Colossians 1:15 w/1 & 2 Corinthians and 1 John Surveys

Colossians 1:7-15

Recent paper presented at the 2018 ETS Midwest Regional Meeting at Grace Bible College

Define or Die 

Is Evangelicalism Suffering from an Identity Crisis? 

Jeffrey D. Chamberlain 

Introduction 

A couple of years ago, I was standing in a line of about 8 people at a 7/11 and I noticed that I was the only one without a tattoo. Normally, people who have tattoos like to say that they are expressing their individuality by or through their tattoos, but in that line, I was the only one expressing my individuality, unintentionally of course, meaning that it is not a conscious effort to stand out based on my appearance, but the reality is that because I had not succumbed to the peer pressure of the group expressing their individuality, I was standing out. As I reflected on the topic of this paper, I realized that my presence in the line that day could be interpreted another way as it pertains to what someone like me represents. I am a Bible-believing Christian, who believes that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, trustworthy, authoritative Word of God. With my inclusion of inerrancy in my description of the Bible, I represent the old guard unwilling to get in line with the progress of today’s world, whether it’s my presence in line at 7/11 or in the academy, or unfortunately in many churches. The goal of this paper is to examine the current state of Evangelicalism, look at some its history, interact with some of the changes in focus that have occurred in the past 80+ years, and to offer a few possible solutions of how to restore what has been lost, which may or may not include eliminating the term, “Evangelical.”   

Definition 

Before examining Evangelicalism as a movement or identity marker, it is necessary to first attempt to define the word and the connotations attached to it. Since the group identifying themselves as “Evangelical” is so broad and diverse, trying to define “Evangelicalism” as a movement is like trying to pick the perfect bracket in March Madness, where the best odds are 1 in 128 billion. Definitionally, evangelical simply means one that believes in the evangel and the evangel is the English term derived ultimately from the Greek term euangelion meaning good news, which is most often translated as gospel. Therefore, the simplest definition of an evangelical would be one who believes the gospel. It is at this point where it starts to go awry because there are numerous groups that believe in a gospel, so how one understands the gospel now comes into the question. Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses, to name a few, would not be considered evangelical by evangelicals, because there is a certain element of works involved in how one obtains salvation within those systems. It quickly becomes evident that the definition needs to go through the clarification process, which will be handled in the next section.  

Before we get to the essentials of the faith, I would like to present a few definitions provided by either individuals or organizations. The National Association of Evangelicals makes use of David Bebbington’s summary of evangelical distinctives where he provides four primary characteristics of Evangelicalism. They are:  

• Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life-long process of following Jesus 

• Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts 

• Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority 

• Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity.1 

The statement issued by the Evangelical Manifesto Steering Committee in 2008 states that “Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.”2 They add six implications that follow from their definition: First, to be Evangelical is to hold a belief that is also a devotion; Second, Evangelical belief and devotion is expressed as much in our worship and in our deeds as in our creeds; Third, Evangelicals are followers of Jesus in a way that is not limited to certain churches or contained by a definable moment; Fourth, Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally; Fifth, the Evangelical message, ‘good news’ by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative; and Sixth, Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism.”3 There certainly are some glaring holes in these definitions, but at least they are not as vague as “George Marsden once quipped that in the 1950’s and 1960’s an evangelical Christian was ‘anyone who likes Billy Graham.’”4 Ironically, in the late 1980’s, Billy Graham was asked to define the term and he stated that “that’s a question I’d like to ask somebody too.”5 

Mark Noll stated that “‘Evangelicalism’ is not, and never has been, an ‘ism’ like other Christian isms…rather, ‘evangelicalism’ has always been made up of shifting movements, temporary alliances, and the lengthened shadows of individuals.”6 I believe that D. A. Carson presents probably the most articulate statement mentioned so far. He states that, “an evangelical, at his best, is a person who believes the good news found in the New Testament, that God has sent his Son to die on the cross and rise from the dead, ascend to glory, seated at the right hand of God, coming at the end of the age to redeem his image-bearers from their sin, their condemnation, pouring upon them his Spirit to justify them, sanctify them, and one day glorify them in perfection. It’s all the good news of what God has done, and this demands a response of obedience, repentance, and faith.”7 And finally, our own society, ETS, only requires one to believe in inerrancy, as defined in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Trinity in order to be considered a member in good standing. As I stated above, it is evident that there needs to be clarification in order to arrive at a biblical definition.  

Gospel Essentials and Do We Believe Them? 

If the term Evangel is derived from the biblical word euangelion, then it follows that we need to draw our understanding of the gospel, what it includes and excludes, and how we are to live in response to it, from the Scriptures. Starting with 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, which is one of the clearest explanations of the gospel in the Scriptures, we can examine what is present in that text and then expand outward to the rest of the Scriptures in order to come to a fully developed definition of our topic.  

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 1 Cor. 15:1-8 ESV 

What we know about this text is that verses 3-5 represent an early Christian creed, Gary Habermas believes that Paul received this information within three years of the cross, which means that this creed is very early. Time does not allow for us to go into a full exposition of this text, but we can draw four principles from it.8 First, the gospel is Christological – it was Christ who died for our sins, was buried, rose from the dead, and appeared to many. Secondly, the gospel is theological – we see what it is doing in regards to salvation, as well as numerous doctrines included in the text. Thirdly, the gospel is biblical – everything is in accordance with the Scriptures. And lastly, the gospel is historical – the simple mention of Christ appearing to more than 500 and that most are still alive, not only demonstrates that Christ appeared to real people in real time, it also provides an easy verification process. If you do not believe Paul, go ask someone that Christ appeared to before his ascension. It is obvious that this text is directly dealing with Christ’s work on the cross and his resurrection, but where does that leave us regarding the essentials of the faith? Are Christ’s work on the cross and the resurrection the only essentials that one needs to believe to be considered an evangelical? If that is not the case, then we are right back where I started at the beginning of this section when I stated that there need to be more regarding our understanding of what is included in the gospel. So, what is to be included in our understanding of the gospel? 

We learn from the Carson definition that God poured out his Spirit to justify, sanctify, and ultimately glorify us. 1 Corinthians 6:11states that “such were some of you but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. We are justified by faith (Gal. 2:15-16; Rom. 3:26; 5:1-2), saved through that faith by grace, and it is a work that God does alone (Eph. 2:5, 8-9). We learn that John describes Jesus Christ was the divine Logos or Word and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1, 14), which provides us with a clue to who he is, the God-man. This is why we see an emphasis on the Trinity in the ETS requirements. One must rightly understand who God is according to the Scriptures, or at least, not deny who he has revealed himself to be, which would necessarily exclude modalists, Unitarians, Mormons, and Arians (Jehovah Witnesses).  

The final topic to discuss seems to be the most hotly contested among those claiming to Evangelical these days. The topic is what is the nature of the Bible in its entirety? Must one believe that it is the Word of God? Must one believe that it is infallible? Trustworthy? True? Inerrant? The other requirement to be a member of ETS is to hold the position that the Bible is inerrant, as defined by the Chicago Statement. What if one believes that the Bible is inerrant, but has a different understanding than that which is laid out in the Chicago Statement? The framers of the statement never considered the Statement to be the line of demarcation of who is in and who is out. Can someone deny inerrancy and still be considered an Evangelical? Not according to Francis Schaeffer, who in The Great Evangelical Disaster states that,  

the chasm is: not conforming to the world spirit of autonomous freedom in our age, and obedience to God’s Word. And this means living in obedience to the full inerrant authority of the Bible in the crucial moral and social issues of the day just as much as in the area of doctrine. Obedience to God’s Word is the watershed. And the failure of the evangelical world to take a clear and distinctively biblical stand on the crucial issues of the day can only be seen as a failure to live under the full authority of God’s Word in the full spectrum of life.”9  

Currently in Evangelicalism, inerrancy is the main issue of dispute and whether it should be considered essential to the faith. The failure as Francis Schaeffer saw it was the problem of accommodating the Bible to the culture, first, in the areas of science and the cosmos, and then, in moral areas, which has led to the breakdown of the family and ultimately evangelicalism, through the throwing off the God-ordained design for marriage, human sexuality, and the sanctity of human life. Schaeffer, once again, adds that, 

Here then is the watershed of the evangelical world. We must say most lovingly but clearly: evangelicalism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take a full view of Scripture and those who do not. But remember that we are not just talking about an abstract theological doctrine. It makes all the difference in the end if Scripture is compromised by theological infiltration or by infiltration from the surrounding culture. It is the obeying of Scripture which is the watershed – obeying the Bible equally in doctrine and in the way, we live in the full spectrum of life.10 

Time does not permit a full investigation into the meaning of inerrancy and whether it is viable option for believers today. If you are interested in knowing my position, I have included the address for my blog at the end of this paper where I have posted my position paper, as well as, my criticism of the errant position. The doctrine can be represented simply, since it is a rather straightforward concept. If the Bible is the Word of God (which it claims to be), with all that that entails, and God cannot lie or error (why would we trust him if he could), then the Bible, as God’s Word, cannot lie or err, therefore the Bible is without error.  

I believe that a strong argument can be made for the essentials to be the life and works of Jesus Christ, including the promise of his return, not how he returns, but that he is returning and the necessity of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, which would cover the conversionism and the crucicentricism of Bebbington’s characteristics being used by the NAE. The triune nature of God is an essential, otherwise we are worshiping a false god and the inerrant, infallible, authoritative nature of the Bible is an essential, which would cover the ETS requirements, as well as the biblicism characteristic of the NAE. All other doctrines would be held as secondary, tertiary, or even further out in the spectrum, meaning the bible-believing Christians can differ and even debate the issues vigorously, but they should not separate over them. The essentials, on the other hand, carry a weight that serious differences require separation. There is a certain confrontational element to the gospel and it comes directly from Jesus and his handling of false conception of God’s nature, his commands, and his Word. The question is do we believe that the gospel is confrontational or do we accommodate the gospel to the world in order to avoid appearing judgmental and narrow-minded? Schaeffer states that “Truth demands confrontation; loving confrontation, but confrontation nevertheless”11 or as the Apostle Paul states in Ephesians 4:15 that we must be “speaking the truth in love.”  

Does Evangelicalism accurately represent biblical Christianity? 

It is at this point that we must examine the current state of Evangelicalism and ask ourselves whether or not it accurately represents biblical Christianity. More specifically, not whether the word “Evangelical” accurately represents biblical Christianity, but do the actions of its adherents accurately represent biblical Christianity? Unfortunately, words tend to be defined  by the actions and abuses of its adherents rather than by their proper definition. Recently there have been a number of articles written that question whether there is a future for evangelicalism, most notably, “Can Evangelicalism Survive Donald Trump and Roy Moore?” by Tim Keller and “Do Evangelicals Need a Better Gospel” by Jonathan Leeman. This topic is by no means new; in 1923, J. Gresham Machen wrote, “Christianity and Liberalism,” Carl F. H. Henry wrote “Evangelicals In Search of Identity” in 1976, Schaeffer wrote “The Great Evangelical Disaster” in 1984, which is ironic, in my opinion, given the title of George Orwell’s book and the direction we are headed as a society, David Wells wrote “No Place For Truth Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology in 1993, Mark Noll wrote “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind in 1994, and Kenneth Stewart wrote “In Search of Ancient Roots: The Christian Past and the Evangelical Identity Crisis in 2017, just to name a few. The most recent surge in articles may have been started by what was considered to be a controversial tweet from Tim Keller, which stated, “Jesus didn’t come primarily to solve the economic, political, and social problems of the world. He came to forgive our sins.” It is possible that the ensuing firestorm from the theologically accurate tweet may be the reason behind his article in The New Yorker or more likely it was a tweet promoting the article that would appear a day later, nevertheless it has opened the conversation once again. Leeman observed that he saw a storm coming when the pollsters told us that, 

81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump, and a similar percentage in Alabama voted for Roy Moore…[and he] saw many young Christians and Christians of color feel betrayed by these votes and begin to say, “Let’s be done with evangelicals”…[and he] heard older and often whiter evangelicals responding, “Wait a second. There’s a difference between ‘evangelical’ as a theological label and ‘evangelical’ as a political or cultural movement. Please don’t draw too many conclusions from those who tell pollsters they’re ‘evangelical.’ Many of them aren’t. please don’t give up on the gospel.” And finally, [he has] heard the younger crowd reply, “hold on. You don’t get off the hook that easy. Our theology always shapes our politics. So check your gospel. It’s too individualistic, too blind to Christ’s work of reconciling the nations, too indifferent to matters of justice.12 

In regards to the Keller tweet, the second crowd, “felt like this was one more example of an individualistic gospel, a gospel that’s unconcerned with matters of justice and cosmic reconciliation. They asked: ‘Tim, what about the fact that Jesus said he came to preach to the poor, proclaim liberty to captives, recover sight to the blind, and set at liberty those who are oppressed (Luke 4:18)?’ Keller replied that he used the word ‘primarily,’ but his point was lost in the conversation that followed.”13 The matters of justice and cosmic reconciliation bring us back to Bebbington’s characteristic of activism that I left out of the essentials section and raises the question of should it be an essential element of Evangelicalism. I do not believe that it should be an essential but let me first issue a disclaimer, I am not saying that we do not need to be involved in the political, socio-economic, and social processes, but that we need to remember what our mission as followers of Jesus Christ is, primarily to reach the lost with the gospel. Social activism should be a necessary and direct outworking of our relationship with Jesus Christ, just as the book of James instructs us; faith without works is dead (James 2:17). The issue is that there are many who would not consider themselves to be evangelical or even religious, but they are extremely altruistic and philanthropic. The problem is that Christians have the ultimate cure and hope for the oppressed and down-trodden. We have the most loving message, the gospel of Jesus Christ, but because of our history and the multi-cultural pluralism in today’s society, our message of the exclusivity of Jesus Christ is more often than not, viewed as hate.  

Because of this, the accommodation of the Scriptures to the culture, many of the issues that Henry and Schaeffer warned us about in the 70’s and 80’s are now taking place. The accommodation is no longer just in the realm of evolution vs. creation or old earth vs. young earth, but it has moved into the areas of morality and identity. These issues are incredibly personal, for example, many evangelical Christians have family and friends that they love dearly who claim to be part of the LGBTQ community, such as David Gushee, author of Changing Our Mind, whose sister is part of that community, which played a large part in him changing his perspective regarding the Bible and its clear teaching against homosexuality.14 He believes he is being compassionate, but is he really? He has accommodated the Scriptures to fit the current cultural trend. The accommodation towards the political realm is just as outrageous. In an article by Michael Gerson, he remarks that “it is remarkable to hear religious leaders defend profanity, ridicule, and cruelty as hallmarks of authenticity and dismiss decency as a dead language”15 and he adds that “according to Jerry Falwell Jr., evangelicals have ‘found their dream president,’ which says something about the current quality of evangelical dreams.”16 Gerson further adds that “the corruption of a religious tradition by politics is tragic, shaming those who participate in it.”17 These are just a few examples of what we have experienced over the last 80+ years of evangelicalism.  

Solutions 

It obviously serves no purpose to simply seek a definition, share some areas where the movement has lost focus, and fail to offer possible solutions to the identified problems. The most difficult part of implementing change within Evangelicalism is to change people’s perception from both inside and outside the movement. Keller in his article states that “‘Evangelical’ used to denote people who claimed the high moral ground; now, in popular usage, the word is nearly synonymous with ‘hypocrite’”18 and Rob Bell, among others, “believes that serious evangelicals are bad people.”19 It is interesting to reflect on how important the actions of followers of a movement distort the perceptions of what the most basic beliefs of that movement are. For instance, if I say that I adhere to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, the perception is that I am one of those Bible-thumping fundamentalists. When a group of men  produced a series of books called The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth in the early years of the twentieth century as a reaction to liberalism, I find it hard to believe that they envisioned what would be known as fundamentalism today, but does that distortion mean that we, as Bible-believing Christians, should not hold to the fundamentals of the faith? 

So, I suggest that we need to have a revival of sorts to a return to believing and living out the essentials or fundamentals of our faith. Secondly, I believe that we need to live out a consistent faith before the watching world. We preach that the gospel is a whole-life experience, but do we show that or do we really believe it? We need to take Christ everywhere we go, for example, are we willing to lose our jobs if the company we work for is doing something or requiring us to do something that is directly opposed to the Bible? Thirdly, as Bible-believing Christians we need to allow the Bible to inform our ethics and morality, not the culture. We need to be lovingly confronting the culture, not cowardly accommodating to it, which means we most likely need to confront false beliefs face-to-face instead of through social media, as the Keller tweet demonstrates. And finally, we need to allow the Scriptures to inform our activism. Here is why, when we compromise our core beliefs in order to support a candidate or social cause, just because they support a particular issue, but their character does not reflect our core beliefs, then our credibility is ruined and the charge of hypocrisy has some validity. As the Church and I am speaking generally here, we need to do better in this area, we gloss over misogyny because it suits our needs, but we vilify someone struggling with same-sex attraction seeking to understand why they feel the way they do. I believe that we could simply correct some of the misconceptions and distortions just by living out what we say we believe.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Conclusion  

In returning to the main question of this paper, I do believe that Evangelicalism is suffering from an identity crisis and that if it does not make a serious effort to distinctively define itself, then it will die. Christianity will not die, but Evangelicalism as force in society will, in fact, it may be on its deathbed now. This seems to raise the question of whether or not the term should be discarded or kept. The fact that we even need to discuss this is unfortunate because the term is a good term, it a biblical term. What terms could accurately replace it that do not already have their own connotations attached to it. Protestant? Reformed? Missional? Traditional? Post-evangelical? Followers of Christ? Disciples of Christ? Bible-believing Christians? All of these names or titles already carry a certain connotations, so that, I believe, just muddies the water. I prefer Bible-believing Christian, but does that imply that there are non-Bible believing Christians? Maybe we should just go by the name “Christians,” but is that name too broad also? In the end, I propose that we keep the name because it is a good name, it just needs to be reformed, which requires the movement to center itself on the essential doctrines of the faith and then move outward from there in what we do, what we do not do, what we support and what we do not support. I would like to conclude with a recent tweet by Garrett Kell that I found applicable to this discussion.  

If I…  

Have correct theology 

 Labor for justice 

 Liberate the oppressed 

 Memorize the Bible 

 Gain a platform 

 Grow in wokeness 

 Evangelize unreached peoples 

 Fight against heresies 

 Create political progress 

 Win the argument… 

 “…but do not have love, I am nothing.” 1 Cor. 13:1-3 

What Benefit is an Errant Bible to the Church?

Introduction

There is nothing better than a good conspiracy theory. At 4:18 p.m. on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong’s voice crackled from the speakers at NASA’s Mission Control in Houston. He said simply, “the Eagle has landed.”[1] On Monday July 21, 1969, the Washington Post ran the front-page headline of ‘“The Eagle Has Landed’ – Two Men Walk on the Moon,”[2] but in the almost fifty years since that time, there have been various conspiracy theories that it was just an elaborate ruse to make the people of the world believe that American had won the great space race. In fact, “In 2001, an hour-long special aired on Fox that questioned whether the moon landings were fake. Fox News has hosted a moon-landing conspiracist at least twice since that year. Not to be outdone, CNN covered Bart Sibrel, the same conspiracy theorist who produced the Fox documentary, in an online story in 2009, as well as NASA’s response to the Fox documentary in 2001.”[3] There is definitely no shortage of conspiracy theories. People are always looking for Big Foot, Nessie, the Loch Ness Monster, Area 51 in Roswell, how many people were involved in the shooting of JFK, 911, and every Easter and Christmas, one can expect a story in all the major magazines about how the Jesus of Christianity is a hoax. There almost always seems to be the accusation that those in power are covering something up.

Far too often, this same type of angle is taken by those who do not ascribe to the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. They tend to argue that those who hold to inerrancy, do so only to maintain control and power. There is common thread that runs through most of the errantist’s works, which is that they are being ostracized by those in power. In the mind of many, “the divisions within evangelicalism would be solved if the whole notion of inerrancy, regardless of how it is defined, was discarded.”[4] More pointedly, Bovell proclaims that, “the principle reason for this is that inerrancy works on an ideological level to effectively shield inerrantists from seeing the kind of Bible God has given.”[5] The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that the “errantists” tend to engage in the wrong discussion about the truthfulness and exegesis of the text; they tend to operate from a perceived understanding of what the doctrine of inerrancy really is; and ultimately, offer little by way of solutions to the problems they see. Unfortunately, they offer far more heat than light to the conversation, although the “inerrantists” are certainly not without fault in the debate.

Engaged in the Wrong Discussion

Peter Enns and Westminster Theological Seminary parted ways in 2008 over Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. In 2013, Enns was a contributor to Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy where he was set against R. Albert Mohler Jr., who was defending the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The one glaring aspect that stood out in Enns’ article and his response to Mohler was that there must have still been some unresolved or resentment towards anyone who holds to an inerrant position. As one reads his article, it is easy to find oneself reading faster than one would normally and there is a sense of anger in the writing. A similar attitude can be picked up as one reads Bovell’s Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear, although the writing does not express anger, but hurt. It seems that the argument is against the “ill-advised inerrantist zealotry”[6] as Yarbough calls it, instead of the doctrine itself. There is not so much an aversion to inerrancy as a concept, as long as it is not defined in the way that the Chicago Statement or the way that Warfield and Hodge define it. It is interesting to observe that there seems to be a desire by the errantists to be accepted by the people that they so strongly attack.

There is a serious lack of biblical content in much of errantist argumentation, it tends to focus on critical scholarship and a hermeneutic that corresponds with their ideology. Houtz appeals to 1 Clement 25 and Clement’s insufficient understanding that the Phoenix was a mythical creature when he drew an analogy between the Phoenix and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but he states that he uses Clement rather than the Scripture so that he can avoid Bible bickering. If the online article is named “Inerrancy denies that the Bible contains scientific error”[7] then to be logically honest, the biblical text should be dealt with. It unfortunately ends up being a red herring, much like “when proponents of inerrancy defend their view with too much haste and bluster and not enough substance, it gives the credence to proposals that Scripture errs after all.”[8] Lastly, Enns accuses inerrantists of intellectual dishonesty in their approach to how they interpret the Scriptures. In his handling of the Jericho story, he states that the “line of argument is common rhetorical strategy among inerrantists” when they suggest that erosion could be a possible reason why the walls are undetected[9]

Misunderstanding the Doctrine of Inerrancy

Sexton makes an insightful observation regarding the two sides of the debate. He stresses that “before any forward progress can take place, some consensus on terms must be located. Along with this, a serious attempt at a comprehensive understanding of the history of this debate, replete with all the arguments set forth, needs to be made and is due to the evangelical community.”[10] He adds that “there seems to be little consensus that each understands the other’s positions.”[11] These insights are extremely important because there is a lot of talking past one another. Some inerrantists make inerrancy a litmus test for who is in and who is out, which upsets many errantists, since there is this apparent desire to be accepted by those who reject them. Contrary to how it is often presented, the Chicago Statement never claims to be a litmus nor does it seek to be given creedal weight and the framers explicitly state that they “invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself.”[12] D. A. Carson makes the point that “if you try to make inerrancy the scalpel by which you judge all matters, then it seems to me you’re asking too much of it. In my view, a rich and sophisticated doctrine of inerrancy is part of biblical fidelity. It’s bound up with the way Jesus saw Scripture.”[13]

Boone provides two common objections to the doctrine. The first one is “that the doctrine does us no good since we do not have that to which inerrancy is ascribed, namely the autographs… [the second] is that it makes too many distinctions and qualifications to be a meaningful doctrine.”[14] He states that both objections are misunderstandings of the doctrine. Poythress adds that,

Anti-inerrantists regularly accuse inerrantists of having a simplistic view of divine revelation. Supposedly, inerrantists leave out the illuminating work of the Spirit or the centrality of the Son in revelation. These accusations tend to be unfair. They do not notice the difference between an inerrantist who actually denies illumination or the centrality of the Son and an inerrantist who fails to mention these elements because he is focusing on the question at hand – namely, inerrancy itself.[15]

Correspondence or Accommodation?

            The question is how did God inspire Scripture? Did he just reveal the truth of how things really are, which would be that truth as revealed in the Scripture corresponds to how things really are in life? Or did he accommodate the Scriptures to line up with what people already believed? It is evident, based on their arguments, that errantists follow the latter and inerrantists the former. Bovell states, “the concern I have about the Chicago Statement’s emphasis on ‘God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only’ has to do with the way it emboldens students to uncritically presuppose a simplified, unified ‘how things are’ mentality while reading biblical narratives, dialectically reinforcing a metaphysical expectation for a ‘how things are’ correspondence.”[16] This begs the question, should one seek to presuppose how things are not? Blomberg’s assessment of Bovell’s concern is that he “leaves a door open for some new form of inerrancy but resists current formulations, especially the Chicago Statement. He sees it as too tied to a propositional view of revelation and to a correspondence theory of truth.”[17]

Kurka, on the other hand, believes that “capitulating on a high view of Scripture would be a denial of historical Christianity…however, it has become necessary to seriously examine whether this choice term of theological conservatives is adequate in explaining our scholarly endeavors to a twenty-first-century, multicultural world.”[18] One is left to wonder if this position is succumbing to current culture in order to be accepted in academia, since he adds that,

the term ‘inerrancy’ has become unusable because it creates a pseudo-conflict, giving the impression that historic evangelical notions of the inspiration, authority, and truthfulness of Scripture are in jeopardy…ironically, this comes at a time when conservative biblical and theological scholarship is beginning to take a front seat in the academy. It seems tragic, if not ludicrous for Protestant ‘comrades in arms’ to forfeit this opportune moment due to a term that communicates something both sides find simplistic and unscholarly.[19]

It certainly seems that the goal is to be accepted by the academic community rather than hold to a view that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Is it possible that a high view of Scripture has already been capitulated? History has shown this to be true, Joseph Butler, not long after John Locke gives his classic statement regarding the elevation of reason over the Scripture, wrote, “let reason be kept to: and if any part of the Scripture account of the redemption of the world by Christ can be shown to be really contrary to it, let the Scripture, in the name of God, be given up.”[20] Moorhead adds that “Schleiermacher’s goal was to save Christianity by making it palatable to the rational man. he posits that Christianity is misunderstood – it is not about knowledge and doctrine of the Bible, but about human experience, feeling, and intuition.”[21] Unfortunately, these emphases are not far off from the current understanding of the errantists. Consequently, one is forced to question whether, man is still trying to set himself up as the arbiter of truth rather than God.

No Workable Solutions

            In the process of academic engagement, it is necessary to not only criticize the doctrines with which one disagrees, but it is also necessary to offer suggestions of what concept or doctrine could or should replace it. A key aspect of offering a replacement is to show how the replacement will work practically in place of the unfavorable doctrine. It is in this area where there is a vacuum of sorts. Bovell recommends a hermeneutical model, but just how this hermeneutical model would sufficiently replace inerrancy is fuzzy at best. What he ends up doing is supporting the Speech Act theory that Kevin Vanhoozer espouses. Blomberg observes that Bovell “suspects progress could be made if one followed Kevin Vanhoozer’s appropriation of speech-act theory, identifying the locutions, illocutions, and perlocutions of the various literary genres of Scripture. The locution is the meaning of an utterance within its context; its illocution is what it intends or accomplishes by its being spoken; and its perlocution is the way it is received and the results or effects that reception creates.”[22] All Vanhoozer is doing is applying the terminology from John Austin and integrating them into a process of interpreting the Scriptures. It is creative and attractive to students in today’s postmodern/post Christian environment, but it is not so different from the process laid out in the Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy and Hermeneutics. Sexton offers a critical assessment of what he titles “Carlos Bovell’s Disgruntled Approach” where he observes that,

he clearly wishes to influence them [younger evangelicals] away from inerrancy. But while he does this, he provides no alternatives for them beyond a footless polemic against evangelical teachers, scholars, and inerrancy. Accordingly, he leaves readers in the same position he claims inerrancy left him. His interaction with nonevangelicals is good and substantial, but he never permits evangelical scholars to answer his concerns. Although his view of an evangelical is inseparably linked to CSBI, he shows no real knowledge of the document or its contemporary relevance within the evangelical community. He is therefore too sweepingly dismissive and not as sensitively constructive and thoughtfully creative as he purports to be. He paints evangelicals as unwilling to recognize problems with doctrines like inerrancy, but this simply does not represent reality.[23] (emphasis mine)

One final mention of Bovell’s attitude towards inerrants before moving on to other’s suggested alternatives is that he believes “that reconciliation appears to be the primary religious value of those who devote their lives to the establishment and maintenance of peace and social justice…[whereas] the quintessential theological habits of fundamentalist and evangelical inerrantistism are fundamentally at odds with a spirit of reconciliation.”[24] As an conservative evangelical, who holds to the doctrine of inerrancy, I am not sure how the two groups (fundamentalists and evangelical conservatives) can be lumped together since the two terms are not synonymous.

Peter Enns, on the other hand, simply believes that those who hold to the doctrine of inerrancy are just logically and intellectually dishonest in the understanding of the Scriptures and they do so not to lose their position of power. Enns, commenting on inerrancy and inerrantists states that,

Though intended to protect the Bible, inerrancy actually sells it short by placing on it expectations it is not designed to bear – as evidenced by the need for generations of continued publications and debates to defend it…inerrancy sells God short…The premise that such an inerrant Bible is the only kind of book God would be able to produce, or the only effective means of divine communication, strike me as assuming that God shares our modern interest in accuracy and scientific precision, rather than allowing the phenomena of Scripture to shape our theological expressions…the CSBI, when given prescriptive force, it obstructs the kind of critical dialogue clearly surfacing within evangelicalism, and therefore threatens to neutralize self-criticism, a necessary quality of any healthy intellectual pursuit. At such times, evangelicalism appears intellectually dishonest, thus forfeiting intellectual witness to our culture and creating spiritual stumbling blocks for its own members…To the minds of many, maintaining inerrancy requires that perennially nagging counterevidence from inside and outside of the Bible must be adjusted to support that premise rather than allowing that evidence to call the premise into question.[25]

That is a lengthy quote but it is Enns position in a nutshell. He offers no substitute, only that inerrancy must be done away with so that we can grapple with the God of the Bible. We need to realize that the God of the Bible is so powerful that he can overrule ancient human error and ignorance and that we need not fear modern historical criticism.[26]

Another option is the idea of divine spiration offered by A. T. B. McGowan, which spiration “already refers to the mode of the Spirit’s procession within the Trinity. Using it also with reference to the Spirit’s work in producing Scripture would be confusing.”[27]  McGowan likes to think that the concept of inerrancy started with Hodge and Warfield, but history demonstrates that to be an erroneous position. “Dr. McGowan proposes changes to the theological locus of Scripture, offers suggestions about the terminology used to characterize Scripture theologically, reconsiders the doctrine of Scripture, and also proposes changes in the use of Church’s confession, and in preaching. In McGowan’s view, a ‘high’ view of Scripture is consistent with an errant autographic text.”[28] It appears that in McGowan’s view, everything that has happened over the last two thousand years of church history has been wrong, needs to be scrapped, and we must start over using his methods. One is left to wonder if he has any relation to Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell. On a final note, Gunter writing on behalf the Wesleyans states, “it is soteriological sufficiency and not factual inerrancy that lies at the heart of Scripture’s authority for Wesleyans…[therefore], we should leave behind the fractious ‘Bible Wars’ that disrupt our evangelical churches.”[29]

Conclusion

            Trying to understand the position of the errantists is difficult because, while they are passionate for their cause, they lacking unity in what they are trying to accomplish. It is easy to recognize what they are trying to accomplish, namely, to be true to the Scriptures in a way that incorporates scientific and historical studies within the larger academic scope, not just Christian universities and seminaries. It is a search for credibility, but cost is the great. They lose positions within the evangelical community or even prestigious positions like Enns with WTS. Should the biblical community seek the acceptance of the secular? Is Tertullian correct? What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? The Christian faith is an intellectual, reasonable faith. Many great scholars have been produced because of Christianity, but were they trained to just accept that God word is filled with errors? If so, the fields of apologetics and textual criticism, in particular, would be pointless. It is my position that three things need to happen to at least have God-honoring debates about the issues. First, the errantists need to worry more about defending their position than attacking their critics regardless of how they are treated, let their evidence for their belief be their defense. Likewise, inerrantists need to learn to be graceful in their conversations with those who hold opposite beliefs. Secondly, errantists need to attempt to understand the CSBI as it is written, not by what they believe it to be saying. And finally, they need to offer workable substitutions in place of inerrancy, if they want to do away with the term. Almost every article and book examined for this paper resulted in a lot of noise being made about inerrancy, but nothing substantial given as an alternative. Personally, I find it extremely difficult to see the benefit of an errant Bible, but I may just be a simple guy, who believes that God can do whatever he wants. Even if it means that a donkey can talk or a large fish can be raised up to swallow a man.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-eagle-has-landed/ accessed on Feb. 28, 2018)

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2014/07/apollo.pdf?tid=a_mcntx (accessed on Feb. 28, 2018)

[3]https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/in-a-tweet-fox-news-seems-to-question-the-moon-landing/546431/ (accessed on Feb. 28, 2018)

[4] Swanson, Dennis M. 2015. “Inerrancy and the local church what does the debate mean to the people in the pews?.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 26, no. 1: 47-58. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 48

[5] Bovell, Carlos R. Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. 2012. p. i. The “this” in this quote pertains to the idea that critical scholars understand what the Bible is in ways that inerrantists programmatically cannot, at least in the view of a small, growing segment of evangelical students that are socially rooted in in inerrantism but not necessarily academically committed to it.

[6]Yarbrough, Robert W. 2011. “Inerrancy’s complexities: grounds for grace in the debate.” Presbyterion 37, no. 2: 85-100. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 93

[7] https://postbarthian.com/2016/11/02/the-errors-of-inerrancy-4-inerrancy-denies-that-the-bible-contains-scientific-errors/ (accessed on Feb. 27, 2018)

[8] Yarbough, 2011. 94

[9] Merrick, J. and Stephen M. Garrett, Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. p. 95

[10] Sexton, Jason S. 2009. “How Far Beyond Chicago?: Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe the Inerrancy Debate.” Themelios 34, no. 1: 26-49. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 31

[11] Ibid. 31.

[12] Beale, G. K. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority. Wheaton: Crossway Books. 2008. Ebook. Loc 5957 of 6410

[13]Carson, Donald A, John M Frame, and Ben III Witherington. 2014. “Plenary discussion on biblical inerrancy.” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 1: 41-62. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 48

[14]Boone, Mark J. 2016. “Ancient-Future Hermeneutics: Postmodernism, Biblical Inerrancy, and the Rule of Faith.” Criswell Theological Review 14, no. 1: 35-52. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 40

[15] Poythress, Vern S. 2017. “Inerrancy and the Trinity: New Testament perspectives–John 17:6-8 as a window into divine communication in language.” Presbyterion 43, no. 1: 16-29. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 21

[16] Bovell. 2012. 53

[17] Blomberg, Craig L. Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press. 2014. p. 136.

[18]Kurka, Robert C. 2015. “Has ‘Inerrancy’ Outlived Its Usefulness?.” Stone-Campbell Journal 18, no. 2: 187-204. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 188

[19] Ibid.

[20] Moorhead, Jonathan. 2016. “Inerrancy and Church History: Is Inerrancy a Modern Invention?.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 27, no. 1: 75-90. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 86

[21] Ibid. 87

[22] Blomberg. 2014. 136

[23] Sexton, 2009. 35

[24] Bovell. 2012. 1

[25] Merrick, 2013. 84-85

[26] Ibid. 91

[27] Scott, James W. 2009. “Reconsidering inerrancy: a response to A.T.B. McGowan’s The divine authenticity of Scripture.” The Westminster Theological Journal 71, no. 1: 185-209. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 188

[28] Helm, Paul. 2010. “B. B. Warfield’s path to inerrancy: an attempt to correct some serious misunderstandings.” The Westminster Theological Journal 72, no. 1: 23-42. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 24

[29] Gunter, W Stephen. 2011. “Beyond the Bible wars: why inerrancy is not the issue for evangelical Wesleyans.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 46, no. 2: 56-69. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 69

In Defense of the Bible’s Truth and Trustworthiness as Articulated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Introduction

            In John 18:38, Pontius Pilate uttered the famous question that has puzzled philosophers and non-philosophers throughout the ages, “What is Truth?” It is a question that everyone must wrestle with at some point in their life. Why is “truth” so elusive? What is it about “truth” that causes everyone to define it differently? You could walk onto any college campus in the world, step into any philosophy or anthropology class and hear the instructor discussing the concept of “big T” truth vs. “little t” truth. “Little t” truths are much easier to define because they are the truths that are dealt with in everyday life and they relate to truths that may be true in some cultures but false in others, such as, in America we drive on the right side of the road and to do otherwise could be tragic, whereas in other parts of the world the opposite is true. Additionally, the diversity of language comes into play with the use of “right.” Right could mean the opposite of left or it could mean correct or proper, so the statement, “in America we drive on the right side of the road” could be restated as “in America we drive on the correct side of the road,” to which those in England, for example, would vehemently disagree (their steering wheel is also on the wrong side of the car).

“Big T” truths, on the other hand, deal with universal type truths, truths that true regardless of what context one finds himself. These questions are: Does God exist? How can we know? What is he or she like? Or is there purpose for my life? Assuming that a God exists, the big questions are: can humans know who this God is, what he is like, and how must one live to be accepted by God? Each one of these questions deal with the nature of revelation because in order for humans to know anything about an entity that fits the definition of what it would mean to be God, then God would have to reveal who he is to humans. The Bible makes these types of claims for itself. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims that the Scripture, (graphe, the written Old Testament in this context) is theopneustos, “breathed out by God,” and that it is profitable or advantageous for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, indicating that it is trustworthy and true, so that the man of God may live by it. Further scriptural evidence will be given under the biblical witness for the doctrine section, but first it is necessary to define the doctrine of inerrancy.

Defining Inerrancy

            The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is the result of a three-day conference convened by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy in October 1978. It is both a response against liberalism and its attacks against biblical authority and a call for believers to embrace the biblical doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. The 268 participants[1] issued a Preface, A Short Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an Exposition. The Short Statement reads,

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.[2]

The statement itself has received much criticism over the past forty years, but not all the criticism is warranted. It has often been accused of holding to a wooden literal interpretation of the Bible, but as Boone shows, “it is a misunderstanding of inerrancy to think that it commits one to ‘letterism or wooden literalism.’”[3]  The framers never intended the statement to receive creedal status. It is clearly stated in the Preface that “we acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight.”[4] Additionally, the statement was presented in a spirit of humility and love, as evidenced by the statement, “We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.”[5] Both of these statements are important because the two primary objections are that (1) it is overwhelmingly an American position and that it does not accurately represent the global position and (2) it has been used as a litmus test of who is or is not a Christian. In light of the statements in the Preface, these objections are either misunderstood or grossly misapplied.

Statement 4 of the Short Statement is where the concept of inerrancy is introduced, logically follows statements 1-3, which address inspiration, infallibility and divine authority. Inerrancy simply means without error; therefore, biblical inerrancy would necessarily mean that the Bible is without error. This may seem to be an oversimplification of the doctrine, but the concept is rather straightforward. If the Bible is the word of God, with all that that entails, and God cannot lie or err, then the Bible cannot lie or err, therefore the Bible is inerrant. John Wooodbridge, a signer of the Chicago Statement, states that, “by biblical inerrancy, I mean in shorthand the doctrine that the Bible is infallible for faith and practice as well as for matters of history and science.”[6] Vern Poythress, another signer of the Chicago Statement, declares that, “the doctrine of inerrancy, in summary form, says that God consistently speaks truth, that error is opposite of truth, and that therefore what God speaks has no errors. It also maintains that the Bible is the Word of God – it is what God speaks.”[7]

Wayne Grudem provides the definition that inerrancy “means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”[8] Finally, Norman Geisler provides the analogy that a table must have three legs to stand. He articulates inerrancy as the third leg upon which the Christian faith must stand. The first two are inspiration, “which deals with the origin of the Bible” and infallibility, which “speaks to the authority and enduring nature of the Bible.”[9] He defines inerrancy as “simply mean[ing] that the Bible is without error. It is a belief in the ‘total truthfulness and reliability of God’s words.’”[10] A personal definition of the doctrine of inerrancy would be: the belief that the Bible is trustworthy and true solely on the basis of God’s character meaning that God has chosen to reveal himself to fallen man through the words of Scripture, which he has breathed out and inspired men to write the words he intended them to write, therefore the written word of God is without err because God cannot lie or err.

The Biblical Witness for the Doctrine

            The claim has been made that the Bible is without err because it is the revealed Word of God, thus, the argument is that God cannot err or lie and the Bible is his revealed Word, therefore, the Bible cannot err or lie. From where does the concept that God cannot err, or lie come? Scripture tells us that “God is not a man, that he should lie or a son of man, that he should change his mind” (Num. 23:19), that he is “perfect in knowledge” (Job 37:16), that he “never lies” (Titus 1:2), and, in fact, it is impossible for him to lie (Heb. 6:18). If he is perfect in knowledge, then he cannot make an error in anything, therefore, he has exhaustive knowledge. The doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible is directly related to the doctrine of God because it relies on the character of the one revealing or breathing out the words of the Scriptures. If God did lie, not only would it would be in direct contradiction to the above passages, but based on other passages of Scripture, God would be hypocrite. God admonishes the people through the prophet Zechariah to “not devise evil in your hearts against one another, and love no false oath, for all these things I hate.” “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord” (Prov. 12:22) and “all liars” will find themselves in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8). And finally, Jesus calls the Jews the children of the devil in John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” Therefore, if God lies or is even able to lie, then he would be the greatest liar of all time because he claims to be always truthful. Now that the character of God has been established as it relates to him speaking truth, it is now time to examine what the Bible says regarding it being God’s word.

There are about thirty-eight hundred instances where the Bible declares, “God said,” or “Thus says the Lord.”[11] An oft-repeated phrase in the book of Jeremiah is “the word of the Lord came to me” or “the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord,” in fact, these two variations are stated twelve times in chapters 32-35 alone. Right from the beginning of the Bible, God speaks (Gen. 1:3) and continues to speak throughout the entire Scriptures even until the very end, where the God-man, Jesus Christ, declares that he is coming soon (Rev. 22:20). It is important to acknowledge that there is a great distinction between how God speaks in the Old Testament and how he speaks in the New Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus, the Son of God, is on earth communicating to his disciples and others. Hebrews 1:1-2 states that “long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world,” so how God speaks in the NT is by Christ, although there are a few instances of God (the Father) speaking, most notably, at the baptism of Jesus and on the Mount of Transfiguration.

The Old Testament period, which includes the time in the first century A.D. when the New Testament was being written, as evidenced by Paul’s statement in Second Timothy 3:16 that “all Scripture is God-breathed” and Peter’s statement that “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). In the Old Testament, there are statements such as, “God spoke all these words, saying” (Exodus 20:1), and repeated instances of God speaking through the prophets (1 Kings 14:18; 16:12, 34; Zech. 7:7, 12). The psalmist declares that “by the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host” (Ps. 33:6). The psalmist, also declares that the “words of the Lord are pure words” (Ps. 12:6) and the proverb states that “every word of God proves true” (Pro. 30:5). Lastly, Jesus proclaims, while communicating with his Father, that “your word is truth,” not just stating that they are true, but that they are objective, authoritative truth.

To conclude this section, it is important to take a step back into the New Testament. During the temptation in the wilderness, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 to demonstrate that man does not ultimately find his sustenance for life from food, “but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4), once again reemphasizing that all Scripture is God-breathed. Additionally, there is a demonstration of how the human authors will be able to record what has been spoken to them in John 14:26 and 16:13 with the promise of the Holy Spirit who will bring to their remembrance what was spoken to them. Peter also reminds the believers to “remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles” (2 Peter 3:2). Finally, the New Testament authors provide some indications that they understood that they were writing Scripture. Peter calls Paul’s writings Scripture, even if they difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:18 states that “the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain’ (Deut. 25:4) and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages’” (Luke 10:7), thus equating the words of Jesus in Luke with the words of Moses in the Law. The scriptural evidence for the character of the written word is overwhelming and that it can be trusted as true and without err.

Why it is important?

A straight-forward reading of the Bible will cause the reader to conclude that the Bible is self-attesting. It has no higher authority to appeal to in order to prove its truthfulness and authority. Just as God has no other higher being to swear by, his written word is the highest authority as to its accuracy and truthfulness. To some, that may sound like circular reasoning, but is it really? To what can something appeal to when it is the highest authority? Once again, it comes back to the character of the text or the person making the claim. Is the Bible appealing to itself to substantiate its claim to ultimate authority? Yes, but it does so, based on the character of God. Boone states that, “Inerrancy is rooted in the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture. God is the reason that the biblical authors were protected from error, and God has a better knowledge of text than even they did.”[12] The question is what happens when people start to chip away at the doctrine of the Bible as it pertains to its truth and trustworthiness? It has been frequently stated that when one entertains the idea that there are errors in the Bible, then the whole Bible becomes questionable. Augustine expresses this idea, “For if once you 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 one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away.”[13] However, there are many that claim that the slippery slope argument is simply a non- sequitur as it pertains to this issue, but there certainly appears to be some validity to the slippery slope argument in practice. There are examples of men, such as Bart Ehrman, who began to question inerrancy and has now moved to agnosticism, at best.

It is undeniable that there is a serious fragmentation of what it means to be evangelical. G. K. Beale states that, “there is an erosion of the traditional evangelical notion of what it means for the Bible to be true, as formulated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This slow process of weakening the traditional, biblical view of the Bible’s truth is nothing less than the erosion of the very identity of evangelicalism.”[14] This raises the question of how the debate over inerrancy effects the believer in the pews, since this is mostly a debate within academia. A large majority of those in the pews hold to the doctrine of inerrancy, even though they may not be able to articulate the doctrine if asked, but what happens when young men graduate from the seminaries, enter the pulpit, and start preaching that the Bible simply cannot be trusted in certain areas?

Conclusion

            The goal of this paper was to show that the doctrine of inerrancy is a biblical doctrine. The Bible is both true and trustworthy in all it intends to communicate. The doctrine of inerrancy, however, should not be held in isolation or above all the other doctrines articulated in the Scriptures. When considered with the authority of Scripture, the infallibility, the clarity, the sufficiency, and the inspiration of the Scriptures, the doctrine of inerrancy is an essential doctrine within the overarching doctrine of the Scriptures. Regarding the Chicago Statement, there are two questions that need to be answered: (1) is it an accurate description of the doctrine as it is articulated in Scripture, and (2) is it useful in the life and practice of the church? I believe that both questions can be answered with a resounding yes. Problems arise when people try to make the Chicago statement and the doctrine of inerrancy say more than they are intended or attempt to say. Ultimately, when the inerrancy of the Bible is discussed, attacked, or affirmed, the underlying assertions deal with the character of God, rather than the character of the Bible. Therefore, Christians must declare with the Apostle Paul, in Romans 3:4 to “let God be true though everyone were a liar, as it is written, ‘That you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged.’”

[1] Nichols, Stephen. “The Chicago Statement” 5 Minutes in Church History. Sept. 17, 2014. 5minutesinchurchhistory.com. Accessed on Feb. 20, 2018.

[2] bible-reseacher.com (accessed Feb. 15, 2018)

[3] Boone, Mark J. 2016. “Ancient-Future Hermeneutics: Postmodernism, Biblical Inerrancy, and the Rule of Faith.” Criswell Theological Review 14, no. 1: 35-52. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed Jan. 22, 2018). 39

[4] bible-reseacher.com (accessed Feb. 15, 2018)

[5] Ibid.

[6] Kostenberger, Andreas J. and Robert W. Yarbrough. Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21^st Century: Essays in honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65^th Birthday. Wheaton: Crossway. 2011. p. 107.

[7] Poythress, Vern S. “Inerrancy and the Trinity: New Testament Perspectives – John 17:6-8 As a Window into Divine Communication in Language.” Presbyterion. 43, No. 1. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed Jan. 22, 2018).  21.

[8] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1994.

[9] Farnell, F. David and Norman L. Geisler. Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. 2015. Ebook. Loc 626 of 16358.

[10] Ibid.

[11] https://bible.org/seriespage/4-bible-written-word-god (accessed on Feb. 20, 2018)

[12] Boone, Mark J., “Ancient-Future Hermeneutics: Postmodernism, Biblical Inerrancy, and the Rule of Faith.” Criswell Theological Review. Vol. 14. No. 1. 2016. 45.

[13] Moorhead, Jonathan, “Inerrancy and Church History: Is Inerrancy a Modern Invention?” Master’s Seminary Journal. Vol. 27. No. 1. 2016. 80.

[14] Beale, G. K. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority. Wheaton, Il: Crossway Books, 2008. 221.

Review

How to Study the Bible

The Old Testament Genres of Narrative, Law, Poetry, and Wisdom

02/28/18

Narrative

• First, we pay attention to the story and its details. The main point is in the plot and its development. And biblical narrative, like every other, is going to use all the devices you are used to:
  • Chronological development
  • Viewpoint of the narrator – 2 Kings 17:7
  • Plot and rhetorical devices, such as dialogue, shifting points of view, and climax
  • Character development
  • Literary devices such as inclusion (using repeated words or phrases as bookends) and chiasm (a-b-c-b?-a? pattern)
  • Scene arrangement, including things like flashbacks and cutaways (Gen. 38)
• Second, remember that the narrator has had to be selective in what he records, so the details that are present are significant. How do they contribute to the point of the narrative? How do they connect the narrative to what came before and what comes after? (John 21:25, for example)
• Third, context is king. How does the narrative fit into the rest of the book, the rest of the section of Scripture, and the narrative of the Bible as a whole?
• Fourth, what is the point of the narrative in light of the author’s purpose in writing the book? Story is not an end in itself, and we (personal application) are not necessarily to point either!
• Example: 1 Samuel 17 – the story of David and Goliath. When we pay attention to the details and the context, we see that this is not a morality tale about courage in the face of long odds. We also avoid turning it into an allegory, in which every detail represents a spiritual truth. Rather, this is our introduction to the unlikely king who in single combat defeats the enemy and delivers God’s people. In the context of 1 Samuel, this story sets up a contrast with Saul, the obvious and apparent king who turns out to be fraud. Ultimately the story points us to Christ, who in the most unlikely way defeats the enemies of God’s people in single combat on the cross and delivers us to God!
• Comparison/contrast – Josh. 2:1-24; 7:1-26

Law

• Different to interpret, since we are under a different covenant, but we can apply the principles as we interpret them in light of the New Testament.
• Consider the following laws:
  • Exodus 34:26
  • Lev. 19:19
  • Lev. 12:2
  • Lev. 13:40
  • Deut. 22:12
• Which of these have you violated?
  • Deut. 22:5
  • Lev. 19:32
  • Lev. 19:28
  • Deut. 14:8
• These we follow:
  • Lev. 19:18
  • Ex. 20:13
  • Deut. 5:18
• The Tradition Approach
  • Moral
  • Civil
  • Ceremonial
• The Covenantal Context
  • The Mosaic covenant is closely associated with Israel’s conquest and occupation of the land.
  • The blessings from the Mosaic covenant are conditional
  • The Mosaic covenant is no longer a functional covenant
  • The Old Testament law as part of the Mosaic covenant is no longer applicable over us as law.
  • We must interpret the law through the grid of New Testament teaching
• Lev. 5:2, 5-6

Poetry

• The most common feature of Hebrew poetic structure is parallelism in three different forms – synonymous (an idea is repeated for emphasis) – Ps. 2:4, synthetic (one idea builds upon another) – Ps. 119:9, and antithetical (one idea is contrasted with another) – Pro. 26:4,5.
• Other features include word play, alliteration and alphabetic acrostic, repetition, hyperbole, contrast, metonymy (substitution), and synecdoche (the whole stand for part or vice versa).
• Like English poetry, it uses metaphor and simile, figurative images, irony, and euphemism.
• Perhaps the most important key to interpreting poetry is to remember that it’s a poem. A literal reading of a poem will look different than a literal reading of narrative.
• Example: Psalm 19:7-11. These verses are an extended example of synonymous parallelism. David is not talking about six different things, but one thing – the Word of God. He is treating it like a cut diamond held up to the light. In each phrase he turns the single diamond slightly in order to examine a different facet. The point of the poetic meditation is both to engender in us a high view and value of God’s Word and to convince us of his conclusion in verse 11.

Wisdom

• We need to recognize that wisdom literature comes to us in multiple forms, or sub-genres.
  • Drama (Job, Song of Solomon)
  • Sayings (Proverbs 9-31)
  • Autobiographical confession and admonition (Ecclesiastes, Proverbs 1-8)
• Whatever the form, the key in interpretation is to read it in context and according to its stated purpose.
  • Job intends to address the problem of unjust suffering.
  • Ecclesiastes intends to realistically address the point of life.
  • The Proverbs intend to engender the fear of God and then show how that fear (or lack of it) demonstrates itself in all sorts of contexts. It is emphatically not law code.
  • Song of Solomon is a celebration of human love in marriage that points beyond itself to God’s love for his people
• Example: Proverbs 12:21 – “No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble.” A quick reader will make one of two mistakes. He will assume that this is always true, and therefore take suffering as a divine judgment against wickedness. Alternately, he will simply point to Job or to Jesus, and say the proverb is clearly false. But this proverb is neither making an absolute promise, nor is it a contradiction of Job. Rather, like all proverbs, it is proverbial, or generally true. In the moral universe that God has created, wickedness usually brings trouble on itself, and righteousness usually brings blessing. Beyond the proverbial character of the statement, the proverb also points to the ultimate blessing and judgment that comes from God. Even though there are exceptions in this life, God will ultimately keep this proverb at the final judgment.

Apocalyptic (Lawrence)

1. Brief Summary

• Two main examples of apocalyptic in the Bible are Daniel and Revelation. But neither is merely apocalyptic. Daniel is prophetic literature and Revelation is a prophetic epistle.
• Literary context is important. Biblical apocalyptic draws specifically on biblical images from the Old Testament (Babylon, plagues), as well as “stock” images from the wider genre (the horn, celestial bodies, etc.).
• Apocalyptic provides a schematization of history, but that scheme is not necessarily chronological. For example, each series of seven plagues in Revelation (seals, trumpets, bowls) ends with the end of the world. And yet, it would be easy to read the series as sequential. So how many times does the world end? In fact, there is a pattern in these series. History is recapitulated from different perspectives, leading to the climax of the last two chapters.
• Without going to detailed treatment of the various approaches to interpreting Revelation, we can all agree that the main point is clear. God’s people can endure present suffering because of their confidence that God wins. And they know he wins, not because of prophetic revelation, but because of what Christ has already accomplished in the past, through his death and resurrection.
• Example: Revelation 5 – the revelation of the Lion of Judah. John hears of the Lion of Judah, the one who will open the scroll and bring about God’s purposes in history. But when he turns to see the one he has heard of, he see the Lamb who was slain. Did he hear wrong? Are there in fact two different individuals? Not at all. On the contrary, what he sees explains what he heard about. Jesus is worthy to be the Lion, the one who accomplishes God’s purposes precisely because he humbled himself as the Lamb of God on the cross. Jesus is worthy of glory and honor and able to open God’s book of judgment, not merely because of his preexistent divinity, but especially because he purchased God’s people with his own blood. The cross therefore stands at the center of the revelation of the glory of God.
  2. The Genre of Revelation
     1. Apocalyptic – apokalypsis – to reveal or unveil
        1. Popular between 200 B.C. – 200 A.D.
        2. OT uses – Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and parts of Isaiah
        3. Concerned with judgment and salvation during times of persecution and oppression rather than God’s activity within history.
        4. Emphasis on what is seen rather than what is heard (Rev. 1:19)

1. Letter – same structure as a letter, but still highly symbolic language. (1:4-7; 22:21)
2. Prophecy – what must soon take place (1:1, 3; 22:18-19; 19:10)

3. Keys to interpreting Revelation
   1. Read Revelation with humility – resist “Revelation made easy” approaches and beware of someone who claim to have absolute knowledge of every minute detail of Revelation.
   2. Try to discover the message to the original readers – What is going on in their culture and what situations are they facing. What was John trying to communicate to his audience?
   3. Do not try to discover a strict chronological map of future events – think camera angles at a sporting event. Same action, different perspectives.
   4. Take Revelation seriously, but don’t always take in a wooden literal sense – remember the genre. Take 17:9 for example – either a very large woman or seven very small mountains.
   5. Pay attention when John identifies an image – John gives clues in the text for interpretation. (1:12-20)
   6. Look to the Old Testament and historical context when interpreting images and symbols – references to the OT appear in almost 70% of Revelation’s verses.

Compare:

⁹ “As I looked, thrones were placed,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat;
his clothing was white as snow,
and the hair of his head like pure wool;
his throne was fiery flames;
its wheels were burning fire.

¹³ “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. ¹⁴ And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Dan. 7:9, 13-14)

⁵ I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. ⁶ His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude.  (Dan. 10:5-6)

⁷ Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

¹² Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, ¹³ and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. ¹⁴ The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, ¹⁵ his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. (Rev. 1:7, 12-15)

1. Above all, focus on the main idea and don’t press all the details – work from the big picture to the smaller details, remembering to not lose sight of the big picture.

4. Revelation 12:1-17 – the interpretive journey
   1. Step 1: Grasp the text in their town. What did the text mean to the biblical audience?
   2. Step 2: Measure the width of the river to cross. What are the differences between the biblical audience and us?
   3. Step 3: Cross the principlizing bridge. What are the theological principles in this text?
   4. Step 4: Grasp the text in our town. How should individual Christians today apply this theological principle in their lives?

Prophecy

1. A brief summary

• The basic feature – and problem – of interpretation is the promise-fulfillment dynamic. This is what divides interpreters. When, where, and how prophecy is fulfilled helps us understand its meaning.
• One important aspect of prophecy is the prophetic foreshortening of events. The prophets see the mountains on the distant horizon as a single, two-dimensional line. Once we actually get there in history and travel into those mountains, we discover that there are multiple ranges broad distances apart. This means that most, if not all, prophecies have multiple horizons of fulfillment.
• For example, in the flow of Isaiah’s narrative, the “sign of Immanuel” in Isaiah 7 is fulfilled in Isaiah 8 with Isaiah’s own son. But that is just the first range of mountains. Behind and towering over that range is the text’s ultimate fulfillment in the birth of Jesus Christ.
• Another example is found in the apocalyptic prophecy of judgment in Isaiah 24-27. This prophecy is fulfilled by the Babylonian invasion of Palestine. A second mountain range of fulfillment perhaps arrives with Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Ultimately, in light of Revelation, we recognize that this prophecy is fulfilled at the end of the world on the last day.
• A common feature of prophecy is to use the language and images of the past in order to describe the future. Creation, garden of Eden imagery, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the exodus are all used to describe future events. These provide a theological understanding of what is happening, not necessarily a literal understanding
• Not all prophecies are unconditional. The most famous example of this is Jonah preaching to Ninevah. He prophesied that in three days Ninevah would be overturned, unless the people repented. The people repented, so the prophecy was not fulfilled.
• Quite a bit of prophecy is not predictive, but descriptive (typological). For example, the New Testament understands that much of King David’s life anticipated the coming Messiah.
• As always, context is king. In the case of prophecy, the shape of the story of the Bible as a whole is crucial. We need to remember that revelation is progressive, and in the revelation of Jesus Christ, we have been given both the main point and the end of the story. This means that we have an advantage over Old Testament readers. We work from the story of the whole Bible back to the prophecy, not the other way around. As Peter assures us in 1 Peter 1:10-13, the gospel gives us clearer vision than even the Old Testament prophets had. Therefore, the New Testament determines the ultimate meaning of Old Testament prophecy, not the other way around.
  2. What Prophecy is not, primarily.
     • Less than 2 percent of OT prophecy is directly messianic
     • Less than 5 percent specifically describes the new-covenant age.
     • Less than 1 percent concerns events yet to come in our time.
     • The prophets did indeed announce the future, but it was usually the immediate future of Israel, Judah, and other nations surrounding them.
  3. What was the message?
     • You have broken the covenant; you had better repent!
     • No repentance? Then judgment!
     • Yet, there is hope beyond the judgment for a glorious, future restoration.
  4. How does prophecy function in Israel?
     • The prophets were covenant enforcement mediators.
       • Look for the simple pattern
         • An identification of Israel’s sin or of God’s love for his people
         • A prediction of curse or blessing, depending on the circumstance.
       • The prophet’s message was not their own.
         • God is the one who raised them up or called them
         • They each have their own unique style, vocabulary, and concerns, but the message is God’s
       • The prophets were God’s direct representatives.
         • They often held a kind of societal office.
       • The prophets’ message is unoriginal.
         • It flows from the Law

5. We must think Oracle as we attempt to interpret and apply the text.
6. Micah 6:6-8

1. New Testament – Gospels
   1. What are the Gospels?
      1. Biographies of Jesus, but different
      2. Not about his whole life
      3. Not chronologically arranged
      4. Slight variations
      5. Three Synoptics (seen-together)

The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John)

• In the earliest centuries of Christianity, the word “gospel” did not refer primarily to a literary genre in any formal sense. Throughout most of the Church’s history, Christians have thought of the Gospels as biographies of Jesus, but it is best to refer to them as theological biographies because whereas they “formally” have parallels in other literature; “materially” they are uniquely Christian.
• The Gospels have proven themselves time and again to be historically trustworthy, despite continual attacks from the tradition criticism proponents, such as the Jesus Seminar and most recently Bart Ehrman. How are we to understand these criticisms?
  • We must read the Gospel both horizontally and vertically, but vertically should take precedence.
    • Horizontally means to compare the ways in which the different Gospel writers treat a certain passage. It is appropriate in thinking horizontally to use one Gospel to interpret another, so long as one does not mask the distinctives of each. For example, by comparing Mt. 27:56; Mk. 15:40; and John 19:25, it is reasonable to deduce that Zebedee’s wife’s name was Salome and that she and Jesus’ mother, Mary, were sisters. Jesus would then have been cousins with his two disciples John and James. This information, if true, might have been widely known in early Christianity so that no one Gospel writer felt a need to spell it out. But we cannot prove any of this. Any application of the stories of Jesus’ death that focused more on these possible relationships than on the actual information in the Gospels would be misguided.
    • Vertically means that any passage in the Gospels should be interpreted in light of the overall structure and themes of that Gospel despite the nature of any parallel accounts that appear in other Gospels. This is where we must allow the Gospel writers to speak in the way that the Holy Spirit directed them. Each writer writes for a different purpose. For example, Mark and Luke report that the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism declared, “You are my Son, whom I love” (Mk. 1:11; Lk. 3:22), while Matthew’s account has “This is my Son, whom I love” (Mt. 3:17). The question that needs to be asked is who is the writer’s audience?
    • Pitfalls to avoid – the Gospels were not written about us. They were written for us. Do not put yourself in the story and make it about you. You were not there. Do not moralize the story by reducing it to examples of good or bad behavior.
  • Key Theological Issues
    • The Kingdom of God
      • Keep in mind the already/not yet aspect of the kingdom. It is already inaugurated, but not yet consummated. Important within this concept is the two ages (this age and the age to come)
    • The Ethics of Jesus
      • Most of Jesus’ teachings apply to all believers in all situations, unless Scripture itself clearly imposes certain limitations. When Jesus concludes the section of the Sermon on the Mount, he declares: “Be perfect [whole, mature; Greek teleios], therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect [whole, mature]” (Mt. 5:48). This remains the standard or ideal of discipleship for all Christians. We will not attain wholeness in this life, but we can arrive at a measure of maturity. Jesus’ standard should be our constant goal (“already but not yet”). He intended his ethic for all believers, not just a select few.
    • The Forms Within the Gospels
      • Parables
        • A parable is not the same as an allegory. An allegory is where just about everything in the story corresponds to something else. A parable is a means of teaching that is designed to elicit a response in the hearer. Usually, they are used as a means to break down one’s defenses by telling a story that exposes their need, their sin, their hypocrisy, their condition, their ignorance or their shortcoming. They are a story with a punch! They captivate then stun. They disarm then sting.
      • Miracle Stories
        • A biblical miracle is a strikingly surprising event, beyond what is regarded as humanly possible, in which God is believed to act, either directly or through an intermediary. The miracle-stories in the Gospels function first christologically to demonstrate who Jesus was, and then salvation-historically to corroborate his claims that the kingship of God was breaking into human history.
      • Pronouncement Stories
        • Common in the Gospels, it designates a short, self-contained narrative that functions primarily to introduce a key climactic saying (or pronouncement) of Jesus. Theses pronouncements are usually proverbial in nature. As proverbs, they instill wise generalizations in the form of concise memorable phrases and should not be interpreted as absolute truths. For example, Mark 2:13-17 offers a classic example of a pronouncement story. The call of Levi builds to a climax with Jesus’ final pronouncement against his Pharisaic critics: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (v. 17). Obviously these are generalizations; healthy people did at times need physicians for preventive medicine, and Jesus did occasionally minister among those who considered themselves righteous, which is probably what the Greek dikaioi here means (cf. Lk. 14:1-24). But both of these situations were exceptions and not the rule. At the same time, Jesus’ claims challenged (and still challenge) conventional ideas of ministry.
      • Other Forms
        • Legal maxims, beatitudes and woes, announcement and nativity stories, calling and recognition scenes, farewell discourses, etc.
      • Questions to ask
        • What is the Gospel’s theme and goal?
        • Who is the Gospel’s audience?
        • Where is this text in the storyline of the Gospel?
        • How does this text fit with that?
        • Why did he say it in these words?
        • Why did he say it in these words to these people?
        • Why did the author (the Holy Spirit) include this account?

How Should We Read the Gospels?

• Our method of reading the Gospels must respect the means God used to inspire them in the first place. The Gospel writers are saying something about Jesus in each episode and they are saying something by the way they link the smaller stories together to form the larger story.
• 2 simple interpretive questions:
  • What does this small story tell us about Jesus?
  • What is the Gospel writer trying to say to his readers by the way he puts the smaller stories together?

1. How to read individual stories (Mark 4:35-41
   1. Who? (Characters)
   2. What? (Storyline)
   3. When? (time)
   4. Where? (place)
   5. Why? (reason)
   6. How? (means)
   7. Are there any interpretive instructions from the author?
2. How to read a series of stories

Mark 4:35-41 → Mark 5:1-20 → Mark 5:24b-34

↓             ↑

Mark 5:21-24a    Mark 5:35-43 → Mark 6:5-6

3. How do we apply it?

1. New Testament – Acts (Theological History)
   1. A sequel to Luke
      1. Compare Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-2
      2. Are there thematic and structural parallels between the two books?
         1. Prayer, the work of the Spirit, the gospel for all people, etc.
         2. Miracles – Acts 9:32-35; cf. Luke 5:17-26; Acts 9:36-43; cf. Luke 8:40-42, 49-56.
         3. Journey motif
            1. Jesus to Jerusalem and the cross (Luke 9:51; 13:22; 33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:41)
            2. A number of journeys concluding with Paul in Rome

• There is a definite overlap between the ending of Luke and the beginning of Acts

1. Theological narrative (Acts) – (Moo and Stuart)

• Luke’s two volumes (Luke and Acts) fit into two types of history, Hellenistic historiography and Old Testament history. Luke has interests that go far beyond simply informing or entertaining. There is a divine activity going on in this story, and Luke is especially concerned that his readers understand this. For him, the divine activity that began with Jesus and continues through the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the church is a continuation of God’s story that began in the Old Testament.
• Acts, includes not only the purely historical questions like “what happened?” but also the theological ones such as “what was Luke’s purpose in selecting and shaping the material in this way?” Our exegetical interest, therefore, is both in what and If you were given an assignment, it would look like this: (1) Read Acts all the way through in one or two sittings, (2) As you read, make mental notes of such things as key people and places, recurring motifs (what really interests Luke?), and natural divisions of the book. (3) Now go back and skim read, and jot down with references your previous observations. (4) Ask yourself, “Why did Luke write this book?”
• How is Acts structured? Acts has frequently been divided on the basis of Luke’s interest in Peter (chs. 1-12) and Paul (chs. 13-28), or in the geographical expansion of the gospel suggested in 1:8 (chs. 1-7, Jerusalem; 8-10, Samaria and Judea; 11-28, to the ends of the earth). Although both of these divisions are recognizable in terms of actual content, there is another clue, given by Luke himself, that seems to tie everything together much better. As you read, notice the brief summary statements in 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:4; and 19:20. In each case the narrative seems to pause for a moment before it takes off in a new direction of some kind. On the basis of this clue, Acts can be seen to be composed of six sections or panels that give the narrative a continual forward movement from its Jewish setting based in Jerusalem, with Peter as its leading figure, toward a predominately Gentile church, with Paul as the leading figure, and with Rome, the capital of the Gentile world, as the goal. Once Paul reaches Rome, where he once again turns to the Gentiles because they will listen (28:28), the narrative comes to an end.
• What is Luke’s purpose? A few observations are in order, partly based also on what Luke did not
  • The key to understanding Acts seems to be in Luke’s interest in this movement of the gospel, orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, from its Jerusalem-based, Judaism-oriented beginnings to its becoming a worldwide, Gentile-predominant phenomenon. On the basis of structure and content alone, any statement of purpose that does not include the Gentile mission and the Holy Spirit’s role in that mission will surely have missed the point of the book.
  • This interest in “movement” is further substantiated by what Luke does not tell us.
    • He has no interest in the “lives,” that is, biographies, of the apostles.
    • He has little or no interest in church organization or polity.
    • There is no word about other Geographical expansion except in the one direct line from Jerusalem to Rome.
    • All of this together says that church history per se was simply not Luke’s reason for writing.
  • Luke’s interest also does not seem to be in standardizing things, bringing everything into uniformity. Such diversity probably means that no specific example is being set forth as the model Christian experience or church life.
  • Nonetheless, we believe that much of Acts is intended by Luke to serve as a model. But the model is not so much in the specifics as in the overall picture. By the very way God has moved him to structure and narrate this history it seems probable that we are to view this triumphant, joyful, forward-moving expansion of the gospel into the Gentile world, empowered by the Holy Spirit and resulting in changed lives and local communities, as God’s intent for the continuing church. And precisely because this God’s intent for the church, nothing can hinder it.