1

BIBLIOLOGY THE BIBLE: Human & Divine

Lars Wilhelmsson

2 “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:8) “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God”(Mt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3). “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). “A book of faith, and a book of doctrine, and a book of morals, and a book of religion, of special revelation from God.”1 --Daniel Webster BIBLICAL INSPIRATION The work of the translation of the Bible is crucial because we believe it is inspired by God Himself. Therefore it is His divine Word. As B. B. Warfield put it, "The Bible is not man's report to us of what God says, but the very Word of God itself, spoken by God himself through human lips and pens."2 (Emphasis added) In referring to inspiration, Peter puts it, “. . . men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (II Pet. 1:21; see also II Tim. 3:16) In the New Testament it is made clear that divine authority extends to the whole of the Old Testament. Jesus shows His disciples "in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Lk. 24:27). This linking of the biblical writings with the Holy Spirit means that they are brought into direct relationship with the work of the Spirit of God to bear witness to Jesus Christ. This is true of the Old Testament with its prophetic testimony since Jesus Himself said of these writings: "These are the Scriptures that testify about Me" (Jn. 5:39). This is also true of the New Testament as the apostles looked back on the events they had witnessed and testified to the centrality of the person and ministry of Jesus. John points out in his gospel that the Holy Spirit would bring to the remembrance of the apostles all they had learned from Jesus (Jn. 14:26). The Bible is the product of God Himself. These are not mere human words and ideas, but God's divine character and will revealed through words.

3 A common statement by skeptics is, “The Bible contradicts itself. It’s just a Fairy Tale.” If a person hasn't read the Bible, that's a fair indication of insincerity in questioning it. If he has read the Bible and still doubts its authenticity, it is important for that person to examine evidence that undergirds Scripture. THE NATURE OF BIBLICAL INSPIRATION Our understanding of inspiration is key to the doctrine of Scripture which forms the basis of our Christology. In fact, inspiration provides the basis of our whole theology. Even liberal theologians would generally agree with this statement. Three Views of Scripture There are essentially three views of inspiration and thus Scripture. The Liberal View regards the Bible as a purely human book. It is the record of the religious experiences of some believers in the past. There were some people, especially in Israel and later on in the Christian church, who had some deep religious experiences and a growing awareness and understanding of God. They recorded these experiences and this awareness in writing (what is recorded in the Bible), and because of the depth of their experiences, their writings are of great value for all succeeding generations. They are even authoritative, but in a relative and limited way. The testimonies are creative, insightful and often stimulating, but must always be checked by our own experiences and insights. Thus their authority is purely subjective and never final. What I myself experience is final. Liberals who are even willing to speak of revelation at all believe in general revelation in which God reveals Himself everywhere and to all people, but they say, Jesus Christ is one of the many ways to God. God can be discovered like a fact of nature and can be found in all religions. The evangelical or classical view sees the Bible as the Word of God. Although it is the Word of God in the words of men, God Himself speaks to us in these human words. One of the clearest expositions of this view is given by B. B. Warfield of Princeton Seminary earlier in this century in his volume The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. The Bible is not "man's report to us of what God says, but the very Word of God itself, spoken by God Himself through human lips and pens." This is called the "classical" view because it has been held by the church until the eighteenth century, when higher criticism started and theologians denied this view in order to make room for their own critical approach.

4 Church history is clear that this classical view was held by the church fathers during the patristic era, by the theologians of the Middle Ages, by the Reformers and the fathers of the postReformation period and by conservative and evangelical theologians of today. It is also the view held by the Roman Catholic Church. In its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Vatican II declared: "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and present in the text of sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15,16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself." Protestants regard this view of Scripture as weakened by other authorities that are added to the Bible, namely, the apocryphal books and the Magisterium (the church's teaching function) to give an authentic and infallible interpretation of Scripture. It is the Roman Catholic position that such a view is not weakened in that it does not believe that it can have a magisterial teaching that contradicts Scripture. Yet history testifies that the Roman Catholic Church has in fact changed some theological positions that were previously considered infallible. The Classical or Evangelical View In Scripture we see a unity of thought and purpose suggesting that one Mind inspired the writing and compilation of the whole series of books (a library of 66 books). It bears on its face the stamp of its Author. It is the Word of God in a unique and distinctive sense. The Bible is not a record of man's attempts to find God (liberalism), but of God's divine self-revelation to man. The church's doctrine of inspiration obviously must start with the self-witness of the Bible itself. The Bible teaches that the Bible was "inspired" by the Holy Spirit: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (II Pet. 1:20-21) Both the Law and the prophetic writings of the Old Testament purport to come from God. The New Testament links the giving of messages through human speakers or writers with the activity of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration thus takes place naturally from the divine source and authority—the inworking of the Holy Spirit.

5 In the New Testament it is made clear that divine authority extends to the whole of the Old Testament. Jesus shows His disciples "in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Lk. 24:27). The psalmist speaks "in the Spirit" (Ps. 110; Mt. 22:43). And "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (II Pet. 1:0-21). This linking of the biblical writings with the Holy Spirit means that they are brought into direct relationship with the work of the Spirit of God to bear witness to Jesus Christ. This is true of the Old Testament with its prophetic testimony since Jesus Himself said of these writings: "These are the Scriptures that testify about Me" (Jn. 5:39). This is also true of the New Testament as the apostles looked back on the events they had witnessed and testified to the centrality of the person and ministry of Jesus. John points out in his gospel that the Holy Spirit would bring to the remembrance of the apostles all they had learned from Jesus (Jn. 14:26). In fact, the Holy Spirit is their coworker (Acts 2:4; 4:8). Peter classifies the epistles of Paul with the Scriptures which certifies the divine authority of this written testimony. In I Corinthians 1 and 2 and II Corinthians 3 Paul develops the point that the Holy Spirit who gave the Scriptures is the living Lord, whose voice must be heard in and through Scripture if its message is to be understood and received. If the message is really from the Holy Spirit, it cannot be received merely by the natural understanding. Without the Holy Spirit it can be read only on the level of human writings. What is given by the Spirit must be read by the help of the Spirit ("in the Spirit"). To the objective inspiration of Scripture there corresponds the subjective illumination of the understanding. The word "inspired" then, is not to be confused with the common usage of the word where we may say Shakespeare was "inspired" to write great plays, or when we may refer to Beethoven as having to be "inspired" to be able to compose such great symphonies. Inspiration, in the biblical sense, is unique. "Men spoke from God," says Peter, "as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The Bible is the product of God Himself. Here are not mere human words and ideas, but God's divine character and will revealed through words. The word "inspired" (theopneustos) comes from a Greek word meaning "breathed out by God" or "God-breathed." The origin of the words of Scripture is God Himself. John Stott explains: "The meaning, then, is not that God breathed into the writers, nor that He somehow breathed into the writings to give them their special character, but that what was written by men was breathed out by God. He spoke through them. They were His spokesmen."

6 Verbal Inspiration Historically the church has regarded the words as inspired. This means that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the biblical record was given by divine inspiration. The implication is that the inspiration of Scripture cannot correctly be affirmed as a whole without its parts, or of some parts but not the whole. It is of one piece. This rests on the Jewish view which attaches importance to the very letters. This high view of inspiration is seen in the great care in the transmission of the text. Without the concept of verbal inspiration variations might have been not only more numerous but also much more serious. Liberalism contends that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. It also holds that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration. It is the conservative position that God, who made mankind in His image, has used language as an adequate means of communicating revelation. Some argue that what really matters is what is said, not how it is said. The content of Scripture, its ideas, truths, facts and insights, is what is inspired. For the rest, the writers have complete freedom to state these as best they can according to their own background and linguistic ability. This view holds that while the words are not inspired, what they express is. Such a view tries to protect the Bible from being a mechanical document in which there was no serious regard for the people "involved" in the writing process. Thus they were mere secretaries that mindlessly dictated what God told them to write. This is not the position of many who hold to verbal inspiration. It does not mean that the writers of Scripture were mere writing machines (mechanical theory of inspiration). God did not just dictate His words to them and they mindlessly wrote them down. It is obvious from the writings themselves that each writer's personality is involved. Each writer has a style of his own. Jeremiah does not write like Isaiah, and Peter hardly writes like Paul. Their educational and cultural background seeps through in their writings. The Bible, then, is confluent—both the words of men and the word of God. It has dual authorship. It is God's Word about Himself which He has transmitted to us not by suspending the faculties of the writers, but by working through them. Thus the Bible is a very human book. However it is divine in that God worked through the instrumentality of human personality, but so guided and controlled men that what they wrote is what He wanted written.

7 The liberal aversion to verbal inspiration is seen in their attempt to make a distinction between words and content. If words were not inspired then we would be engaged in a process of abstraction from history as though words had little or nothing to do with the abilities, experiences, and circumstances of the human writers. In such a case they would be transcendent oracles. The irony is that such a view reduces inspiration to a mantic (mystical as in divination) approach, the very thing liberals have accused conservatives of teaching. Such an approach also reduces inspiration to a purely human endeavor of piecing together what "might have happened." Without careful attention to words the whole endeavor of biblical inspiration comes tumbling down as there is no safeguard against the latest theory or "discovery." There are no justifiable grounds for the separation of form and content. The whole enterprise of exegesis supposes their conjunction. Inspiration does not mean that the words are inspired rather than their content, but that there is no such thing as the one without the other. The biblical message does not consist of general abstractions which can come in all kinds of forms. Rather it relates to what is said and done by God in the working out of His purpose of grace and judgment. Thus it has the characteristic of historicity and particularity. While it can be argued that at times what is said might have been expressed in other ways; it is, in fact, put in this particular way. Although this may seem accidental, it is not, for words give form to the story or message. Thus the form is not expendable since it makes content possible. Verbal inspiration is important in that it shows us that Scripture is dealing with God's word and work in history, not with abstract truths or insights. This leads to a serious reckoning with the humanity of the writers as the background, circumstances, style, even the vocabulary (i.e. Luke's use of medical terms gives credence to his claim to be a physician) are looked at closely. All such information gives us insight into the meaning of what is written. Exposition is not approached in general. There is painstaking linguistic study, translation, exegesis, and interpretation. Only such an approach provides an objective reference. Thus fanciful conjecture must yield to factuality. Inspiration, Infallibility and Inerrancy Biblical inspiration implies infallibility. Historically the word "infallibility" meant "reliability in achieving an end" or "entirely trustworthy for the purposes for which it is given." This is a good definition as long as the "purposes" are discovered inductively and not arbitrarily narrowed to salvific matters, as if to imply that the Bible is not trustworthy when it impinges on matters of history, science—the external world.

8 It is the broadening definition of infallibility which makes a clear distinction between what is religious or spiritual and what is scientific or factual that has led to the coinage of the word "inerrancy." The purpose is to protect the Bible from undue accommodation to the prevailing liberal approach to truth claims. The meaning is used in the narrower sense of "that which does not lead into error" or "that which does not contain error." Theological and spiritual giants have held to the view that the Bible is infallible or inerrant. Augustine (A.D. 396-430) stated that ". . . most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books. That is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us and committed to writing put down in these books anything false. If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to any difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true." This is what led to the so-called "all or nothing" or "domino theory of inspiration." Verbal inspiration is the first domino. The logic is that if you question that in any way, the other tenets of Christian theology inexorably fall. If there is one error or fault then there is no way to know whether there may be others as well. For the most part history proves this to be true. Yet occasionally the chain reaction stops, for reasons conservatives cannot explain. Conservatives have often been unfair to those who disagree on theological issues such as verbal inspiration by their inclination to take a person's present position, then logically extend it, and finally judge him for where his logic makes him end up. But he may never go beyond this present point in his thinking, he may never end up anywhere near where "logic" puts him. Conservatives need to be cautioned that each person stands or falls to his own Master. That Master does not see dominos; He sees our hearts as clearly as He knows our hearts. He wants to help us stand, not prove by logic that we'll topple. Conservatives have also tended strongly toward fundamentalistic or evangelical rationalism in which they have tried too hard to rid the Bible of any semblance of uncertainty. Many believe they have handily "proven" beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Bible is the Word of God. In their relentless pursuit for proof they have invented desperate answers based upon questionable logic and unwarranted reasoning. Such fervor is more a testimony to their own doubts than to their sturdy faith. Other giants in the field of theology who held to verbal inspiration were such men as Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1224-1274) who said "nothing false can underlie the literal sense of Scripture."8 Martin Luther declared, "The Scriptures have never erred."9 John Wesley wrote, "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may well be a thousand. If there is one falsehood in that Book it did not come from the God of truth."

9 The problem with nonbiblical terms such as "inerrancy" is that they present problems that seem rather alien to Scripture itself. There is the danger to overstating a doctrine because of what is implied by these terms. We must be careful not to impose a Western standard of scientific accuracy on an Eastern manuscript. Many Westerners force alien "accuracy" to a document that simply was never intended to be scrutinized and analyzed by such a scientific approach. Thus problems are created by a wrong methodology. Western historiography, for instance, pays attention to historical events in an extremely detailed and linear fashion which is foreign to Eastern historiography. The data of Scripture often includes approximations, free use of quotations (not verbatim word for word repetition), language of appearances, different accounts of the same occurrence that do not contradict, etc. This must be kept in mind when using such terms as "infallible" and "inerrant." In view of the Western materialistic and reductionistically rationalistic mindset that is usually brought to the word "inerrant," I will use the word "infallible" as the better of the two. The Bible is infallible and therefore authoritative in that God's word is true and has the power to accomplish what it says. Isaiah says that it will accomplish what God pleases: "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is My word that goes out from My mouth: It will not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it" (Isa. 55:10-11). Scripture cannot fail in what it is meant to do; it is infallible. This means that Scripture can be relied upon to achieve certain ends. Its promises and warnings will be fulfilled. Its account of God's words and works is authentic. Its teachings are true. The Bible does not mislead its readers. It does not teach what is false or erroneous. It can be relied on implicitly. This naturally leads to the question of whether there are limits to infallibility? Many of those engaged in literary and historical study of the Bible have put this question to the church acutely. In their analysis of the books they have found various difficulties in squaring biblical statements with scientific and historical findings. At times they have found it rather difficult to integrate certain biblical narratives with secular data, and some of their archeological findings have raised questions they have not been able to answer.

10 Biblical data has been massive in clearing up many supposed errors that simply do not stand up to close investigation. Evangelical biblical scholars have done a credible job in carefully studying the intra-textuality of Scripture and provided reasonable, logical, though sometimes extremely sophisticated and complicated, answers to nagging problems of various texts of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Biblical scholars such as F. F. Bruce, Gleason Archer, Charles Ryrie, and Larry Richards have addressed the difficult texts and given ample reason for confidence in the infallibility of the biblical record. The church did not use inerrancy to substantiate inspiration but vice versa. Therefore some "difficulties" are not fatal to its position. There is no denial that there are some problems that as yet do not yield a ready explanation. This should not unnerve us as we recognize that many times in the past problems resolved themselves when more data became available. The logical position is that where there are apparent conflicts, we must humbly hold the problem in abeyance rather than quickly accuse Scripture of contradiction or defensively conjure up simplistic answers. The honest position is to admit our present inability to explain and await the possibility of new data. The presence of problems does not logically prevent us from accepting the Bible as the Word of God. As E. J. Carnell reasoned: "There is a close parallel between science and Christianity which surprisingly few seem to notice. As Christianity assumes that all in the Bible is supernatural, so the scientist assumes that all in nature is rational and orderly. Both are hypotheses-based, not on all of the evidence, but on the evidence 'for the most part.' Science devoutly holds to the hypotheses that all of nature is mechanical, though as a matter of fact the mysterious electron keeps jumping around as expressed by the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty. And how does science justify its hypothesis that all of nature is mechanical, when it admits on other grounds that many areas of nature do not seem to conform to this pattern? The answer is that since regularity is observed in nature 'for the most part,' the smoothest hypothesis is to assume that it is the same throughout the whole." Liberals and Barthians (neoorthodoxy) have often criticized conservatives for using "proof-texting" as a vehicle to substantiate their conclusions. Their point is that this is an illegitimate and unscholarly methodology whereby conservatives cite proof texts to ensure that the answers will lead to conservative rather than liberal conclusions. It is certainly true that conservatives are sometimes guilty of this just as liberals are guilty at times of their misuse or abuse of footnotes in scholarly works. Proof texts and footnotes must be used properly. They must not be used out of context nor in part when the whole might change the meaning. They must accurately convey what is intended by the original author. Some of these so-called "errors" are created by Westerners who do not understand the Eastern mindset

11 and thus press for detailed accuracy that is foreign to the biblical manuscript. It must be admitted, however, that there is no absolute proof in these matters. We cannot demonstrate inspiration by demonstrating infallibility in an absolute sense. Even though the accusation of unreliability can be easily met, historical, literary or scientific demonstration does not have the absolute character which would qualify it as a basis of belief. The liberal position is the argumentation from purpose. They contend that since Scripture is meant to teach us about God, not about biology, geology or botany, it is only factual or accurate in communicating about religious matters. Ancient forms, possibly myths, are said to be used to convey truth or to effect existential encounter. Therefore it does not make sense to insist on the historical factuality of what belongs to form. The problem with this position is that it brings into question religion and theology itself. Does it make sense to trust doctrine if the facts are unreliable? Is it logical and safe to believe someone in hidden matters if what the person says concerning plain facts are false after all? These are false distinctions. This is an unnecessary dichotomy. There is no warrant for distinguishing between facts and truth, between that which is religious and secular. All are of one piece. The Bible simply does not regard itself as mythological or as a book of nonhistorical truths. Rather at its very core the biblical revelation is historical. Even though many of the details given in Scripture may be incidental, the gospel has to be factually as well as doctrinally true if it is true at all. Liberalism constantly brings in alien criteria and then tries to answer questions when there is no answer. It is futile to ask questions of Scripture which it was never attempting to answer in the first place. A wrong question will lead to a wrong answer. Statements do not have to be precisely scientific to be true. An example would be the popular statement, "the sun rises." Obviously this is phenomenological (as they appear to be), not scientific language. On its own terms then the statement is true even if it does not meet modern scientific analysis. Furthermore the Bible is written in various genres. Even though there is little reason to believe there is myth (the modern definition which equates it with nonreality) in the Bible, it would be incorrect to treat all the writings of Scripture the same. To treat poetry as a factual record or to dismiss the historicity or even the truthfulness of poetry because it is not a factual record shows a complete ignorance of the nature of literary language.

12 The Bible Claims to be The Word of God Why does skepticism toward the Bible matter? Because it claims to be the Word of God. In literally hundreds of passages, the Bible declares or assumes itself to be God’s Word. More than 3,800 times the Hebrew Scriptures alone use such statements as “The Lord spoke.” The phrase “the Word of God” is used 394 times in the Old Testament and the New Testament regularly quotes from the Old Testament as the “Word of God.” The writers say repeatedly that God told them to write and that they did write all He gave them (Ex. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:24; Rev. 1:11; 2:1,8,12,18). Some ask, “Why should we believe them?” Because they were credible eyewitnesses of the events they recorded (Lk. 1:2-4; Acts 3:15;5:32;10:39-41;13:31; I Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; I Pet. 1:16; I Jn 1:1-3 (Luke, Peter, Paul, John). Absolute authority and perfection of their writings is also asserted (Deut. 28:58,59; Isa. 8:20; Gal. 1:20; Rev. 22:18,19.4 This claim can originate only in blind conceit, wild fanaticism, (sincere but wrong), or a conviction that they spoke as oracles of God. Books of the Bible claim that another book is written with absolute authority (Josh. 1:8; 8:31,32; Ezra 3:3; Neh. 8:1; Acts 1:16; 28:25; I Pet. 1:10,11).5 Peter puts the writings of Paul on par with “the other Scriptures” (II Peter 3:15,16). This recognition of one book by another is an important indication of biblical unity. The Old Testament is declared by New Testament authors to be inspired and thus authoritative (II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:20,21). This means God worked through human personalities as instruments but so guided them that they wrote what He wanted written. As Augustine points out, “What the Bible says, God says.” Scripture, therefore, can be trusted in all it wants to reveal. This also means that God has seen fit to reveal Himself authoritatively only in the Bible and not in other books. Scripture is the final judge in disputable questions (Revelation 22:18,19). As “the Word of God” the Bible is a testimony to God’s words and acts. It therefore not only has historical and factual value, but it also raises a claim to faith and obedience in all of life. The Bible does not just pass on authoritative information; it makes an authoritative demand. God’s words and acts then are not written merely to provide an authentic record, but to present God’s message and claim with enduring fidelity and power (Isa 55:11; Heb. 4:12).

13 Trustworthy Why should anyone trust the Bible? Because the Bible has been proven trustworthy. How? First, the Bible does not have a mythical literary style as compared with other ancient literature. The frequent charge that the Bible is "full of myths" is not warranted by facts. Anyone who actually read the biblical accounts of miracles, the flood, and other controversial areas and compare them with other ancient sources that do use mythology as a literary style quickly realize the difference between the biblical literature and mythical literature. C. S. Lewis, professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature, Cambridge University, claims: “I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this.” 3 There is an obvious difference between the events recorded about Christ in the Bible and the stories in Greek mythology. Although there may be similar stories in Greek mythology and the Bible, they are worlds apart because the stories of Greek mythology were not applied to real flesh-and-blood individuals, but instead to nonhistorical, fictional, mythological characters. In the case of Christianity, however, these events are tied to the historical Jesus of Nazareth whom the New Testament writers knew personally. These writers either wrote as eyewitnesses of events they described or recorded first-hand eyewitness accounts of these events. Second, Jewish-Christian history differs from the Greek view. This significant difference is a crucial one to understand before we evaluate the historical credibility of the Bible. Historical details are selective in that they are given with a specific point in mind. History is therefore interpreted history. Third, the Bible is not a science text but describes the world as it appears to the naked eye. Therefore statements do not have to be precisely scientific to be true. An example would be the popular statement, “The sun rises.” Obviously this is phenomenological (as it appears to be), not scientific language. On its own terms then the statement is true even if it does not meet modern scientific analysis. Biblical "conflicts" with science, therefore, must be understood in terms of common-sense approaches to the "phenomenal" world. We should learn from the church's mistakes in the past--such as the case of Galileo who was condemned for teaching that the sun was the center of our solar system (helio-centricity) over against the accepted view that the earth was the center (geocentricity). The bishops of the church in Galileo's day refused to look into his telescope and examine the empirical evidence that the earth is not the center of our solar system.

14 Furthermore the Bible is written in various genre. Even though there is little reason to believe there is myth (the modern definition which equates it with nonreality) in the Bible, it would be incorrect to treat all the writings of Scripture the same. To treat poetry as a factual record or to dismiss the historicity or even the truthfulness of poetry because it is not a factual record shows a complete ignorance of the nature of literary language. The Bible does contain some paradoxes (apparent contradictions). Keep in mind, however, that time and time again an apparent contradiction has been vindicated by the discoveries of modern archaeology. There have been literally thousands of archeological finds in the Middle East that support the biblical record. There was a discovery not long ago confirming King David. The narratives about the patriarchs--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--were once considered legendary, yet as archeology has continued to unearth things these stories are increasingly corroborated. For a long time the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was considered to be mythological, but now evidence has shown that all five of the cities mentioned in the Genesis record were situated just as the Hebrew Scriptures had described. Archeologist Clifford Wilson claims that there is “permanent evidence of the great conflagration that took place in the long distant past” 4 in referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The dean of archeologists, William F. Albright, was a leader in the American School of Oriental Research for forty years and started out as a liberal but became more and more conservative as he studied the archeological record. He claimed, “There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition.” 5 Similarly Nelson Glueck, an outstanding Jewish archeologist, makes the remarkable statement, "No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."6 We don't have all the answers to all the problems. But all the vindicating data thus far strongly suggest that we can trust the biblical record about those details that still appear questionable. It is reasonable then to hold the problem of seeming contradictions in abeyance. Just as Christianity assumes that all in the Bible is supernatural, so the scientist assumes that all in nature is rational and orderly. Both are hypotheses based, not on all of the evidence, but on the evidence “for the most part.” Fourth, variant accounts are not the same as contradictory accounts. The charge that the Bible is "full of contradictions" is unwarranted. An under-standing of the Law of Noncontradiction is vital to this question. Close scrutiny of biblical texts will show a difference between variant accounts and contradictory accounts.

15 Fifth, modern historical research adds to biblical credibility. Historical research and archeology have done much to vindicate the historical reliability and accuracy of the Bible. Important discoveries at Qumran, Ebla, Amarna and elsewhere have exploded the "assured results" of negative nineteenth nineteenth-century criticism. The work of tracing the journeys of Paul as recorded by Luke by the prominent historian Sir William Ramsey has so vindicated Luke’s accuracy as a historian, that many modern secular historians have come to regard him as “The Finest Historian of Antiquity.”7 The biblical historians have passed the test of close scrutiny and critique more clearly than have other ancient historians such as Josephus and Herodotus. The Dead Sea Scrolls In 1947 in caves in the valley of the Dead Sea, just ten miles east of Jerusalem, ancient jars were discovered containing the famous “Dead Sea Scrolls,” considered by archeological scholars to be “the greatest archeological discovery of modern times.” The scrolls survived undisturbed for almost two thousand years until February or March 1947 when a young Bedouin goat herdsman accidentally discovered them. This archeological find included the earliest manuscript copy yet known of the complete book of Isaiah, and another one contained about one-third of the book. Later discoveries brought fragments of every book in the Old Testament except the book of Esther. The oldest text is a fragment of Exodus dating from about 250 B.C. This discovery is thus a witness to the antiquity and accurate transmission of the biblical text. This means the scrolls confirmed the accuracy of one thousand years of both the record and history of the Hebrews, that is, from 200 B.C. to A.D. 916. This evidence also lends weight to the histories previously uncovered. Sixth, the unity of the Bible is an external evidence that the Bible is the very Word of God. Though it was written by more than 40 authors over a period of about 1,500 years, spanning 6,000 years of history, it is nevertheless one book, not simply a collection of 66 books. Its writers came from all walks of life who lived in different cultures, had very different experiences, and often were quite different in personality and character. Yet the Bible is a continuity which can be observed from the first book of the Bible (Genesis) to its last book (Revelation). It has one doctrinal system, one moral standard, one plan of salvation, and one program for the ages. It has one theme: the prophetic anticipation, presentation, realization, and exaltation of the Person of Jesus Christ. Seventh, the extent of biblical revelation is another indication of divine inspiration. The unfolding of truth is inexhaustible. Although many books of the Bible were written in the early days of human knowledge and development when its authors were not aware of modern discoveries, what they wrote has never been seriously contradicted by later discoveries (this does not mean that there are not certain historical questions that remain unresolved).

16 Eighth, the remarkable number of fulfilled prophecies contained in Scripture is also an indication of its authenticity. These are not vague generalities given by modern fortune tellers such as Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce and Jean Dixon that are susceptible to easy misinterpretation. Numerous Bible prophecies are very specific in detail and the authentication and veracity of the prophet rests on their accuracy. Scripture itself makes it clear that fulfilled prophecy is one of the evidences of the supernatural origin of the word of its prophets (Jer. 28:9; Deut. 18:21,22).8 The Witness of Hebrew Prophecy The significance of predictive prophecy is fourfold: 1. Shows that there is a divine Intelligence behind both the Old Testament and the New Testament. 2. Establishes the existence of God. 3. Demonstrates the divine inspiration of the Bible. 4. Authenticates the humanity and deity of Jesus. There are more than 300 messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures. No other figure plays such a significant role in prophetic history as the Messiah. The attempt to explain away Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messiah has been futile. The evidence is simply massive and thus compelling. The apostles of the New Testament age appealed to two areas of the life of Jesus of Nazareth to establish His Messiahship. One was the resurrection and the other was fulfilled messianic prophecy. The Old Testament, written over a thousand year period, is replete with references to the coming Messiah. The closer the examination of such prophecies the more convincing is the solid evidence that these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, thus establishing His credentials as the Messiah. Mathematical Probability Peter Stoner in his book, Science Speaks, uses mathematical probability as one method of showing that the evidence of Jesus being the Messiah is astronomical. He argues convincingly that coincidence is ruled out if we are logical, reasonable, and open to the evidence before us. By using the modern science of probability in reference to only eight prophecies Stoner says, ". . . we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017."9 This would be 1 in 100,000,000,000, 000,000. He goes on by considering 48 of the messianic prophecies and concludes, ". . . We find the chance that any one man fulfilling all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10157.15 In light of such compelling evidence how can anyone doubt the messianic emphasis of the Old Testament and that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah!

17 While Jesus Christ is the Truth, we know Him only through the instrumentality of truths. Jesus as the Living Word is revealed in the written Word—the Holy Scriptures. Apart from the written documents of the New Testament we would know virtually nothing of this Nazarene Carpenter. It is only through special revelation (Jesus as revealed through the Scriptures) that we gain knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth. The only Jesus Christ we can grasp, experience, know, and love is the Christ that is shown in the New Testament. We can only apprehend Christ, therefore, in terms used by His apostles. The most outstanding example of predictive prophecy about Christ, the Messiah, is found in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Amazing detail is given concerning His life, His rejection, His death, His burial, and His reactions to the unjust judicial proceedings. Only the God of the Bible has the ability to accurately predict the future. No other religious writings can make such a claim with integrity, with factual data to back up such a claim. Ninth, the textual evidence of both the Old and New Testaments assure their legitimacy. The Greek manuscripts, whether of a portion or of the whole of the New Testament, total at least 5,686. 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done by Jerome from A.D. 382-405). Over 350 copies of Syriac versions of the New Testament found around A.D. 400's. Over 2,146 Greek lectionaries in existence. Virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some 32,000 citations in the writings of the church fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325). There are also more than 81 papyri containing portions of the New Testament text. Over 19,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and other languages. This means that there are at least 24,970 hand-written copies of the New Testament that have survived. The copies of the New Testament are not far removed from the originals. The dates of the manuscript copies range from early in the second century to the time of the Reformation. Many of the manuscripts date back in Egypt to as early as A.D. 120-130 and contain a few verses from the Gospel of John such as the John Rylands’ manuscript. The Chester Beatty Papyri dates back to A.D. 200 and contains major portions of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus dates back to A.D. 350 and contains virtually all of the New Testament, and Codex Vaticanus dates back to A.D. 325-350 and contains almost the entire Bible. 10 British biblical scholar F. F. Bruce affirms: “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.”11

18 Textual Criticism and Inerrancy “ The Bible's inerrancy is not the inerrancy of any one published text or version, nor of anyone's interpretation, nor of any scribal slips or pious inauthentic additions acquired during transmission. Rather, scriptural inerrancy relates to the human writer's expressed meaning in each book, and to the Bible's whole body of revealed truth and wisdom. Belief in inerrancy involves an advance commitment to receive as from God all that the Bible, interpreting itself to us through the Holy Spirit in a natural and coherent way, teaches. Thus it shapes our understanding of biblical authority. So inerrantists should welcome the work of textual scholars, who are forever trying to eliminate the inauthentic and give us exactly what the biblical writers wrote, neither more nor less. The way into God's mind is through his penmen's minds, precisely as expressed, under his guidance, in their own words as they wrote them. Text criticism serves inerrancy; they are friends. Inerrancy treasures the meaning of each writer's words, while text criticism checks that we have each writer's words pure and intact. Both these wisdoms are needed if we are to benefit fully from the written Word of God.”12 TEXTS & TRANSLATIONS The Bible has been translated into more than 2600 languages from its original languages of Hebrew and Greek. The first translation of the Hebrew Bible was into the Greek language called the Septuagint (LXX) in the third century B.C., which later became the basis of the canon and thus the standard text (“the received text”) of the Old Testament in the Church. It is known as the Septuagint, meaning seventy, because about 70 scholars worked on it. It was with the permission and cooperation of the Temple in Jerusalem that Hebrew scholars from Alexandria, Egypt translated the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament) into Greek for the use of the large Jewish community that lived in that Greek colony. Eventually, it became the Bible for Greek-speaking synagogues all over the Roman Empire as well as for the early Christian gatherings in which Greek was also spoken. When the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament, they quote the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. Eventually the Jews no longer used the Septuagint. Although the Bible had been established as the Christian Scriptures earlier, it was formally established by Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem in A. D. 350 (without Revelation) and confirmed the Council of Laodicea in A. D. 363 (still without Revelation) and later established by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in A. D. 367 (with Revelation added).

19 Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was translated between A. D. 382 and 420 and based upon the Hebrew for those books preserved in the Jewish canon (as reflected in the medieval Jewish text called the “Masoretic text”), and on the Greek text for the rest. Bible translations incorporating modern textual criticism usually begin with the Masoretic text, but also take into account possible variants from all available ancient versions including the several different Hebrew versions discovered between 1947 and 1956 among the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from the 2 nd century B. C. to the 2nd century A. D. Although most books of the Hebrew Bible were found in eleven caves near the ruins at Khirbat Qumran, where a monastic group in ancient Judaism called the Essenes lived, the original writings of the Essene/Qumran group itself was also found here, which confirm the other fragments of Scripture. The received text of the New Testament is Greek and nearly all translations are based upon the Greek text. Why Other Translations? Why other translations? The Reformers of Protestantism (16th century) were convinced that each biblical book should be translated from its original language, as far as possible. Rather than translating the Book of Isaiah, for instance, from its version in the Latin Vulgate or the Greek Septuagint, one should use the original Hebrew version of Isaiah. When there are several significantly different Hebrew versions of certain books, as is the case with Isaiah, the oldest and typically the best manuscripts should take precedence. Older and thus better manuscripts require newer translations. In the 17th century, King James translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had only seven Greek manuscripts from which to work whereas the NIV translators, as well as other translators of recent translations, work from more than 5,000 complete or partial manuscripts and papyri. Large quantities of papyri in Egypt were discovered about the turn of the 20th century and later. These papyri have illuminated every aspect of the life of the Greek-speaking people of the ancient world in which the New Testament was written. There are some manuscripts that date as early as A.D. 130, very close to the completion of the New Testament. These manuscripts are nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of the scribes. The Greek Text Major differences between the KJV and modern translations of the New Testament are primarily due to the inaccuracy of the Received Text or Textus Receptus (TR), the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based.

20

R. A. Torrey claimed the following in 1907: "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given?”13 The Process of Translation With various changes, the Erasmus Greek New Testament (GNT) was published by Froben in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. There was a version by Aldus in 1518 and Colinaeus in 1534. Stephanus's publications were in 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551, and the Antwerp Polyglot was issued in 1572. Then came Beza's in 1560, 1565, 1582, 1589 and 1598. Beza also published octavo editions in 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590 and 1604, and the AV translators looked at all of these (especially Beza's 1598 edition), which can collectively be thought of as the Textus Receptus. None of the important Greek manuscripts were available to the AV translators: Codex Alexandrinus did not arrive in England until 1627; Codex Vaticanus was at the Vatican, and therefore out of reach; Codex Sinaiticus was at St. Catherines Monastery in the Sinai, and not yet discovered.14 Erasmus' 1514 text and the texts which continued to evolve over the next 119 years, which came to be known as the Textus Receptus, were to most European Bible scholars of that time what the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (UBS4) is to most international Bible scholars of today. They all represent conscientious endeavors to best approximate the original Greek New Testament writings. The reconstruction of the original Greek texts will continue as additional ancient manuscripts are discovered and analyzed and as the methodology for such textual reconstruction becomes even further refined. Though this reconstruction process--which included the Textus Receptus and its conceptual offspring of today, the UBS4--will always be a work in progress.15 The TR was used as the basis for the KJV and all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the Revised Version [RV] was first published in England. The KJV translators most directly relied upon the 1598 Greek text by the Theodore de Beze of Geneva, but it also was virtually identical with Stephanus' 1550 and 1551 Greek texts, which were virtually identical with Erasmus' 1535 Greek text. Again, these all were noble efforts, but the editors of these editions did not have access to the current wealth of ancient documents and to today's more scientific knowledge of how those documents had been transmitted and partially corrupted over many centuries. Tenth, the survival of the Bible through time is another pointer to its authenticity. Although it does not prove that the biblical record is genuine, if it did not survive through time it would prove that it was not authentic. Otherwise how could God provide His revelation and not have it available to His people?

21 Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscripts which serve as evidence than any ten of classical literature combined. No documents of the ancient period are as well attested to bibliographically as the New Testament. The Bible has withstood the vicious attacks of its enemies as no other book. Many have tried to burn it, ban it, and outlaw it from the days of Roman emperors to the present day Communist-dominated countries without success. Eleventh, changed lives also attest to the authenticity of the Bible. What transformed the scared, frightened band of disciples into flaming evangelists? These peasants, shepherds, fishermen, and tax-collectors betrayed and denied their Master and then failed Him miserably as they were ready to throw away everything to flee in despair to Galilee. Yet suddenly they were changed overnight into a society of missionaries who “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6). What made the difference? Their belief in the resurrection of the Carpenter of Nazareth. Twelfth, the unique and supreme Person of the Bible is the final evidence for the authenticity of the Bible as the Word of God. The Bible is a supernatural book revealing the Person and glory of God as manifested in His Son Jesus. A person like the Jesus presented to us in Scripture never could have been the invention of mere mortal men. His nature and personality never could have been conceived by the wisest and holiest of mankind. His perfections never could have been imagined by finite man. There are some obvious similarities between the Bible as the written Word and Jesus as the living Word. Both are supernatural in origin with the perfect blend of the human with the divine. Both have a transforming power over those who believe. Divine perfection is embodied in each. The revelations they disclose are as simple as the mental capacity of a child and yet as complex as the infinite treasures of divine wisdom and knowledge. Thirteenth, the church's faith in the infallibility of Scripture is established on the basis of Christ’s view of Scripture (Matthew 5:17,18). Jesus Himself regarded Scripture, including the Hebrew Scriptures, as divine and therefore authoritative: “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18). Jesus quoted Scripture as the final authority, often introducing the statement with the phrase, “It is written.” He spoke of Himself and of events surrounding His life as being fulfillments of the Scriptures (Matthew 26:54,56). In referring to the Hebrew Scriptures He declared with finality, “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

22 Fourteenth, the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. While external evidences can be helpful for a historical belief, they are not compelling for saving faith. The evidences without direct authentication will never be sufficiently convincing, that is, they will never have the apologetic force to sanction belief. For the historical evidences support faith only within faith. Faith is the establishing of the evidences, not vice-versa. The main task of apologetics is, therefore, not to convince the faithless, but to instruct the faithful. The place of apologetics is to verify faith at the practical level. It is Christ alone, through the work of the Holy Spirit in the unbeliever, not apologetics that leads to faith. External evidences merely point the way. One of Barth's basic presuppositions when it comes to the truth of the Christian faith is that if something external to the Word of God is necessary to establish the Word of God as true, then that external support is greater than the Word of God. According to him, it is a very weak Word of God that needs external supports. If the lion needs gophers and rabbits to announce his kingship, then the lion is no longer king of the beasts. Barth's maxim is that what establishes is greater than what is established. Since there can be nothing greater than the Word of God, the Word of God establishes itself. While Barth may have overemphasized Christology and unduly undercut any apologetic task, he is right in his emphasis that God's truth is self-authenticating. As Barth points out, if Christianity is tested for truth, then the test is greater than Christianity. Truth is truth whether anyone acknowledges it or not. Barth is right to say that apologetics does not establish truth. However, even with its limitations it can be helpful in providing pointers to the truth. The preaching of the Living Word then comes in the dependence of the messenger on the Message--Jesus Christ as we are illumined by the same Spirit who inspired Scripture. Faith is not compelled by the evidences, nor by the preaching, but by the Christ of the message. It is only as man in Christ sees himself overcome by fear and/or love and grace that he is drawn to believe and trust. Faith is created when a person is illumined by the Holy Spirit and the grace of God floods his heart and mind. The historical record of the Bible is the account of God’s dealings with man which alone all other history meaningful. The theme of the Bible is the incarnate Word in whom we find truth, love, peace, freedom, hope, that is, salvation. Therefore the inspiration of Scripture is the work of the sovereign Spirit, whose operation cannot finally be apprehended by human analysis. It is God Himself who has given His revelation—His message of redemption--with quickening and compelling power.

23 Where God's own revelation of His truth does not convince, there man's apologetics cannot succeed either. When the preacher Charles Spurgeon was asked by a feverish young man, "Dr. Spurgeon, how can I defend the Bible?" the great expositor replied: "How do you defend a lion? Let it out of its cage and it will defend itself!" The Bible, however, is not to be worshiped (bibliolatry) since worship only belongs to God in the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Still it is to be our authority, our standard, our rule of faith and practice. There is, then, strong evidence that the Bible is inspired by God. Yet what finally makes us believe that the Bible is the Word of God is the testimony of the Holy Spirit. By examining the evidences we can gain information which will hopefully instruct and clarify our understanding of the nature of the Bible and show the reasonableness of its claims. Yet more importantly, by reading the Bible itself, we come to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired if we are open to its message. For then we begin to sense that it is God Himself who is speaking to us through the Book. We have an experience similar to that which the two disciples had on the road of Emmaus as they asked each other: "Were not our hearts burning within us while He talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us” (Lk. 24:32). The church’s faith in the infallibility of Scripture involves a reasoning process which is linear, not circular. It moves from general reliability to knowledge of specific historical details (e.g. Luke 1:1-4). This linear reasoning methodology of establishing the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture proceeds along both deductive and inductive lines as it moves from the premise of general trustworthiness to the conclusion of infallibility. Premise A--The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document. Premise B--On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus is the Son of God. Premise C--Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority. Premise D--Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is more than generally trustworthy; it is the very Word of God. Premise E--The word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is totally trustworthy. Conclusion--On the basis of the infallible authority of Jesus Christ, the church believes the Bible to be utterly trustworthy, i.e., infallible. 16 This progression of logic does not involve circular reasoning since circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion is already present in the first premise. The process involves careful historical, empirical investigation as well as logical inferences, rather than a subjective “leap of faith.”

24 CHRISTOLOGY & SCRIPTURE: HOLY SCRIPTURE AS WITNESS TO CHRIST No theologian in all of church history has shown as powerfully and convincingly as Karl Barth that theology that is "worthy" of the name Christian must be Christocentric (Christcentered). He has shown in his massive Church Dogmatics (13 volumes) that Christian dogma falls apart unless the Person and Work of Jesus Christ is found at the very center of any theological endeavor that calls itself "Christian." He boldly pronounces that the unity of Holy Scripture and of Christian theology is Jesus Christ. The mosaic of inspiration finds its blending in Him. Barth's rationale for his Christological principle is that the highest point of revelation governs the interpretation of revelation. That highest point is the incarnation. It is therefore as legitimate to look backward Christologically into the Old Testament as to look forward Christologically into the New Testament. Barth also reasons that the preexistence of Christ involves Christ's participation in the revelation of the Old Testament. From the very beginning of the church's reflection regarding the Person of Jesus it has been affirmed that the New Testament was prefigured in the Old Testament. The New Testament writers, the early church fathers and Augustine affirmed that the New Testament lay hidden in the Old Testament, and that the Old Testament became clear in the New Testament. It was essentially a Christological interpretation. In his first epistle Peter points out that the Spirit who spoke through the prophets was the Spirit of Christ (I Pet. 1:11). Similarly in the book of Revelation John says that the spirit of Jesus is the testimony of prophecy (Rev. 19:10). The Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, also emphasized the central role of Christ in any theological framework that is called Christian. Luther is famous for his remarks about the Christological character of Holy Scripture and Calvin taught that Christ is the mediator of all divine revelation. God never manifested himself to man in any other way than by his Son, his only wisdom, light and truth. Calvin is on solid ground, therefore, in his teaching that Christ is the supreme Word of God and the Mediator of all God's revelations. Calvin goes on to point out that this does not mean that this wisdom was always manifested in the same way. Rather with the patriarchs God used secret revelations with signs that made it very plain to them that it was God who spoke to them. The patriarchs transmitted this revelation from hand to hand to their posterity since God had made this a condition. Succeeding generations understood that this message was from God as He made this certain to their hearts.

25 As Christians we know God only as he has been revealed In and through Jesus. All other talk about God can have, at most, only provisional significance. Like Karl Barth and many before him theologian Emil Brunner states that God's revelation is Jesus Christ Himself. He is not a 'Word' but God Himself present, acting in His own Person. Therefore He is the consummation of God’s revelation. What made Jesus' message (i.e. the Sermon on the Mount or other teachings) so startling was not primarily the content of the sermons but His authority. Attention is riveted on the Preacher rather than the sermon. After all, there is a real sense in which the Preacher of the sermon is the sermon. For Jesus is the Narrow Gate we must enter. He is the Narrow Road we must travel. He is the Rock upon which we must build our lives (Mt. 7). It is Jesus Himself that is most important. THE WRITTEN AND THE LIVING WORD This is so because in Jesus there is the marriage or joining of His Person and His Word. One cannot logically accept His person and reject His Word. This is so because it is in the preaching of the inspired witness of Holy Scripture about Jesus that He comes to the believing heart. This is true because the written witness of the life of Christ (Lk. 1:1-4) is the extension of the spoken word. Christ offered Himself in the words which He spoke: "I tell you the truth, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." (Jn. 5:24) Just as Christ offered Himself in the words He spoke, so Christ is now offered by the written word of special revelation—the record of His spoken word—Holy Scripture. The only Lord we can believe in is the Lord who is shown in the pages of the Bible. All one knows of the Living Word is what the written Word has revealed. The Living Savior comes to people only in the garments of Scripture. The greatest miracle of God is that when the Christ of the Bible is faithfully preached the living Lord truly comes to believing hearts. It is told of Leonardo de Vinci, that when he was ready to depict the face of Christ in his masterpiece, "The Last Supper," he prepared himself by prayer and meditation. Yet when he raised his brush to give expression to his religious devotion, his hand trembled.

26 Only such an attitude and reaction is proper and right when one tries to paint a theological picture of Jesus of Nazareth. The attempt to understand, proclaim and teach who He is, His Person—His nature and character, His perfections and sufferings, His mission and ministry—will always fall short of what is worthy of Him. Even with the Bible in one hand and a paint brush in the other this is a difficult task since our understanding of the Bible is distorted and thus faulty. Yet it is a noble and needful undertaking in these last days when false prophets and false teachers are zealously and fervently disseminating their "Jesus" and their "gospel." THE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE The message of Jesus continually points to the Preacher as He Himself pointed out: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about Me . . ." (Jn. 5:39). THE WITNESS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT The Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament, testifies to the Person and Work of Jesus of Nazareth. The Old Testament is important to the Christian church because it is a Christological document in that its purpose is to lead people to salvation in the name of Jesus Christ. When the New Testament writers refer to Scripture they are talking about the Old Testament. Thus we see how the Old Testament Scriptures testify to Jesus Christ by the following statements. "But as for you [Timothy], continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures [Old Testament], which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Tim. 3:14,15). Paul completes this thought by pointing out the nature and full-orbed ministry of the Word of God: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (II Tim. 3:16,17). Peter tells us that the supreme witness of the prophets was about the sufferings and glory of Christ: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched diligently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

27 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even Angels long to look into these things" (I Pet. 1:10-12). Similarly Luke points to Christ as the one who would fulfill what the prophets proclaimed: "But this is how God fulfilled what He had foretold through all the prophets, saying that His Christ would suffer. . . . As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned them from the Scriptures [Old Testament], explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead" (Acts 3:18; 17:2-3). In the great post-resurrection Bible study Jesus pointed to His own importance in the pages of the Old Testament: "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself" (Lk. 24:25-27). In controversy with the Jews, Jesus referred to the Old Testament and claimed: "These are the Scriptures that testify about Me . . . If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (Jn. 5:39b, 46-47) THE WITNESS OF HEBREW PROPHECY The witness of prophecy backs up Barth's insistence on the Christological principle in interpreting Scripture since there are more than 300 messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. No other figure plays such a significant role in prophetic history as the Messiah. The attempt to explain away Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messiah has been futile. The evidence is simply massive and thus compelling. The apostles of the New Testament age appealed to two areas of the life of Jesus of Nazareth to establish His Messiahship. One was the resurrection and the other was fulfilled messianic prophecy. The Old Testament, written over a thousand year period, is replete with references to the coming Messiah. The closer the examination of such prophecies the more convincing the evidence that these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and thus establish solid evidence of His credentials as the Messiah.

28 THE CANON: HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE Since the Bible did not magically fall out of heaven, like the Qur’an (the Holy Book of Islam), how did it get put together? Who decided which books should be included? How do we know that the Bible contains only those books God intended? The term "canon" has come to be applied to the writings that make up the Bible. "Canon" comes from the Greek word kanon denoting a reed or measurement and came to be used for a straight rod, bar, ruler, measuring stick, standard, or model. This word was used to refer to those books which were "measured" by a "standard" and accepted as divinely authoritative. These divine books were recognized as Holy Scripture. How was it determined whether a book qualified to be a part of the Old Testament? It had to meet the following criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Divinely Inspired—A sense of the supernatural (“the ring of truth”--authoritative) A Record of Actual Facts—Authentic Belonging to the Time and Place of the Writer—Genuine Accepted as Divinely Inspired by the people of God (those who belong to the church universal)

The writings of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the other prophets were stored in the tabernacle and venerated. Later writings often were appended to earlier ones. How about the New Testament? How was it determined whether a book qualified to be a part of it? It had to meet the following criteria: 1. Apostolic Origin--Teaching based on apostolic witness 2. Consistent in Doctrine with the standard already possessed in the Old Testament and in the teachings of the apostles. 3. Their Central Subject is the Person and Work of Jesus Christ 4. Its Message had a Moral Effect as demonstrated by their power within the Christian church. The Old Testament When it comes to the Old Testament only writings from God's recognized prophets were collected. The New Testament makes this crystal clear: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son" (Heb. 1:1).

29 "We have the word of the prophets made more certain. . . . Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (II Pet. 1:19-21). Jesus Himself set the example for the church's acceptance of the "Jewish" canon by His constant appeal to the Old Testament. He affirmed Old Testament Scripture as a whole and in its parts had come to fulfillment in Himself (Mt. 5:17; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 5:39; Rom. 3:31). Such a "Christological" interpretation of the Old Testament moved the church to proclaim that it, and not Judaism, was the proper custodian and interpreter of the Old Testament canon. For Paul, the apostle, the reading of the Old Testament was meaningful only in the light of the historical appearances of Jesus Christ (I Cor. 10:1ff.; II Cor. 3:6ff.). The Jews were repeatedly exhorted to listen to and obey the prophets as God's spokesmen. God accredited their messages with supernatural signs and fulfilled prophecies. True prophets, therefore, were allowed no margin for error. Unless they were 100 percent correct, they were to be killed. Disobeying a prophet brought numerous penalties (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:17-22). All the Old Testament writers were recognized prophets of God who were commissioned by Him to proclaim His message through verbal proclamation and through the written word. The early church was not ignorant nor naive concerning who was a true prophet and who was a false prophet. "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping" (II Peter 2:1-3). The Hebrew Scriptures ("sacred writings") became a complete collection when the last books were written in Ezra's time (ca. 425 B.C.). According to Jewish tradition, Ezra collected the remaining Old Testament books after the Jews returned from the Babylonian Exile. Those who invaded had scattered or destroyed many copies about 70 years earlier. A council of 120 devout Jews ("the Great Synagogue") was formed to restore the system of worship among the Hebrews. It was these spiritual leaders who made the final collection of the Old Testament canon according to Jewish tradition.

30 Many centuries before Christ the Jews revered the same Hebrew Scriptures they have today. It was, and continues to be, the basis for their law and worship. From the time of Moses to the time of the first printing press (over 3,000 years) all copies of the Old Testament were written by hand. Scribes had to follow extremely strict rules in copying the ancient manuscripts. So-called "common copies" for private use also were made with great care but could include marginal notes. The Talmud (Jewish Commentary covering a period between 400 B.C. until A.D. 500) specified that any biblical manuscript (which was a handwritten copy) that contained one mistake, or was worn out from constant use, must be ceremonially buried. THE HEBREW BIBLE VS.OTHER BIBLES Even though the Hebrew Bible has fewer books (24), it has exactly the same content as other versions of the Old Testament (39). The reason is that the Hebrew Bible combines the pairs of the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah into one book each. The Minor Prophets (12) are also grouped into one book, The Twelve. The Protestant version of the Old Testament stems from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. It was translated into Greek about 250 B.C. This is a witness to the fact that the Old Testament canon was completed before that time. This means that the Jews revered the same Hebrew Old Testament they have today as they had several centuries before Christ. It was, and continues to be, the basis for their law and worship. WHY IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BIBLE BIGGER? For the first 1900 years after the completion of the Old Testament, only 39 books were considered sacred. Judaism has definitively rejected the apocrypha. Two Jewish sources state the composition of the Old Testament canon as that of the 39 books as we know them (II Esd. 14:1948 [117 B.C.]; Josephus CAP i.8 [39-46] [A.D. 90]) and omit the apocryphal and pseudoepigraphical books. It was not until A.D. 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church added other books to the canon.17 These added books are known as the apocrypha which means "hidden." These were produced between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100. These apocryphal books were rejected until the Council of Trent, in reaction to the Protestant Reformers, they added some of them to the Roman Catholic Bible in 1546. The apocryphal literature provided justification for such practices of the Roman Catholic Church as praying for the dead and receiving forgiveness of sins by doing good deeds.

31 Since some pieces of apocryphal literature were added to existing books of the Old Testament, the Roman Catholic Old Testament has 46 separate books compared to the Protestant's 39 books. THE APOCRYPHA ______________________________________________________________________________ APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN ROMAN CATHOLIC BIBLE AS: ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. The Wisdom of Solomon (ca. 30 B.C.) 2. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach--132 B.C.) 3. Tobit (ca. 200 B.C.) 4. Judith (ca. 150 B.C.) 5. I Maccabees (ca. 100 B.C.) 6. II Maccabees (ca. 110-70 B.C.) 7. Baruch (ca. 150-50 B.C.) 8. Letters of Jeremiah (ca. 300-100 B.C.) 9. Additions to Esther (140-130 B.C.) 10. Prayer of Azariah (2nd or 1st cent. B.C.)

Book of Wisdom Ecclesiastes Tobias Judith I Maccabees II Maccabees Baruch 1-5 Baruch 6 Esther 10:4-16:24 Daniel 3:24-90 (Song of Three Young Men) 11. Susanna (2nd or 1st cent. B.C.) Daniel 13 12. Bel and the Dragon (ca. 100 B.C.) Daniel 14 13. Prayer of Manasseh (2nd or 1st cent. B.C.) Prayer of Manasseh 18 ______________________________________________________________________________ The Old Testament apocrypha is never quoted in the New Testament and was not even accepted by Jerome whose Latin version of the Bible (ca. A.D. 400) became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546. While the apocrypha provides helpful and interesting history between the times of the Old and New Testaments, it does not claim to be the work of prophets much less Scripture itself. A group of Jewish scribes called the "Massoretes" devoted their lives to preserve the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They carefully copied the best manuscripts available during the period between A.D. 400 and A.D. 900. They invented a system of marking vowels since the Hebrew language only had consonants. This was a way to preserve the proper pronounciation of words. Because of their great reverence for the Holy Scriptures, the Massoretes went through an extremely careful process in their translation work. Not only were the words counted on each page of every book of the Old Testament, but so were the number of letters even to the point of indicating the center letters. They wanted to make sure they were completely accurate in producing their copies of sacred Scripture.

32 The official recognition of our present canon or canonical Scriptures as the act by which the church gave them their canonical status took place at The Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 and was quickly repromulgated by the Third Synod of Carthage in A.D. 397. Since this time, there has been no serious questioning of the authenticity of the canon until recently in which there is an onslaught of criticism by liberal scholars and nonscholars who claim that the present New Testament canon was made up arbitrarily. Is their criticism valid? A careful look at the historical process of canonicity will provide overwhelming evidence for the authenticity of the present New Testament canon. The true criterion of canonicity is inspiration. If Scripture means the written record of the authoritative word of God, whatever was given by inspiration of God was Scripture, and whatever did not come by inspiration of God was not Scripture. But how can inspiration be demonstrated? The New Testament First, the inspiration of these documents may be supported by their intrinsic content. They all have for their central subject the person and work of Jesus Christ. Some may object that any prominent person of antiquity could be immortalized by such a body of literature. This is not a valid objection since there is no indication that Jesus of Nazareth was considered important by the leaders and the teachers of His day other than what is presented in the New Testament. Thus there is no reason why the writings concerning Him should survive in the hostile Roman world. The New Testament itself admits that the message about Jesus Christ was "to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Gentiles foolishness" (I Cor. 1:23). To His contemporaries Jesus meant no more than any other person who aspired to messiahship. Yet the fact remains that a great religion grew from such humble beginnings. May this suggest a divine plan? Can a faith, or an organized religion, be built and sustained on the kind of Jesus described by liberalism, a Jesus who is a mere man? Such is highly improbable. But a Jesus who is both God and man provides a logical explanation. The message concerning the person of Jesus Christ was unique. Cults centering around individuals were quite common in the first century, yet these individuals who were either mythical or historical, did not endure as people to be worshiped. This unique message centers in the books that are called "canonical." The early church found that the precision of narrative, the depth of teaching, and the concentration on the person and work of Jesus Christ provided a discernible difference between the canonical and the noncanonical books.

33 Second, inspiration is also corroborated by their moral effect. Wherever the message of what we now have come to know as the canon has permeated and spread, the church has expanded and brought with it a moral cleansing of society. Even though every person who claimed to be a Christian was not a paragon of virtue, nevertheless when compared to the moral standards of paganism, Christianity stood out distinctly. The power of the New Testament's truth (Truth: Jesus Christ) radically changed their lives. Internal Testimony Third, the historic testimony of the early church will show what value was placed on these books which we now call canonical. Several New Testament authors assumed a certain amount of canonical authority. In Galatians Paul asserted that his gospel was "not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11,12). In I Corinthians Paul defined "the gospel" as a message "which I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according the Scriptures" (I Cor. 15:3,4). Paul did not originate this gospel; it was "received." In I Thessalonians, one of his earliest epistles, Paul said, ". . . we preached the gospel of God to you" (I Thess. 2:9). This is the same gospel he defined to the Corinthian believers. He then added, ". . . when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God." (I Thess. 2:13) Here is a claim from a New Testament book that the message proclaimed by Paul in the New Testament is (1) the word of God, and (2) that it produced an effect upon those who believed it. This confidence in the authority of the message led Paul to write a second letter to the believers at Thessalonica and warn them: "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother" (II Thess. 3:14). Paul adjured the Thessalonian community to read his letter "to all the brothers" (I Thess. 5:27). He directed a letter to be circulated to other communities beyond the original destination (Col. 4:16). This leads to the assumption that Paul would have considered any given letter as generally authoritative since he preached, as he affirmed, the same gospel to all (I Cor. 4:17).

34 Even in the case where he does not have a specific command from the Lord and thus his command is secondary to the "word of the Lord" (I Cor. 7:12ff; 9:17ff.), it is nevertheless a command that may stand alongside the command of the crucified and risen Lord. Paul acts as one whose apostolate is from God and thus clearly hears the word of God and teaches it with such confidence and conviction that rejecting his message is tantamount to rejecting Christ Himself (Mk. 8:38) and can only result in damnation (Gal. 1:8.). This does not mean that all apostolic writings which were authoritative and thus canonical must have been preserved. It seems that at least three of the Pauline letters did not become a part of the canon (I Cor. 5:9; II Cor. 2:4; Col. 4:16). There have been some persuasive arguments in recent years to show that II Corinthians 6:14-17:1 corresponds to the letter Paul referred to in I Corinthians 5:9 and that II Corinthians 10-13 may represent the "painful" letter mentioned in II Corinthians 2:4. It is possible, however, that a writing that was authoritative was either superseded or simply not included in a collection. It is clear that the gospel writers, in their authoritative account of Jesus, did not include all the tradition available to them. John, in his gospel, hyperbolically affirms that a "world" of material was not included (Jn. 21:25).19 It is clear then, that from the very outset of his writing, Paul considered his own letters as the authoritative word of God. The epistles of Paul early became a part of the canon as Peter testifies to it as a body of literature to be received "as the other Scriptures" (II Pet. 3:15-16). Although not all the writings of the New Testament contain similar allusions to possessing the authority of Scripture, they all do possess characteristics that are selfauthenticating. The gospels, for instance, when compared to the apocryphal books, show a sobriety in their treatment of the miracles of Jesus (i.e. stories of the miracles Jesus is said to have performed as a child) that makes their claim to canonicity all the stronger. External Testimony It is generally believed that the earliest document which quotes any of the books of the New Testament was I Clement, which was itself considered canonical by some Christians. This was found in Codex Alexandrinus which was written from Rome to the church in Corinth around A. D. 95. Clear allusions are made in this document to the Gospel of Matthew, Romans, I Corinthians, and Hebrews.20 The evidence is strong that Ignatius of Syrian Antioch (A. D. 116) knew all of Paul's epistles. He quoted Matthew and also possibly made allusion to John.

35 The Didache (The Teaching) which was produced during the first half of the second century appealed to both Matthew and Luke as well as many other New Testament books. The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) quoted Matthew and used the formal phrase, "it is written" to introduce quotations from the book. The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140) is an early allegory which alludes to the book of James. Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 150) also showed familiarity with Matthew, Acts and Paul's epistles and quoted from I Peter and I John. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165), a Syrian Greek who had been a philosopher, made references to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and many of the Pauline epistles. He stated that the "Memoirs of the Apostles," what we now call "the Gospels" were read every Sunday in the worship of the church along with the Old Testament. Martyr's pupil, Tatian, composed the first "harmony of the Gospels," called The Diatessaron. This book became a standard work used by the early church for many years. 21 By A.D. 170 Irenaeus showed that there was no question that the books of the New Testament were authoritative. The rapid growth of Gnosticism and other heresies ushered in a flood of apologetic literature which continued for at least 80 years until the time of Origen (A. D. 250). These leaders became apologists who turned to the apostolic writings as their basis of authority in opposing the heresies that threatened the teachings of the early church. 22 Irenaeus made great use by quoting liberally from all four Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul (200 times), several General Epistles, and the book of Revelation. He claimed that there were only four gospels and that anyone who taught differently was teaching heresy. He criticized Marcion for claiming that Luke and the epistles of Paul were the only books that were authentic. Thus by implication he accepted not only those writings acknowledged by Marcion, but others as well. The only books of the New Testament that Irenaeus did not allude to were Philemon and III John.23 Melito of Sardis (prior to A.D. 180) speaks of the "books of the Old Covenant" presupposing "books of the New Covenant" as an authoritative counterpart.24 Athenagoras of Athens (also prior to A.D. 180), in his treatise on the resurrection, appeals to Paul's work in I Corinthians 15 as if it were canonical. Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 200) quoted as proof of truth from all of the New Testament except Philemon, James, II and III John.

36 The Early Church father from Alexandria, Origen (A.D. 185-250), was well acquainted with several cities beside his own as he traveled extensively in Rome, Antioch, Caesarea, and Jerusalem. He divided these books into two classes: the homologoumena, which were without doubt genuine and thus accepted by all the churches, and the antilegomena, which were disputed and thus not acceptable by all the congregations. Even though he did not draw the lines of the canon as closely as they were drawn later, he showed that the selection process for canonicity was already going on.25 Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 265-340) followed Origen by drawing a line between the canonical, the genuine, and the apocryphal, the questionable. Although these men did not always agree on every book as to its canonicity, they were by no means "uncritical recipients of unreliable rumor."26 Early Church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. A.D.260-340) were the principal voices in the formation of the canon. Books considered for inclusion in the canon were first divided into three categories: acknowledged, disputed, heretical. Those found questionable were then divided into two classes: disputed or spurious. Even though books such as the Didache, Barnabas, I Clement, Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas were widely read and were older than some of the canonical books, they were among those considered spurious writings. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363) and the Easter letter ("Festal Letter") of Athanasius, the Alexandrian theologian (A.D. 367), for the first time provides a list in which the 27 books of the present New Testament canon are declared to be the canonical collection. Here he distinguished sharply between "God-inspired Scripture . . . handed down to our fathers by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning"27 and the "so-called secret writings" of heretics. In referring to the New Testament books Athanasius stated, "These are springs of salvation . . . let no one add to them or take away from them." 28 This decree was very influential in fixing opinion in the Eastern Church. Jerome's translation of the Greek Scripture into Latin at the request of the Roman bishop Damasus included the canonical 27 books. In Africa the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), of which Augustine was an influential member, also acknowledged the present 27 books as the canon. This was ratified by a papal decree in A.D. 405. And the Council of Hippo reiterated the same decision in A.D. 419.29 At approximately the same time churches throughout the empire formed a unified decision by fixing the limits and contents of the canon. It would be a mistake, however, to see this as conferring canonicity. The decisions of the church were merely the recognition or acknowledgment of the intrinsic authority and power of these writings. As J. I. Packer put it,

37 "The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by his work of creation, and similarly he gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up."30 Voices have been raised, and are being raised, that suggest that the New Testament canon should be reopened for church evaluation. Should the church accept the legacy of the historical development of canonicity or should she call this history into question? Some point to the seeming reluctance with which certain books like Philemon, Hebrews, James, II and III John, and Jude were taken into the canon as evidence that these were spurious and thus canonicity was not so certain. It is more likely that they came under greater scrutiny because Philemon, II and III John, and Jude are all so brief they would seldom be quoted and thus did not seem to carry as much weight. Also, these writings were directed at individuals whose location may have been obscure. Unlike the larger letters that were sent to sizable churches or that were circulated throughout the provinces, these smaller epistles did not get the attention unless there was a demand for them or until the persons or groups to which they belonged called them to public attention. In the case of the book of Hebrews, the uncertainty of its authorship initially brought its authenticity into question. Church history informs us that canonicity as a painstaking process whereby the churches and their leaders did not accept every manuscript that happened to bear the name of an apostle or that professed to relate previously untold history and teaching. As New Testament scholar Merrill Tenney puts it: "The existing canon emerged from a large body of oral and written tradition and speculation and made its way in the churches because of its inherent authenticity and dynamic power."31 There is a distinction between canonizing and collecting in that no person or council can decide whether a work is canonical or scriptural even though persons were involved in collecting and preserving such works. F. F. Bruce writes: “One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa–at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397–but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian Communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities.”32

38 The books that make up Scripture were recognized by man as inspired by God. Similarly, Swiss theologian Karl Barth has pointed out that it was not so much the case of the church choosing which books belonged to the canon, but rather that the books themselves, because of their intrinsic authority and power, "forced themselves upon the early church." In the final analysis, the only task the church fathers had was to recognize this. It has been the conviction of the church that this history, provided by the canonical books, was set in motion, and has been superintended, by God who will not lead His church into error. Jesus has built, and continues to build, His church upon this canonical Scripture as people hear their Lord speak in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament canon. BIBLICAL CONTENT THE OLD TESTAMENT (39 books) THE LAW (History--17 books) The Pentateuch (History--5 books) Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy These books are sometimes called the "Pentateuch" or the five books of Moses, or the Jews call them "the Torah" meaning law. While they consider them on a higher level of inspiration that the Old Testament books, we do not. The first six chapters or Genesis contain creation, man's origin, the fall, and the conditions that led up to the world wide flood. Obviously God did not reveal much to us about that period of about 1600 years from Adam to Noah, for it is all pressed into six chapters. This is in stark contrast to the other 923 chapters that cover a period of only about 2000 years in the history of Israel from Noah to Malachi. The stories of many men of God are recorded, including that of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and many others. Included in these books are the history of man, the development of Israel as the "chosen people," their 40 years of wandering in the wilderness and the giving of the law and God's special instructions to them as a people. The ancient books are among the oldest known to mankind. They defy primitive, human concepts and standards. They started out on such a sublime level they still are unsurpassed as literature which is to be expected if they were authored by God.

39 History & Government (12 books) Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther The next 12 books found in your Bible cover about eleven hundred years, from the entering into the promised land under the leadership of Joshua to the partial restoration back into the land after the Babylonian Captivity. There are exciting stories of judges like Gideon and Samson, kings like Saul, David, Solomon, and many others. In a real way, it is the fulfilling of God's prophecy to Israel in Deuteronomy 28 that if they would obey Him, He would bless them; and if they disobeyed Him, He would curse them. In these books of history it is clearly seen that the times of Israel's blessings followed their times of disobedience. During this period, you will read about the characters God raised up at key periods of history. It reveals to us that He is willing to use normal, ordinary men and it also shows He is faithful to the individual who obeys Him. We are challenged in the New Testament to read these dealings of God with men because they are "examples" of how He wants to work in our lives today. The Wisdom Literature (Poetry) Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon In the wisdom literature of the Bible, we see timeless principles that show us how to enjoy success and blessing regardless of the political and religious circumstances into which a person is born. Some Bible teachers call these "the books of poetry" because they were largely written as poetry, particularly Psalms and Proverbs. That is why sometimes you will note that the writers say the same thing in the last half of a verse that they did in the first. This is called "Hebrew parallelism" and usually adds further insight into the original statement. You need to be careful in reading the other three books. Job contains some bad advice that should not be taken as God's truth since at times it is man's philosophical attempt to explain tragedy without God's insights. As long as if you keep the overall story in view, you will get the proper perspective. Ecclesiastes is a different matter. It contains the frustrations of Solomon at the end of his life after turning his back on God and disobeying the principles of God which he knew well. Thus we have here humanistic conclusions of a backslidden king, which illustrates the futility of man apart from God. The Song of Solomon contains the intimate story of the beauty of married love. It shows that God designed sex for married pleasure and love.

40 The Major Prophets (5 books) Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel The four prophets who wrote the five books called "the major prophets" were the outstanding prophets in the entire history of Israel. Isaiah called the nation of Judah to repentance which saved the country from the judgment of God for another one hundred and thirty years. Jeremiah tried the same thing in his day but was rejected. His book of Lamentations is his sad lament that the great city of Jerusalem and the nation of Judah were un-necessarily destroyed because they rejected the Lord. Ezekiel and Daniel were taken captive into Babylon and prophesied the restoration of Israel prior to the first coming of Christ and again in the "last days," Daniel's prophecy in the Old Testament is comparable to the book of Revelation in the New Testament. The Minor Prophets (12 books) The 12 minor prophets were raised up by God at strategic times in the history of Israel to call the people back to God. They are called the "minor" prophets because their books are shorter. Although limited largely to the people for whom they were written, many lessons are to be found hidden in these little prophecies. THE SILENT YEARS From the close of the Old Testament to the birth of Christ over 400 years transpired when Israel had no prophet to reveal the message of God. For that reason they are called the "silent years." They were completed with the coming of the prophet John the Baptist. THE NEW TESTAMENT (27 books) The 27 books of the New Testament were written in Greek by eight men, three of whom [Matthew, John, and Peter) were apostles who were eye witnesses of what they wrote. The apostle Luke was a constant traveling companion of Paul and thus he saw many of the events he wrote about in Acts and researched in the life of Christ in order to write the gospel that bears his name. Consequently, Luke is a presentation of the life of Christ as testified by the very people who saw the events recorded. The other gospel writers told what they had seen personally. Probably the first book of the New Testament was written by James (about A.D. 50 with the possible exception of Galatians. However, the events they describe covered a period of time close to 100 years, from the birth of Christ to John's vision of Revelation on the Isle of Patmos. It emphasizes vital Christianity which is characterized by the kind of faith—living faith—that results in good deeds.

41 The Gospels (History—4 books) Matthew, Mark, Luke, John The New Testament begins with four histories of the life and teachings of Christ called the Gospels. Everything that can be known about the life of Jesus Christ is found in the in these four books; no other records of His life have been found. Not one of the Gospels is complete in itself. Some events of our Lord's life are included in all four, but each presents him in a slightly different light, depending on for whom it was written or for what purpose it was written. To know His entire life you must familiarize yourself with all four of the Gospels. The Early Church (History—1 book) Acts The 28 chapters of the book of Acts contains the only authentic record of the exciting spread of Christianity after the ascension of Christ. It is labeled the Acts of the Apostles, but it could well be called "the acts of the Holy Spirit," for His hand is vitally present throughout the book. Written by Luke, a medical doctor, it shows meticulous scholarship. So many geographical places are mentioned that several skeptics set out to disprove its authenticity by visiting them only to be overcome with its painstaking accuracy. THE EPISTLES (Teaching—21 books) The Epistles of Paul (Teaching--13 books) Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon Each one of the epistles of Paul was written to a church or person for some special purpose. Paul, was the missionary of the early church who did more to spread Christianity than any man on record. His dramatic conversion is a classic for he turned from being a Christ-hating Pharisee to a Christ-serving Christian. Almost every human need is covered in one or another in his epistles. The General Epistles (8 books) Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude The General Epistles are so designated because they were written for a specific need or to a group not reached by Paul. They cover a general area of truth needed by God's people of every age. Most of them address heresies that ran rampant during the early church era. We do not know who the author of the book of Hebrews is. It presents Christ as God's full and final revelation, far surpassing the limited preliminary revelation given in the Old Testament. The prophecies and promises of the Old Testament are fulfilled in the "new covenant" (or "new testament"), of which Christ is the mediator. Much of the reasoning of this book is founded on the Old Testament.

42 PROPHECY (1 books) Revelation The last book in the library of God is the greatest prophecy in the Bible, called Revelation. It is a revelation of our Lord during three stages of history: (1) The Church age; (2) The Coming Tribulation period culminating with the Second coming of Christ; and (3) The Age to come; this last age ushers in the 1000 year Kingdom of Christ on this earth until the final replacement of this earth with a better and eternal one called "the new heavens and the new earth." This book is more difficult to understand than the others. There will be much about it that you will not grasp simply by reading it. This book has to be studied carefully in the light of many other passages of Scripture. However there is ample material in it so that you can understand and from which you will receive spiritual inspiration so that your reading it frequently is warranted and recommended. Here is the whole library of God. You will find it fascinating and inexhaustive library to study. It is the only book that is able to "make you wise for salvation . . ." (II Tim. 3:15). Different Kinds of Literature to Interpret In order to understand the writer's aim, it is vital to understand the nature of the literature he is writing. It is helpful to understand something of the general characteristics of this nature and of the methods of writing them. History Christianity is an historical religion. History is, therefore, central to the Christian faith since God has been revealed through historical people and historical events. Much of the Bible is devoted to describing this revelation of God. These parts should be taken seriously as the history of God's dealings with His people and not treated simply as books full of interesting moral stories. Although the biblical historians were concerned to tell us what happened in the past, they were not primarily concerned, as modern historians might be, with economic and political issues, nor do they always intend to give precise information on chronology and numbers. Much of Old Testament historical writing was called "prophecy" by the Jews. The author's intention was not to record history for its own sake, but to instruct and to build up the readers in the faith by teaching them about God's dealings in the past, and by interpreting history. We should not, therefore, demand from biblical historians information which it is not their intention to tell us.

43 The gospels, for instance, should not be regarded as biography in the modern sense since the evangelists do not give us details of Jesus' childhood, His appearance, etc. They are bringing out the theological significance, the "good news" about Jesus, and so they concentrate on what they see as the most important events and sayings of His ministry. This is why, for example, they put great stress on His death. The incorporation of whole sections verbatim from other writers without specific acknowledgement was not regarded as improper plagiarism as it would be today. Also, two different accounts of the same event may be put alongside each other without any attempt to reconcile or combine them. As with the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, the two expressions are not reduced to a single composite picture by the author, but are left side by side so that the reader can get more from the two together than from one alone. Prophecy Today when we think of prophets we tend to think of men who "foretold" the future. But the prophets of the OT were not just men with God-given foresight, they were men with hindsight and insight into God's past and present activity. They were primarily "forth-tellers" who spoke about the situation of their day such as the sins of the people and God's will--His plan and purpose for His people. Why were the prophets allowed to see and to proclaim God's future purposes and plan? It was not to satisfy the people's curiosity, but rather to command them to speak of God's future because of the immediate relevance of that future to the present. It was the revelation that God was going to act in future judgment that gave urgent force to the prophet's call to the people to repent. It was the revelation that God would one day redeem His people that was the basis of the prophets' message of hope to the faithful. The predictions of the prophets, then, were extremely relevant to those who heard them. These predictions enabled those who were willing to prepare for what was coming. For us who live on the other side of the fulfillment of many of the Old Testament prophecies, they may not all be a guide to future events, but they still are of value in reminding us of the nature of our God. He is the Lord of the future and the Lord of history, and He reveals Himself and His will to His people

44 Poetry Some of the Old Testament books are mainly, if not entirely, poetic. In reading poetry we must be careful not to attempt to interpret details literally. Hebrew poetry is characterized by its figurative language, by its rhythmic stresses on certain syllables and particularly by its parallelism. In the latter, two or more lines of verse are grouped together with the first line being echoed, complemented, developed or contrasted by those that follow. When we see this it is important that we realize that it is a poetic device and therefore we should not read too much into it like looking for the subtle difference between two synonyms. The Wisdom Literature The books of Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes fall into the category of wisdom literature which is a form of writing found in other Near Eastern literature as well as in the Bible. Such literature contains careful observations and reflections about life. It may deal with life in general as in Ecclesiastes, or about a particular problem in life such as the problem of suffering in Job, or it may deal with practical questions of everyday life as in many of the Proverbs. In interpreting Ecclesiastes it would not be proper to treat it as a straight philosophical statement about life. Instead it is an account of man's struggle with the question of the meaning of life. In the same way it would not be correct to take Proverbs as though it were a book of instructions to the believer like Paul's instructions to Christian churches. A proverb is more likely to be an observation about life than a command to be obeyed. When it comes to Job it is vital to realize that opposing points of view are being advanced by different speakers and the reader must be careful to distinguish between the views being criticized as inadequate and those being recommended. Letters During the New Testament period there were a number of formal rules for letter writing, as there are to a lesser extent today. Paul follows the usual practice of his day by the way in which he begins and ends his letters, and also by his practice of dictating them to a scribe, then merely adding a personal postscript or salutation in his own handwriting (Rom. 16:22; Col. 4:18; II Thess. 3:lf.). In some parts of his letters Paul answers points from a letter that has been sent to him (I Cor. 7:lff.). In fact, in I Corinthians he seems to be going through a letter the church in Corinth had sent, answering it point by point (I Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1) and sometimes even quoting from it (I Cor. 8:1,4). By understanding the nature of letters we recognize that Paul's letters are more practical advice given to a specific situation than exhaustive discourses on a given subject. Apocalyptic The books of Daniel and Revelation are good examples within the Bible of a type of Jewish literature generally called "apocalyptic." The word "apocalypse" means "revelation," and apocalyptic writing generally contains accounts of supernatural revelations or visions. These usually are about things to come and are given by God to the writer usually through an angel.

45 To the modern reader one of the most remarkable things about this type of literature is its vivid and extraordinary symbolism. It is filled with beasts and seals, rivers, mountains, stars, personages—both celestial and infernal, and also the frequent use of numbers (e.g. number seven in the book of Revelation). Such pictorial language enables the writer to portray whole movements of history and supernatural realities that could not otherwise easily be explained. The hope of apocalyptic literature is for God's final and certain victory to take over all evil and rebellion in His creation. In interpreting apocalyptic literature it is vital to recognize that this is an instinctive type of literature and must not be interpreted literally. It is also important that we learn as much as possible about the significance of the symbolism used (e.g., a "beast" is frequently used in apocalyptic literature to symbolize a nation). Such an understanding of literature (especially symbolism) can be gained through a careful study of biblical apocalyptic and also by consulting commentaries and other works of reference which draw upon extra-biblical sources. Basically, two errors face us in interpreting apocalyptic writing. One approach is to ignore it because we find it so strange and difficult to understand. In doing so we neglect a significant part of God's revealed truth. The other dangerous attitude is that we become excessively fascinated by it and therefore give it more prominence in our thinking than can be justified by Scripture. While Jesus used apocalyptic literature Himself (e.g. Mk. 13), He also warned against those who foolishly speculate about the end times (Mt. 24:26ff; Mk. 13:4) and explained that it is not for man to know about the "times or dates" which the father has set by His own authority (Acts 1:7). Purpose The purpose of writing is another crucial issue in coming to terms with the factuality and truthfulness of the biblical record. Even though the scope of the dissemination of the knowledge of Scripture is not encyclopedic, nor is it merely inculcating abstract truths. In its historical accounts there is a great deal of history that includes incidental data on a wide range of topics. This does not mean that they are treated as textbook information; rather within the broader context of Scripture, and according to the literary genres used, the statements of Scripture are reliable. Objectivity is key in correctly handling Scripture. When it is interpreted according to its own nature, criteria and purpose, it is infallible. Too often the Bible has been subjected to the positivist position, which is a type of empiricism which states that the only reality is that which can be verified by physical observation. This is imposing its own narrow view of "factuality" instead of allowing the Bible to be seen and evaluated on its own terms. Ultimately the infallibility of Scripture is that of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is inspiration that guarantees infallibility, not vice versa. It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit that guarantees the infallibility of the biblical documents as they were written in this certain way for a specific purpose. This invalidates faulty criteria so often set up by modern theology which is a wrong methodology to use in validating or invalidating Scripture.

46 Inspiration and Authority Scripture claims authority for itself. The phrase "It is written" followed by a quotation is a frequent argument in the Bible. "According to the Scriptures" is the phrase that is used most often in referring to the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Bible is not written to express opinions. The gospels are accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. The epistles are not opinions that people can choose from; rather they are authoritative rulings on doctrine and practice. The book of Revelation is not merely written to create and feed our curiosity about future events; it assures us that God is sovereign as it paints pictures (the nature of apocalyptic language) to give us insight to what lies ahead and provides opportunity to prepare for His coming. It even has a solemn warning against adding or subtracting from the book (Rev. 22:18,19). Scripture was given by the Holy Spirit and is thus used by the Spirit to accomplish His end: "to make people wise unto salvation" (II Tim. 3:15). Therefore Scripture is the supreme rule of faith and practice. Everything necessary for salvation is found in it, both explicitly and implicitly. Things which are contrary to Scripture, therefore, are not to be believed or done. Scripture is the final judge in controversial issues. Since the Bible is a testimony to God's word and acts, it not only has important historical value, but also demands faith and obedience. Therefore it does not merely pass on important information but makes an authoritative demand. This is not surprising since Scripture is uniquely God's word and testifies to His acts. As God's word it is not only an authentic record but also presents God's message and claim with divine conviction and power. Since the author is God Himself the claim He makes has universal relevance and validity. Scripture is uniquely reliable because of its nature, function, and origin. Since it is inspired by God Himself it has a reliability that is foreign to mere human writings. Even though it is not encyclopedic in its scope of knowledge, what the Bible communicates about God in His word and work is absolutely reliable. This reliability also includes incidental matters (historical information) as long as it is seen within the context and purpose in which they are given. God's authoritative word continues as it has both a static (the written biblical record) and dynamic side (His living voice). It is the authority of the Holy Spirit that we encounter as He uses Scripture as a continuing word and work. Thus the voice of Scripture is the voice of God. Scripture's authority is God's authority. It is the revelation by which God, who spoke and acted in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, still speaks and acts by the Holy Spirit. It is therefore the means by which Christ Himself does His work by guiding the church in doctrine and practice. Therefore Scripture is the supreme, unique, infallible and absolute norm.

47 Interpreting Scripture Since we all have blind spots and prejudices, we need to check our interpretation with biblical studies of the past (the history of interpretation) and present. The Reformers felt that responsible interpretation (e.g. exegesis) must be tested in a dialogue with Christian interpreters throughout the centuries. The community of interpreters down through the centuries were not to be treated as final authorities, since that belongs to "Scripture alone" (sola scriptura). This is not to downplay the role of the teaching office of the church. Much brilliant work lies behind the formulations of gifted (often brilliant) minds and learned councils. Even so, they, like the rest of humanity, come under the one norm—the Bible—which is unique, supreme, and absolute. Only when such individuals or councils agree with what the Bible teaches are they right. Thus they continually stand to be corrected. The difficult question is, "By whose criteria are individuals, churches, denominations, popes, and councils judged?" The ultimate answer is the church at large. Truth that is of critical consequence (the fundamentals of the faith) eventually makes itself known (perhaps even obviously so). As the church of Jesus Christ seeks truth as best she can with all the hermeneutical tools available to her, as she submits to the ministry of the Holy Spirit and listens to her Head--Jesus Christ--she will know the truth just as the early church knew which books belonged to the canon of Scripture and which creeds or confessions affirmed and explained the truth of orthodox Christianity. Yet there are many issues, doctrines, practices, and applications on which Scripture is silent or, at least, not very detailed or explicit in its directives. What then is sola scriptura? Augustine argued that where Scripture is silent, the church may speak. What it means is that when it comes to issues not directly or explicitly addressed in Scripture, such as organizing church polity or addressing twentieth-century ethical dilemmas, the church will default to some position. In such circumstances, we hope that the church's position will be guided by more than mere expediency, utility or capriciousness. Rather, at such a point we should be able to look to church tradition as it hopefully tells of those who faced similar problems and struggled to understand what the scriptural point of view was as they sought to be guided by "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). Richard V. Peace warns: "To neglect the accumulated wisdom of hundreds of years of biblical scholarship is to court serious misinterpretation."33 Those who show a disdain for commentaries or other sources of biblical understanding, therefore, only show their ignorance or arrogance. Why should we not take advantage of the painstaking research of some of the most gifted scholars throughout church history? Do we really think that our quick and superficial "study" of a text is necessarily superior to that of those who have given their entire lives to studying the Holy Scripture? It is arrogance that would keep us from using the tools God has made available to us.

48 Differentiating Between Interpretation and Application The interpretation of a passage is one; the application is many. Any passage has only one meaning though it often may have many applications. We must be careful in applying Scripture to life so that objectivity is not flung aside and that we base our application mainly on feelings, ideology, immediate life need, or echo (a word or idea in the text which reminds a person of something contemporary or familiar). Even though Scripture addresses each of these areas, the question is: "Does this text actually address that need?" Here is where the objective and subjective need to be linked. At this juncture the first critical question is: "What was the application the author intended?" Once this is clear the second question is, "What is the modern parallel to that application?" This is where the subjective aspect plays the major role as we struggle with a similar problem or situation to that found in the text. Therefore we see that there are objective boundaries to the subjective application process. There are many pitfalls to meaningful application. One common one is time constraints which keeps us uninformed and uninvolved. Another pitfall, which is closely related to time constraints, is biblical illiteracy. This means that we are ignorant of the biblical data (usually because of either time constraints, lack of interest, or laziness or all). Thus people do not have the background to makes sense out of individual passages. Since Scripture interprets Scripture, intelligent and informed judgment concerning what the Bible says, means, and applies is difficult if we do not have familiarity with the biblical record. What often happens is that fellowship takes the place of Bible study which leads many of us to choose relational conversation that may have used the text for a launchingpad, but the conversation is not informed nor guided by the text. In such conversation, life in general becomes the focus of the conversation rather than expending effort at reflecting on a text and making connections between that text and life. The result is not Bible study, but religious conversation in which our conversation draws more on assumptions and personal experiences than it does on the Bible. Objective Truth, Not Subjective Experience We must interpret experience in the light of Scripture, not vice versa. Scripture, rightly interpreted, is true primarily because God says it is true. The approach, "It must be true because I have experienced it" does not take into consideration the fact that Satan is a master counterfeiter (II Cor. 11:12-15), and his deceptions include many experiences. Also, just because some experience is true and valid for you, does not mean that it would be for someone else. Scripture, rightly interpreted, is true primarily because God says it is true. Context. What location is to real estate, context is to reading the Bible. In interpretation, there are three rules: "context, context, and context!"

49 There are three dimensions to context. The first is the general historical context which includes all of the historical, religious, cultural, social, and linguistic factors that influenced and shaped its production. The second is the specific historical context for which a document was written. The third is the literary context of a particular passage in a document. All three contexts can be helpful in understanding any text more thoroughly and thus more accurately. Each verse must be studied in relation to its chapter and each chapter must be studied in relation to its book and each book must be studied in relation to all the other books (66) that make up the Bible. Just as any part of the human body can be properly explained only in reference to the whole body, so any part of the Bible can be correctly explained only with reference to the entire Bible. The importance of context is often illustrated with the example of the person who would open the Bible to any page put a finger on a verse and apply it to herself. She began by putting her finger on the verse that states, "Judas hung himself." Next she flipped to another part of the Bible and pointed her finger to the verse, "Go and do likewise." Finally in desperation she turned to another section of the Bible, flipped it open, put her finger on a verse which stated, "Whatsoever you do, do it quickly." Without careful attention to context, Scripture becomes reduced to pretext, whereby we use it to prove our preconceived ideas. Rather, we must allow God to speak through Scripture and attempt to hear and understand. Then apply His Word to our lives. The issue is not what we would like Scripture to say, but what it actually says that counts. A Coherent & Unified Message If the argument regarding canonicity and divine inspiration of the 66 books constituting the Bible is valid, a necessary corollary is that the Bible sets forth a coherent or unified message. God's spokesmen, who came later in history, not only provided new material, but they re-emphasized facets of earlier revelations as part of the whole counsel of God. Paul, as one of the last revelatory spokesmen, regards anyone who teaches a message contrary to what has already been given, as worthy of hell (eternal damnation—Gal. 1:8f.). Paul also considered the teaching which he gave as being so in line with the message of the earlier spokesmen that he used quotations from these earlier sources of revelation to affirm his point (Rom. 3:9) that all the people of the earth are under sin (Rom. 3:10-18). Later revelatory spokesmen also viewed their interpretation of contemporary revelatory events to reflect so accurately God's moving of redemptive history toward its final climax, that they could view an event, whose occurrence and meaning they reported, to be a partial or typological fulfillment of prophecy uttered by an earlier revelatory spokesman (e.g. Acts 2:16-21; Joel 2:28-32 [Mt.3:1-5]). In establishing the unity of the Bible, each literary unit of the Bible must be allowed to contribute its teaching to every other literary unit. Thus it is only as we handle Scripture through the literary-historical method of interpretation that we come to acknowledge of divine revelation in the same way we come to knowledge about everything else in our experience, namely, by a process of trying out various possibilities until coherency or unity is attained.

50 We must grapple with difficult passages of Scripture until we find it fitting in with the rest of Scripture. If we are unable to do so, we must humbly acknowledge our limited understanding and allow for mystery as we recognize, as Paul did, that "we only see but a poor reflection as in a mirror . . . [that we] know in part" (I Cor. 13:12). Instead of pressing Scripture to fit our own preconceived ideas or opinions, there are times when we must humbly bow before Him whose Word is much greater than our understanding of it. We dare not come to conclusions that contradict Scripture since God, who inspired Scripture, does not contradict Himself. We must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture! The Role of the Holy Spirit as Interpreter What, if any place, does the Holy Spirit play in this issue of interpretation? Since it is the Spirit of God who gave Scripture, He speaks in and through it. This is indispensable to sound understanding. The Spirit does not replace the task of interpretation. After all, He speaks through the text of Scripture. Knowledge of the text and its natural sense is thus demanded. Yet it is possible to have this and still miss understanding in the deeper sense. This is where the help and guidance of the Spirit are needed. The Spirit is God's Spirit bearing witness to God's word and work in Jesus Christ. He takes the word of Scripture and makes it clear to the heart, the mind and the will—the whole man—in its total reach and dimension. God is His own interpreter, and He will make it plain. Humble Response A certain condition, therefore, is necessary in order to have an authentic, deep and fruitful experience with the Word of God. The condition is our humble yielding to the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. The Bible protects itself from presumption and scholarly unspirituality as its deeper truths are luminous only to the illuminated (I Cor. 2:14-15), those intent to reverently obey. The same Spirit who inspired its writers now waits to illumine its readers. This is a challenge to study it prayerfully in a spirit of teachableness which leads to Spirit-given enlightenment when we do (Jn. 14:26; Eph. 1:18). We all need illumination from the Holy Spirit. Even the best-intentioned among us can slip easily into a prideful, self-sufficient attitude in our learning the Bible which results in information and knowledge without wisdom and insight. Since we as human beings "see through a glass darkly" or as the New International Version puts it, "see but a poor reflection" (I Cor. 13:12), humility is in order. It is to be aware of human limitations in interpreting the Bible. This means that we realize that the certainty with which we propose, debate, and even argue for our own interpretations, must be tempered with gentleness since our own interpretations are seen thorough our own sinful human nature. Sin distorts everything, including our understanding of God's pristine revelation. Does this mean that we must lack conviction in our under-standing of Scripture? No, but it means that while the church corporate must be bold about its faithful adherence to the Word of God, we as individual interpreters must understand the provisional nature of our own views. Unless our views square with the understanding of historic Christianity, we must hold them tentatively.

51 To achieve balance in our apprehension and application of God's Word it is vital to see the marriage between the theoretical and the practical. Devotional reading and academic study together form the heart, mind and will to hear and obey God's Word to us. Exegetical skill and spiritual discipline together provide the contexts out of which we are to interpret the Word. It is only as we diligently and prayerfully read and study and reverently obey the Bible that we grow in our knowledge and understanding of who God is and what His purpose and will is for our lives.

52 NOTES 1 Brussell, Webster’s New World Dictionary of Quotable Definitions, 49. 2 B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (P & R Publishing, 1948). 3 C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (Eerdmans, 1967), 154,155. 4 Clifford Wilson, Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability (Zondervan, 1977), 42. 5 William F. Albright, Archeology and the Religion of Israel (John Hopkins Press, 1953), 129. 6 Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert; History of Negev (Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31. 7 Sir William Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Baker, 1953), 222. 8 Peter Stoner, Science Speaks: An Evaluation of Certain Christian Evidences (Moody Press, 1963), 95-98. 9 Ibid. 10 Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Nelson, 1992), 39-65. 11 F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Eerdmans, 1954), 178. 12 J. I. Packer, “Text Criticism and Inerrancy,” Christianity Today, Vol. 46, No. 11 (October 7, 2002). 13 R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible (Messengers of Hope, 1991), 17. 14 Theodore H. Mann, “Translation Problems in the KJV New Testament” (2000), 30. http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm, 20-27. 15 Robert Nguyen Cramer, “The King James Version and the Textus Receptus” (3/20/08, Page 1 of 13. bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm 16 R. C. Sproul, Objections Answered (Regal, 1974), ch.1. 17 Bruce M. Metzger, “Apocrypha,” The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 37-41.

53 18 The Harper Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1989), 1435. 19 Robert P. Meye, “Canon of the New Testament,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 602. 20 Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), 406. 21 Ibid., 407. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Meye, “Canon of the New Testament,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 604. 25 Ibid., 407,408. 26 Ibid., 408. 27 Meye, “Canon of the New Testament,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 605. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 J. I. Packer, God Speaks to Man, 81. 31 Tenney, New Testament Survey, 411. 32 F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1960), 27.

54 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Second edition. Edited by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. The University of Chicago Press, 1979. Benz, Ernst Vilhelm. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 4, 1978. Bruce, F. F. History of the English Bible, Third Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Burton, Barry. Let’s Weight The Evidence. Ontario, CA: Chick Publications, 1983. Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995. Cramer, Robert Nguyen. “The King James Version and the Textus Receptus.” 3/20/08, bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm Fuller, David Otis. Which Bible? Fifth Edition. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids: International Publications, 1975. Lewis, Jack. The English Bible: From KJV to NIV. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991. Metzger, Bruce Manning. A Tetual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1975. ----------. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. ----------. The New Testament: Its Background, growth, and Content. Enlarged Edition. Abingdon Press, 1989. ----------. The Canon of the New Testament; Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1997. Packer, J. I. “Text Criticism and Inerrancy,” Christianity Today, Vol. 46, No. 11. October 7, 2002. Salliby, Chick. If The Foundations Be Destroyed. Fiskdale, MA: Word and Prayer Ministries, 1994. Torrey, R. A. Difficulties in the Bible. Messengers of Hope, 1991. Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, 1966. Warfield, B. B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. P & R Publishing, 1948. White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Bethany House Publishers: Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1995.

55