose, and glory of our Creator, and not science or mathematics. When tested, however, the Scriptures will be found to be correct.

Thanks,

David

GE 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot’s two daughters “lie with him,” become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring.
2PE 2:7 Lot was “just” and “righteous.”

This is one of the most glorious of truths that is set before us.

It is certainly to be understood that the skeptic does not understand such a truth.

The truth is that of justification by faith.

You see, Lot was indeed a terrible sinner.

Incest is certainly wrong, evil, wicked, etc.  There simply aren’t enough negatives in the English language to describe it.

At the same time, however, God does something for sinners who believe in His gracious forgiveness of sins.  He justifies them.  He declares them righteous in spite of their sins.

You see, the contrast is between my works and God’s works.  Thus it is that Paul said, “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness”  (Rom 4:4-5)

The wonderful truth is that Jesus came into this world to take our sins upon Himself and give His righteousness to us.

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committedc unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”  (2Cor 5:17-21)

No inconsistency here- only glorious, gospel truth.

GE 18:20-21 God decides to “go down” to see what is going on.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

Answer:

Anthropopathy

Anthropomorphic

–adjective

GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God’s blessings.
LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.

What is the true issue here?  Is it that there is an inconsistency in the Scriptures, or is it that there is a misunderstanding of the nature of revelation on the part of the one who “found” the “inconsistency?”

Honestly, there is a mistake on the part of the one who thinks there is an inconsistency.

Morality takes different forms.  For example, homosexuality is immoral because it confuses the diversity that God intended to exist within the marriage relationship.  Fornication (pre-marital, or extra-marital sex) is wrong because it neglects that covenant commitment that God has designed to go along with marriage.  Incest differs from both.

Why does incest differ?  Incest differs because it does not violate any of God’s natural design for marriage.  Incest is prohibited later in Scripture.  Why?  It is prohibited by more recent revelation than creative revelation because of the fact of the fall and genetic issues.  Abraham lived close to the beginning of time.  Genetic problems as a result of the fall had not multiplied so much as they did later.  Thus it was that God waited to reveal His prohibition of incest at a later time, and could do so without being inconsistent.

One thing is definite: the prohibition of incest is like all other moral prohibitions; it is for our good.