I recently came across two verses in my Bible reading that I can't get out of my head, mostly because of one word. One of the verses is well-known and well-loved; the other is embedded between other well-known verses but is in itself unknown. Here they are:
Proverbs 31:25
Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come.
Psalm 37:13
But the Lord laughs at the wicked, for He sees that his day is coming.
The word is laughs.
There are many types of laughter. There is the polite laughter when your boss says something he thinks is very funny and you are compelled to join in. There is hilarious laughter after your friend places an order at a restaurant by saying, and only saying, 'Burger me.' There is giggling laughter when your daughter figures out you're ticklish on your feet and gets her little fingers working. There is derisive laughter when something utterly absurd takes place and there's really nothing else you can do.
But the laughter here is something altogether different. It is unique among types of laughter, and I would say it is specific to those who are in Christ.This is sure laughter. As in, I can laugh because I am sure of where my real hope lives. It has nothing to do with knowing what is to come and everything to do with knowing Who's in control of it all. It is the laughter of absolute confidence, of faith, of God.
The Proverbial woman laughs because, by God's grace, she has ordered her home well. She has prepared and planned. She has worked and saved. She has loved and honored God and her husband and her kids - in that order. And so she gazes into the future, stares down the uncertainty, looks it right in the face, and laughs at it.
The encouragement from the psalm is simply that no one gets over on God. People may be around that mock and slander. Perhaps they persecute and attack. They gossip. They backstab. They undercut. They curse. They abuse. But without repentance, they simply cannot sidestep His justice. It is at this, the notion that one can pull a fast one on Him, that God laughs. *I also believe He weeps over these same people. God is infinitely more complex than we are.*
I love the thought of laughing at situations that are potentially worrisome or fearful. Being able to laugh at those moments accomplishes two things:
1) It disarms Satan of any power he might try to exert in using the situation to evoke fear, anxiety, or the perpetuation of lies.
2) It displays full trust and delight in knowing God has it handled, and He will handle it perfectly.
Jesus is King of all Kings and Lord of all Lords. He is the true Master, the Great Shepherd, Almighty God, Alpha and Omega, Firstborn from the Dead, the Bright and Morning Star, Rescuer, Savior, Healer, Deliverer, and, amazingly, Friend.
When we really believe in who God is, we are able to look into any circumstance and walk away laughing.
Showing posts with label Bible study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible study. Show all posts
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Psalm 27
What do you think of when you think of courage? Maybe I'm a bit old-school, but I always think of a lion - as in the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz who needs a heart. Or Aslan from the Chronicles of Narnia. I'd be willing to wager that Hudson thinks of soldiers and knights in armor marching off to fight the bad guys.
I found a picture of courage that I didn't expect in Psalm 27. Verse 14 states, 'Wait for the Lord; be strong, and let your heart take courage; wait for the Lord!' Huh? Be strong, take courage, and....wait? How does that work?
Let's back up and look at what the author, David, is talking about. In the first six verses of the psalm, David praises God for His power to deliver him from his enemies. He boldly asserts the confidence he has in God to be his salvation (v.1), stronghold (v.2), shelter (v.5), and concealment (v.5). David is so confident in God that he speaks of having a worship service right there in the middle of the enemies surrounding him (see also Ps. 23:5,6)!
Then something interesting happens. For the next six verses David prays that God would deliver him from his enemies - who are, incidentally, all around him. It is here that we get to see why God referred to David as being 'after My own heart'. You see, David declared his confidence in God before he even saw God do anything in his situation. He stated what he believed to be true of God, and rested in the fact that God is faithful and true to His own character. God cannot lie nor does He change. Therefore, if He says He's a deliverer, then He has been, is, and will always be a deliverer. David is simply pointing this out to anyone who will listen so that they can rightly ascribe credit when David prays and sees God's deliverance. This is faith!
Next, David closes his prayer and makes another assertion - 'I believe that I shall look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living (v.13, emphasis added)!' In other words, 'God, I don't think now is my time to die. I think you have more for me here, and I will celebrate You when You deliver me from my enemies here on the earth.'
Finally, we arrive at the strange exhortation in v.14. Given the circumstances that David is facing - surrounded by enemies who are 'breathing out violence' - he does not call on his soldiers to take up arms. He does not devise a clever strategy to politically outflank his opponents. He just....waits.
To me, this does not seem like courage. Faith, sure. But courage? Strength? I'm all about 'doing stuff' for the glory of God. I like getting my hands dirty and seeing a finished product. I don't want to be feel like I am on the sidelines. All of that sounds good, but God wants His people to awaken to the fact that it's really all Him all the time. More often than I recognize, God just wants me to wait, get my hands out of the way, and let Him work.
One afternoon, Audrey brought me a necklace from her jewelry case. Did I say necklace? I meant heaped-up ball of metal. As it turns out, there were two necklaces. Knotted. Bad. She asked me to fix them for her, and then proceeded to stick her little fingers into the mess to 'help' every five seconds as I attempted to straighten out the knot. After a few minutes of this, I said, 'Audrey, Daddy will take care of this for you. Go play, and I'll bring them to you when I'm done.' It took me nearly an hour, but I was able to clear the knot. It could not have happened if she didn't get her hands off and wait.
It's my tendency to stick my hands into the mess. I believe I can 'help' God, if He'd only just let me get in there too. David is teaching us all, and me especially, that it will take great strength and courage to trust God and say, 'I know you're taking care of this. I'm backing off,' and be at peace.
I found a picture of courage that I didn't expect in Psalm 27. Verse 14 states, 'Wait for the Lord; be strong, and let your heart take courage; wait for the Lord!' Huh? Be strong, take courage, and....wait? How does that work?
Let's back up and look at what the author, David, is talking about. In the first six verses of the psalm, David praises God for His power to deliver him from his enemies. He boldly asserts the confidence he has in God to be his salvation (v.1), stronghold (v.2), shelter (v.5), and concealment (v.5). David is so confident in God that he speaks of having a worship service right there in the middle of the enemies surrounding him (see also Ps. 23:5,6)!
Then something interesting happens. For the next six verses David prays that God would deliver him from his enemies - who are, incidentally, all around him. It is here that we get to see why God referred to David as being 'after My own heart'. You see, David declared his confidence in God before he even saw God do anything in his situation. He stated what he believed to be true of God, and rested in the fact that God is faithful and true to His own character. God cannot lie nor does He change. Therefore, if He says He's a deliverer, then He has been, is, and will always be a deliverer. David is simply pointing this out to anyone who will listen so that they can rightly ascribe credit when David prays and sees God's deliverance. This is faith!
Next, David closes his prayer and makes another assertion - 'I believe that I shall look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living (v.13, emphasis added)!' In other words, 'God, I don't think now is my time to die. I think you have more for me here, and I will celebrate You when You deliver me from my enemies here on the earth.'
Finally, we arrive at the strange exhortation in v.14. Given the circumstances that David is facing - surrounded by enemies who are 'breathing out violence' - he does not call on his soldiers to take up arms. He does not devise a clever strategy to politically outflank his opponents. He just....waits.
To me, this does not seem like courage. Faith, sure. But courage? Strength? I'm all about 'doing stuff' for the glory of God. I like getting my hands dirty and seeing a finished product. I don't want to be feel like I am on the sidelines. All of that sounds good, but God wants His people to awaken to the fact that it's really all Him all the time. More often than I recognize, God just wants me to wait, get my hands out of the way, and let Him work.
One afternoon, Audrey brought me a necklace from her jewelry case. Did I say necklace? I meant heaped-up ball of metal. As it turns out, there were two necklaces. Knotted. Bad. She asked me to fix them for her, and then proceeded to stick her little fingers into the mess to 'help' every five seconds as I attempted to straighten out the knot. After a few minutes of this, I said, 'Audrey, Daddy will take care of this for you. Go play, and I'll bring them to you when I'm done.' It took me nearly an hour, but I was able to clear the knot. It could not have happened if she didn't get her hands off and wait.
It's my tendency to stick my hands into the mess. I believe I can 'help' God, if He'd only just let me get in there too. David is teaching us all, and me especially, that it will take great strength and courage to trust God and say, 'I know you're taking care of this. I'm backing off,' and be at peace.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
How to Study the Bible: Is the Bible Historically Reliable?
With so much to cover and so many topics I'd like to talk about, I put Theology Thursday to a vote. The outcome of the vote determined what would be covered in the coming months. The first subject to be tackled is How to Study the Bible.
Last week, we learned how the Bible came together. This week, we're going to dig in to the question of the Bible's reliability. Is the Bible, as we know it, a historically accurate and reliable document?
The argument here is whether or not the actual words contained in the Bibles we have are 1) what the original authors wrote and 2) were written in an accurate way so as to transmit the historical truths they claim to tell. Basically, is the Bible true or a simple mythology?
The stance that opponents to the validity of the Bible take is one of questioning how the text was recorded over time. Many would hold that the accounts of the life of Jesus were not written down prior to the second century, well over 100 years after He had lived. They go on to claim that, in accordance with the oral tradition of the time, the accounts of Jesus grew in mythology over that time span and were eventually written down in such a way as to make Jesus more a legend than an actual historical figure. Think Babe Ruth and the famed 'called shot'. Did it happen? Or was that just a tall tale weaved in the media?
In order to counter their arguments, we must take a look at how historical documents are proved and accepted as accurate in general and then apply the same tests to the New Testament (I focus on the New Testament because, just like last week, the Old Testament is generally left alone in these debates. However, the same process could easily be applied to the Old Testament, and I am sure it would check out.). Based on everything I have read on this topic, there are three tests to guide us in our understanding of the validity, reliability, and historicity of the Bible: the bibliographic test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.
Bibliographic Test
As defined by Josh McDowell, this test "is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?"
For those who don't know this, we do not have in existence today an original copy (called an autograph) of any book or letter included in the New Testament. Therefore, we have to know that what was copied down was done so faithfully and within an acceptable period of time to be considered reliable.
To do this, let's do a comparison between the New Testament and a few other documents. These other documents are plainly accepted as accurate and acceptable historical documents, worthy to be taught in high schools and colleges alike as true to what the original author wrote and intended. We will consider when the original is said to have been written, when the first copy we now have in possession was written, how many such MSS exist today, and what level of accuracy the copies share (these statistics are pulled from several sources, listed at the end of this post).
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span # of MSS Accuracy
Homer ca. 900 BC ca. 400 BC ~500 years 643 95%
Caesar ca. 50-58 BC ca. AD 900 ~950 years 10 Too few MSS
Tacitus ca. AD 100 ca. AD 1100 ~1,000 years 20 Too few MSS
Plato ca. 427-347 BC ca. AD 900 ~1,200+ years 7 Too few MSS
Aristotle ca. 384-322 BC ca. AD 1100 ~1,400 years 5 Too few MSS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Testament ca. AD 60-90 ca. AD 130 ~100 years 20,000+ 99.5%
What this means is that, based on the number of copies we have of the pieces of the New Testament, the time between when it was first written and from when we have a copy, and the accuracy of the copies to each other, we can certainly say that the text we have is the text that was originally written (and for those disconcerted with the 99.5% accuracy, the discrepancies are over grammar, spellings, style, and/or accidental omissions/duplicates - nothing in question has any weight to bear on doctrine or teaching).
Internal Evidence Test
The bibliographic test tells us that the text we have today is faithful to what was originally written. We must now turn to the words themselves and test whether or not those words are credible. This is the internal test.
There are several considerations to make when testing the internal credibility of a document. At the outset, it must be understood that a document is 'innocent until proven guilty' - in other words, a document claiming to present facts must be assumed to do exactly that unless it blatantly records falsehoods or is inconsistent in its own claims. In this, we have seen over and over again how archaeology and historical criticism support what was written in the New Testament.
Next, we must look at who wrote the New Testament. The authors consistently claim to either be direct eyewitnesses or to have recorded what an eyewitness has testified to be true. This is seen in Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, and John 19:35. Therefore, the people who wrote the books and letters in the New Testament were not simply recording hearsay; they were recording the facts as they, or someone close the them, saw them.
Still, it would only be fair to allow for criticism from contemporaries. After all, if one eyewitness reports one account and another reports something to the contrary, we are faced with a he-said-she-said scenario, and the truth becomes very difficult to prove. The fact is that there were people alive who also witnessed the events of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection, and some of those people were not sympathetic to the apostles' cause - they were, in fact, opposed to it. Thus, if what was being written and propagated was in any way inaccurate, those opposed could simply have risen up and written a refutation to the apostles' claims. The apostles even opened themselves to this kind of criticism, as seen in Acts 2:22 and Acts 26: 24-48. None such came.
Last, the relationship of Old Testament prophecy to the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels indicates a God-ordained consistency simply unparalleled in any other major religious text. Without going into all the details, there were literally hundreds of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ, including those found in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Matthew 1:18-23), Micah 5:2 (cf. Luke 2:1-7), Hosea 11:1 (cf. Matthew 2:13-15), Malachi 3:1 (cf. Luke 2:25-27), Psalm 22:16 and 22:18 (cf. Luke 23:33 and John 19:23-24, respectively), and Isaiah 53:10-12 (cf. Acts 2:25-32).
External Evidence Test
Again, Josh McDowell defines this test by stating that "[the] issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves."
Within the Christian world, Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis, friend of the Apostle John, as preserved by Eusebius) and Iranaeus (Bishop of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John) together testify to the authorship of the Gospels. They state that John wrote his gospel, as did Matthew, and that Mark wrote his based off of the testimony of Peter and Luke his based off of the teachings of Paul (and other eyewitnesses - cp. Luke 1:1-3).
Outside of the Christian world, we have already mentioned how archaeology and historical criticism have verified the facts of the Bible as they are laid out. People, places, leaders, and events, as they are described in the New Testament, have been verified over time by the historical record and the physical evidence (as it is uncovered).
Further, ancient, secular historians wrote of Jesus and verified not only His life but also some of His deeds. Here are a few quotes (pulled straight out of the Mark Driscoll resource listed below):
Flavius Josephus, from Jewish Antiquities:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure...And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day
Pliny the Younger, from The Letters of Pliny the Younger (this one addressed to the emperor Trajan):
They (Christians) also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god...
These as well as many other Jewish and Roman historians document and give credence to the truths as presented by the authors of the New Testament.
Here's the big idea:
The Bible we have, and specifically the New Testament, is a historically valid and reliable document, and the text therein constitutes a true testimony to the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the New Testament; Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter
Medium read: Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict; Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ; Dan Story, Defending Your Faith
Next week: Why Study the Bible?
Last week, we learned how the Bible came together. This week, we're going to dig in to the question of the Bible's reliability. Is the Bible, as we know it, a historically accurate and reliable document?
The argument here is whether or not the actual words contained in the Bibles we have are 1) what the original authors wrote and 2) were written in an accurate way so as to transmit the historical truths they claim to tell. Basically, is the Bible true or a simple mythology?
The stance that opponents to the validity of the Bible take is one of questioning how the text was recorded over time. Many would hold that the accounts of the life of Jesus were not written down prior to the second century, well over 100 years after He had lived. They go on to claim that, in accordance with the oral tradition of the time, the accounts of Jesus grew in mythology over that time span and were eventually written down in such a way as to make Jesus more a legend than an actual historical figure. Think Babe Ruth and the famed 'called shot'. Did it happen? Or was that just a tall tale weaved in the media?
In order to counter their arguments, we must take a look at how historical documents are proved and accepted as accurate in general and then apply the same tests to the New Testament (I focus on the New Testament because, just like last week, the Old Testament is generally left alone in these debates. However, the same process could easily be applied to the Old Testament, and I am sure it would check out.). Based on everything I have read on this topic, there are three tests to guide us in our understanding of the validity, reliability, and historicity of the Bible: the bibliographic test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.
Bibliographic Test
As defined by Josh McDowell, this test "is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?"
For those who don't know this, we do not have in existence today an original copy (called an autograph) of any book or letter included in the New Testament. Therefore, we have to know that what was copied down was done so faithfully and within an acceptable period of time to be considered reliable.
To do this, let's do a comparison between the New Testament and a few other documents. These other documents are plainly accepted as accurate and acceptable historical documents, worthy to be taught in high schools and colleges alike as true to what the original author wrote and intended. We will consider when the original is said to have been written, when the first copy we now have in possession was written, how many such MSS exist today, and what level of accuracy the copies share (these statistics are pulled from several sources, listed at the end of this post).
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span # of MSS Accuracy
Homer ca. 900 BC ca. 400 BC ~500 years 643 95%
Caesar ca. 50-58 BC ca. AD 900 ~950 years 10 Too few MSS
Tacitus ca. AD 100 ca. AD 1100 ~1,000 years 20 Too few MSS
Plato ca. 427-347 BC ca. AD 900 ~1,200+ years 7 Too few MSS
Aristotle ca. 384-322 BC ca. AD 1100 ~1,400 years 5 Too few MSS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Testament ca. AD 60-90 ca. AD 130 ~100 years 20,000+ 99.5%
What this means is that, based on the number of copies we have of the pieces of the New Testament, the time between when it was first written and from when we have a copy, and the accuracy of the copies to each other, we can certainly say that the text we have is the text that was originally written (and for those disconcerted with the 99.5% accuracy, the discrepancies are over grammar, spellings, style, and/or accidental omissions/duplicates - nothing in question has any weight to bear on doctrine or teaching).
Internal Evidence Test
The bibliographic test tells us that the text we have today is faithful to what was originally written. We must now turn to the words themselves and test whether or not those words are credible. This is the internal test.
There are several considerations to make when testing the internal credibility of a document. At the outset, it must be understood that a document is 'innocent until proven guilty' - in other words, a document claiming to present facts must be assumed to do exactly that unless it blatantly records falsehoods or is inconsistent in its own claims. In this, we have seen over and over again how archaeology and historical criticism support what was written in the New Testament.
Next, we must look at who wrote the New Testament. The authors consistently claim to either be direct eyewitnesses or to have recorded what an eyewitness has testified to be true. This is seen in Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, and John 19:35. Therefore, the people who wrote the books and letters in the New Testament were not simply recording hearsay; they were recording the facts as they, or someone close the them, saw them.
Still, it would only be fair to allow for criticism from contemporaries. After all, if one eyewitness reports one account and another reports something to the contrary, we are faced with a he-said-she-said scenario, and the truth becomes very difficult to prove. The fact is that there were people alive who also witnessed the events of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection, and some of those people were not sympathetic to the apostles' cause - they were, in fact, opposed to it. Thus, if what was being written and propagated was in any way inaccurate, those opposed could simply have risen up and written a refutation to the apostles' claims. The apostles even opened themselves to this kind of criticism, as seen in Acts 2:22 and Acts 26: 24-48. None such came.
Last, the relationship of Old Testament prophecy to the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels indicates a God-ordained consistency simply unparalleled in any other major religious text. Without going into all the details, there were literally hundreds of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ, including those found in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Matthew 1:18-23), Micah 5:2 (cf. Luke 2:1-7), Hosea 11:1 (cf. Matthew 2:13-15), Malachi 3:1 (cf. Luke 2:25-27), Psalm 22:16 and 22:18 (cf. Luke 23:33 and John 19:23-24, respectively), and Isaiah 53:10-12 (cf. Acts 2:25-32).
External Evidence Test
Again, Josh McDowell defines this test by stating that "[the] issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves."
Within the Christian world, Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis, friend of the Apostle John, as preserved by Eusebius) and Iranaeus (Bishop of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John) together testify to the authorship of the Gospels. They state that John wrote his gospel, as did Matthew, and that Mark wrote his based off of the testimony of Peter and Luke his based off of the teachings of Paul (and other eyewitnesses - cp. Luke 1:1-3).
Outside of the Christian world, we have already mentioned how archaeology and historical criticism have verified the facts of the Bible as they are laid out. People, places, leaders, and events, as they are described in the New Testament, have been verified over time by the historical record and the physical evidence (as it is uncovered).
Further, ancient, secular historians wrote of Jesus and verified not only His life but also some of His deeds. Here are a few quotes (pulled straight out of the Mark Driscoll resource listed below):
Flavius Josephus, from Jewish Antiquities:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure...And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day
Pliny the Younger, from The Letters of Pliny the Younger (this one addressed to the emperor Trajan):
They (Christians) also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god...
These as well as many other Jewish and Roman historians document and give credence to the truths as presented by the authors of the New Testament.
Here's the big idea:
The Bible we have, and specifically the New Testament, is a historically valid and reliable document, and the text therein constitutes a true testimony to the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the New Testament; Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter
Medium read: Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict; Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ; Dan Story, Defending Your Faith
Next week: Why Study the Bible?
Thursday, May 17, 2012
How to Study the Bible: What is the Bible?
With so much to cover and so many topics I'd like to talk about, I put Theology Thursday to a vote. The outcome of the vote determined what would be covered in the coming months. The first subject to be tackled is How to Study the Bible.
In order to ensure people get the most out of these posts, I'm going to try to keep these first few posts in the series relatively short. Truly, a LOT of ink has been justifiably spent defending the canonization of the Bible, specifically the New Testament (the focus of this week's post), as well as the validity of the historical text itself (next week's post). However, since these are more along the lines of foundational, I will simply boil down the positions as simply and clearly as possible so that we can move to the more practical and applicable posts, those focusing on why we should (and should want to) study the Bible and a few tips on how to actually go about studying it. Therefore, while there are a number of facts, statistics, citations, and book after book to be read and considered for this week's post, I'm going to focus on just a few sources (listed at the end of the post) and give the general thrust of the argument.
This week's question is What is the Bible? Specifically, how did we get the book we currently have? How did 'they' pick the books and letters that were included? First, I'll briefly give consideration to the Old Testament. Second, and the larger section, I will focus on the New Testament as it is what is most commonly disputed.
In traditional Protestantism, the Old Testament stops with Malachi, the last of the prophets. After this point, God did not send a prophet for 400 years until the coming of John the Baptist, who proclaimed the coming of Jesus. During these years of silence, called the Intertestamental Period, other books were written. These became known as the apocrypha. Initially, these books were effectively considered helpful additional books, but they were never accepted as holy Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. From that point, the Catholic (and some Orthodox) Bible added books to the Old Testament that were never so adopted by either Jews or Christians up to that point. Thus, we see the difference in the Catholic Bible (which includes the Apocrypha) and the Protestant Bible (which does not).
The other books of the Old Testament are referred in the New Testament as 'The Law, Prophets, and Psalms' or 'The Law and the Prophets' or simply 'The Law'. To quote Mark Driscoll, "Jesus also spoke of the Old Testament as existing from Abel (from Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament) to Zechariah (a contemporary of Malachi, the final book of the Old Testament)." The evidence for this is found in Luke 24:44, Matthew 23:35, and Luke 11:51. Even today, the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament are virtually the same, excepting the order of the books.
Frankly, there is little dispute over the Old Testament. The New Testament? Well, that's a different story. Let's deal with that now.
First, I want to define a word that I learned while researching for this post. The word is canon. No, not the weapon used to fire off the port bow (spelled cannon, for those keeping track at home). I always thought the word was synonymous with 'Bible', that it was just another way of saying 'the whole collection of books in the Bible'. While it has come to mean that in our time, the original meaning of canon refers to the 'rule' or 'measuring rod' by which the books of the Bible were selected. It is the norm against which books of the Bible were set to determine inclusion or exclusion.
Many people argue that the Bible was put together by a bunch of people hunkered down in a room hundreds of years after Jesus lived and after the texts had been written. They suggest that the writings were allowed to grow to legendary and mythic levels prior to being included in the Bible (we'll deal with this argument next week), and then only the books that verified what they wanted people to know about Jesus were included. After all, they had their institutions, reputations, and power to protect - so the argument goes.
However, contrary to this notion is what actually happened (insert sarcastic tone). As Driscoll writes, there were three primary characteristics in the inclusion of books into the New Testament:
1) They were written based on eye-witness account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
2) They were in accord with what is revealed as true about God in the rest of Scripture.
3) They were received by God's people and demonstrated God's power in changing lives.
Additionally, the apostles themselves validated the writings of the New Testament and placed them alongside the Old Testament in a peer-to-peer relationship. This is seen in the following passages:
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Paul's letters placed alongside Scripture, presumably the Old Testament
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as the do the other Scriptures.
1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul quoting Deuteronomy and Luke back-to-back as Scripture
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain (from Deut. 25:4)," and, "The laborer deserves his wages (from Luke 10:7)."
From the foundation of the New Testament church, this placing of New Testament books alongside the Old Testament Scriptures continued in what B.B Warfield refers to as a "line of such quotations...never broken in Christian literature."
Here is another, extended quote from Warfield:
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
The big idea is this:
The New Testament was not 'put together' by people hundreds of years after it had been written. It had been put together and was generally accepted in the Church throughout the Christian world, and this collection was subsequently verified at the various councils years later.
Catch that - that's a big difference. The councils did not make up the list of what was in and what was out. They verified that which had already been put together, and evaluated the other books that had subsequently been (falsely) put forth as legitimate books, like the Gospel of Thomas and First Clement, based on the canon (remember: the norm or rule) which already existed in the collection already accepted by the people of God. The apostles placed their authority behind the teachings of the books and letters themselves while they lived, the early church fathers accepted them, and the Church at large embraced them as Truth.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the Old Testament and On the New Testament
Medium read: R.C. Sproul, Scripture Alone
Difficult read: B.B Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration
Next week: Is the Bible Historically Reliable?
In order to ensure people get the most out of these posts, I'm going to try to keep these first few posts in the series relatively short. Truly, a LOT of ink has been justifiably spent defending the canonization of the Bible, specifically the New Testament (the focus of this week's post), as well as the validity of the historical text itself (next week's post). However, since these are more along the lines of foundational, I will simply boil down the positions as simply and clearly as possible so that we can move to the more practical and applicable posts, those focusing on why we should (and should want to) study the Bible and a few tips on how to actually go about studying it. Therefore, while there are a number of facts, statistics, citations, and book after book to be read and considered for this week's post, I'm going to focus on just a few sources (listed at the end of the post) and give the general thrust of the argument.
This week's question is What is the Bible? Specifically, how did we get the book we currently have? How did 'they' pick the books and letters that were included? First, I'll briefly give consideration to the Old Testament. Second, and the larger section, I will focus on the New Testament as it is what is most commonly disputed.
In traditional Protestantism, the Old Testament stops with Malachi, the last of the prophets. After this point, God did not send a prophet for 400 years until the coming of John the Baptist, who proclaimed the coming of Jesus. During these years of silence, called the Intertestamental Period, other books were written. These became known as the apocrypha. Initially, these books were effectively considered helpful additional books, but they were never accepted as holy Scripture until the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. From that point, the Catholic (and some Orthodox) Bible added books to the Old Testament that were never so adopted by either Jews or Christians up to that point. Thus, we see the difference in the Catholic Bible (which includes the Apocrypha) and the Protestant Bible (which does not).
The other books of the Old Testament are referred in the New Testament as 'The Law, Prophets, and Psalms' or 'The Law and the Prophets' or simply 'The Law'. To quote Mark Driscoll, "Jesus also spoke of the Old Testament as existing from Abel (from Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament) to Zechariah (a contemporary of Malachi, the final book of the Old Testament)." The evidence for this is found in Luke 24:44, Matthew 23:35, and Luke 11:51. Even today, the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament are virtually the same, excepting the order of the books.
Frankly, there is little dispute over the Old Testament. The New Testament? Well, that's a different story. Let's deal with that now.
First, I want to define a word that I learned while researching for this post. The word is canon. No, not the weapon used to fire off the port bow (spelled cannon, for those keeping track at home). I always thought the word was synonymous with 'Bible', that it was just another way of saying 'the whole collection of books in the Bible'. While it has come to mean that in our time, the original meaning of canon refers to the 'rule' or 'measuring rod' by which the books of the Bible were selected. It is the norm against which books of the Bible were set to determine inclusion or exclusion.
Many people argue that the Bible was put together by a bunch of people hunkered down in a room hundreds of years after Jesus lived and after the texts had been written. They suggest that the writings were allowed to grow to legendary and mythic levels prior to being included in the Bible (we'll deal with this argument next week), and then only the books that verified what they wanted people to know about Jesus were included. After all, they had their institutions, reputations, and power to protect - so the argument goes.
However, contrary to this notion is what actually happened (insert sarcastic tone). As Driscoll writes, there were three primary characteristics in the inclusion of books into the New Testament:
1) They were written based on eye-witness account of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
2) They were in accord with what is revealed as true about God in the rest of Scripture.
3) They were received by God's people and demonstrated God's power in changing lives.
Additionally, the apostles themselves validated the writings of the New Testament and placed them alongside the Old Testament in a peer-to-peer relationship. This is seen in the following passages:
2 Peter 3:15-16 - Paul's letters placed alongside Scripture, presumably the Old Testament
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as the do the other Scriptures.
1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul quoting Deuteronomy and Luke back-to-back as Scripture
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain (from Deut. 25:4)," and, "The laborer deserves his wages (from Luke 10:7)."
From the foundation of the New Testament church, this placing of New Testament books alongside the Old Testament Scriptures continued in what B.B Warfield refers to as a "line of such quotations...never broken in Christian literature."
Here is another, extended quote from Warfield:
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
The big idea is this:
The New Testament was not 'put together' by people hundreds of years after it had been written. It had been put together and was generally accepted in the Church throughout the Christian world, and this collection was subsequently verified at the various councils years later.
Catch that - that's a big difference. The councils did not make up the list of what was in and what was out. They verified that which had already been put together, and evaluated the other books that had subsequently been (falsely) put forth as legitimate books, like the Gospel of Thomas and First Clement, based on the canon (remember: the norm or rule) which already existed in the collection already accepted by the people of God. The apostles placed their authority behind the teachings of the books and letters themselves while they lived, the early church fathers accepted them, and the Church at large embraced them as Truth.
Sources:
Easy read: Mark Driscoll, On the Old Testament and On the New Testament
Medium read: R.C. Sproul, Scripture Alone
Difficult read: B.B Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration
Next week: Is the Bible Historically Reliable?
Thursday, April 19, 2012
How to Study the Bible: The Foundation
With so much to cover and so many topics I'd like to talk about, I put Theology Thursday to a vote. The outcome of the vote determined what would be covered in the coming months. The first subject to be tackled is How to Study the Bible.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
When the votes were tallied and this came out on top, I was pretty pleased. Some of the topics are, perhaps, more 'controversial'. Others are more 'current'. This one, however, is the most foundational. Therefore, I am glad to be going at it first. As was pointed out by one of the voters, all the other discussions stem from this root, the root that the Bible is true and instructs us in how to live and view the world and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We should know why we should trust the Bible. We should know how it came to be. We should understand how to read it. We should understand how to read! I intend to cover each of these ideas in the coming weeks.
Before getting into the specifics of this topic, though, I want to let you all know that I have a bias: I believe the Bible is true. Every word of it. I believe the Bible is applicable. Every word of it. As I write more and more, I hope that conviction is put on display for your edification and my own accountability to the text.
I arrive at this conviction based out of the text above. The Bible was breathed out by God. By itself, that should be enough for us to want to read it and read it well. However, because the Holy Spirit is an excellent instructor, He tells us (through Paul, in this instance) why this is true. The Bible is profitable (literally useful or beneficial) for our lives in all areas. Is there something we need to learn? The Bible teaches. Is there sin in our lives? The Bible rebukes. Are we thinking incorrectly about something? The Bible corrects. Are we infants needing to grow in spiritual maturity? The Bible trains. To what end? That we would be competent and prepared for anything God would have us to do.
Here's the thing: God wrote a book. As such, we need to be reading it. Not just commentaries about it. Not second-hand opinions of it. We should open the actual book and read the actual words on the page. Those words are profitable for us. All of them.
Thus, we should get comfortable with reading them. Further, we should be comfortable reading, period. Little words in the Bible, because they were inspired by God the Holy Spirit, are a big deal. Words like therefore, so that, but, and, and so on are critical to our understanding of Scripture. This will mean getting comfortable with grammar....but I digress.
In the coming weeks, I will approach the subject of studying the Bible from a few angles, beginning with developing an apologetic of confidence toward the actual Bible itself. Here's how I intend to proceed:
1) What is the Bible?
In this I will discuss how the Bible came about, including its canonization. I'll even give away the ending: the Bible is trustworthy as it is today. It wasn't put together 'over hundreds of years'. It was accepted long before that.
2) Is the Bible a valid historical document?
This is important because if there has been corruption of the text over time, what we hold in our hands isn't really worth reading as 'true'. If, however, we can believe that what we have was what was written, then we can begin discoursing on the implications of what it says.
3) Why study the Bible?
By recognizing the text as accurate to what was written, then we can consider its implications and why it would be important to be familiar with it. This conversation will involve the importance of practicing discipline with our time in the Word.
4) How do we study the Bible?
This will be the most practical of all of the posts. I will discuss a few ideas to help get you started in studying the Bible. In the end, there is no 'perfect' or 'right' way of studying the Bible. However, having something on which to build will be helpful. This will also include a consideration for the different genres in which different books of the Bible are written and how that colors how we read.
Throughout this series, I will do my best to include helpful resources to consult as you approach this all-important study of the Bible itself. My list will not be comprehensive, but I trust it will be a good start. Also, it is my sincere hope and prayer that these posts will spark discussion, not merely a monologue on my part. If there is something unclear, please ask questions. If I am way off on something, call me out. Don't just take my word for it - do some research alongside me. Let's use this time to sharpen one another!
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
When the votes were tallied and this came out on top, I was pretty pleased. Some of the topics are, perhaps, more 'controversial'. Others are more 'current'. This one, however, is the most foundational. Therefore, I am glad to be going at it first. As was pointed out by one of the voters, all the other discussions stem from this root, the root that the Bible is true and instructs us in how to live and view the world and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We should know why we should trust the Bible. We should know how it came to be. We should understand how to read it. We should understand how to read! I intend to cover each of these ideas in the coming weeks.
Before getting into the specifics of this topic, though, I want to let you all know that I have a bias: I believe the Bible is true. Every word of it. I believe the Bible is applicable. Every word of it. As I write more and more, I hope that conviction is put on display for your edification and my own accountability to the text.
I arrive at this conviction based out of the text above. The Bible was breathed out by God. By itself, that should be enough for us to want to read it and read it well. However, because the Holy Spirit is an excellent instructor, He tells us (through Paul, in this instance) why this is true. The Bible is profitable (literally useful or beneficial) for our lives in all areas. Is there something we need to learn? The Bible teaches. Is there sin in our lives? The Bible rebukes. Are we thinking incorrectly about something? The Bible corrects. Are we infants needing to grow in spiritual maturity? The Bible trains. To what end? That we would be competent and prepared for anything God would have us to do.
Here's the thing: God wrote a book. As such, we need to be reading it. Not just commentaries about it. Not second-hand opinions of it. We should open the actual book and read the actual words on the page. Those words are profitable for us. All of them.
Thus, we should get comfortable with reading them. Further, we should be comfortable reading, period. Little words in the Bible, because they were inspired by God the Holy Spirit, are a big deal. Words like therefore, so that, but, and, and so on are critical to our understanding of Scripture. This will mean getting comfortable with grammar....but I digress.
In the coming weeks, I will approach the subject of studying the Bible from a few angles, beginning with developing an apologetic of confidence toward the actual Bible itself. Here's how I intend to proceed:
1) What is the Bible?
In this I will discuss how the Bible came about, including its canonization. I'll even give away the ending: the Bible is trustworthy as it is today. It wasn't put together 'over hundreds of years'. It was accepted long before that.
2) Is the Bible a valid historical document?
This is important because if there has been corruption of the text over time, what we hold in our hands isn't really worth reading as 'true'. If, however, we can believe that what we have was what was written, then we can begin discoursing on the implications of what it says.
3) Why study the Bible?
By recognizing the text as accurate to what was written, then we can consider its implications and why it would be important to be familiar with it. This conversation will involve the importance of practicing discipline with our time in the Word.
4) How do we study the Bible?
This will be the most practical of all of the posts. I will discuss a few ideas to help get you started in studying the Bible. In the end, there is no 'perfect' or 'right' way of studying the Bible. However, having something on which to build will be helpful. This will also include a consideration for the different genres in which different books of the Bible are written and how that colors how we read.
Throughout this series, I will do my best to include helpful resources to consult as you approach this all-important study of the Bible itself. My list will not be comprehensive, but I trust it will be a good start. Also, it is my sincere hope and prayer that these posts will spark discussion, not merely a monologue on my part. If there is something unclear, please ask questions. If I am way off on something, call me out. Don't just take my word for it - do some research alongside me. Let's use this time to sharpen one another!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)